Share this Story

Samsung’s Mobile Head Draws Line in the Sand, Will Not Settle With Apple

Last week, Apple and HTC met for a 10-year licensing deal, which led us to wonder if any other Android OEMs would follow suit. Samsung wants to head that discussion off before it even starts with a short and to the point comment today. Samsung’s Mobile Head JK Shin had this to say on the subject:

Regardless of HTC’s settlement with Apple, we have no intention [to settle].

That was simple. Samsung certainly has the sales numbers to go toe-to-toe with Apple and pay for these court proceedings. If they really think they have a case it’s up to them, but as of now it doesn’t seem that the end of the patent wars are near.

Via: Sammy Hub

  • dsass600

    Guys, just want to put it out there, the patents are regarding a carbon copy of the phone. Something that does not exist in the tech industry, unless you look at chinese knockoffs. I don’t know when, but somehow the term copy has been expanded to “looking alike.”

  • Josh

    I wonder if all these license fees (only know of Microsoft and Apple) and legal battles will make OEMs see the Android OS as not as inexpensive as it used to be. This could result in a scaled back investment in Android devices and more on Windows phones in the long run.

  • Samsung should go supernova on their asses.

  • Get em Big S. Show Crapple that they do not own the world

    • mustbepbs

      You want Samsung turning into Apple? Samsung wants to rule the world.

  • Sqube

    This is so irritating. It sounds like they’re making it a matter of pride, and the only pride you should have as a corporation is being proud of the product that you make.

    If Tim Cook called up JK Shin, offered him a reasonable truce, and he said no? I’d feel like Samsung were the bad guys. You push back on Apple, you get their patents invalidated, and then you move on.

    There’s too much money being wasted on litigation.

  • that’s retarded… I now dislike Samsung along with Apple…. Apple may have started it… but come on!!!

  • DanWazz

    Samsung should hire a competent legal team if they’re going to continue their legal battles.

    • Diablo81588

      From what I remember they hired one of the most expensive legal teams money can buy. That’s not why they lost in court.

      • DanWazz

        Their legal team made several procedural errors that resulted in evidence not being allowed to be submitted for the trial and other similar errors that (potentially) cost Samsung the case.

        • EC8CH

          You’re right they screwed a few things up, but I don’t think anything was going to win them that case in California…

        • Diablo81588

          No, they lost because of the mountains of evidence against them. Everyone knows Samsung copied the iPhone with the original galaxy s. Not even the best legal defense can prove otherwise when so much evidence is apparent. I don’t think any other legal team would’ve made the outcome any difference, and for you to claim otherwise is just speculation.

          • kg215

            No they lost because the case was in California and the foreman had a moment of “inspiration.” Whether or not the foreman was biased against Samsung, he convinced other jurors that if he was the owner of said patent he could defend it, even though the foreman was not a patent expert.

          • DanWazz

            It might not have change the outcome and it IS just speculation (that’s why the word “potentially” is included), but I’d rather have a legal team the can do something, like submit evidence properly, than a team that cannot.

          • They lost because of one retarded juror who thinks he knows patent law. Apples patents are too broad, period. Whether or not they copied (they copied a good deal, for sure) is not what’s relevant here…it’s that apple’s patents are too broad and cause a monopoly situation.

        • cooldoods

          If you read up on the case, you’ll learn that Apple blocked Samsung access to documents and personnel that took Samsung some court orders to get access. That’s the reason the new evidence Samsung wanted to include was “late”. Judge Koh did not accept Samsung’s plea despite Apple’s shenanigans. If you ask me, it was Judge Koh who missed the boat a lot of times with her decisions.

          • michael arazan

            It subtlety looked like Judge Koh was biased, and probably had stock or does now in the company. Not to mention the video interview of the Juror admitting being bias on HLN or CNN or one of the main media outlets. Not to mention the foremen conveniently left out his 2 different lawsuits with subsidiaries of Samsung

          • DanWazz

            I distinctly remember a chart Samsung had made of their designs before during and after the iPhone was introduced showing they started using the rectangular bar design before the iPhone was introduced which was blocked as evidence for being submitted late. How could Apple block Samsung’s own internal documents and design concepts?

  • I know what some of you will say, but this isn’t good news, folks.

    Just because Apple has engaged in some brinksmanship doesn’t mean Samsung has to respond with the same attitude. There’s been some give and take on both sides, but Samsung might lose $1 billion (in one case) and is being investigated for alleged abuse of standards-based patents — the last thing it needs to do is push too far and risk losing everything.

    Besides, while I’m not a fan of software patents, Samsung has had the weaker case of all Android makers: it’s the only one targeted over design patents and trade dress, which are much harder to dispute (especially given the evidence that emerged during the one trial). It’s not smart to hold your ground when the ground is shaky, no matter what you feel.

    • mustbepbs

      $1 Billion is a drop in the bucket for these guys. They’ve got so much money to burn and an ego the size of our galaxy. There’s no way either of them will settle, especially with them going head to head in sales and market share.

      There will only be one victor here.

      • Jarred Sutherland

        Not to mention that apparently Samsung is raising the price of the components they make for the iPhone .. 20% increase in price.

        • Actually, that’s been refuted:


          As a general rule, don’t rely on vaguely sourced stories for claims. If Samsung hiked prices solely to punish Apple, it would be facing antitrust lawsuits from governments around the world — and it would lose.

          • kg215

            Again stop pulling stuff out of your ass, read the link you posted. Apple could pay the cost or move on to a different supplier, do you know anti trust laws are for?

      • summit1986

        The Kurgan!

    • If Samsung loses a billion they can just raise input costs to FoxConn / Apple for their processors to cover it.

      • Only if it wants to be sued for antitrust abuse. Price cuts are legal when they’re to cover component changes; they’re illegal when they’re done out of spite.

        • kg215

          First of all no one mentioned price cuts, do you mean price increases? Second last time I checked Samsung was a business. They can’t raise prices to make a profit? You make it sound like all they can do is sell things at cost until the end of time or they will be hit by anti trust laws all over the world. They aren’t the only one that makes components and they can raise prices just fine, Apple doesn’t have to buy the components from them. If there is a contract then Samsung has to wait out the length of it or give money back to Apple but the option is there.

          • “Price cuts” is a typo. Sorry!

            Samsung is entirely within its rights to increase prices for the sake of profit. But if it’s a steep hike targeted at one company and meant primarily to stifle competition, it’s against many antitrust laws. Any large company in a feud with a rival is certainly going to be watched closely.

            Apple can and is diversifying, but Samsung is well-known as one of (if not the) largest component makers; switching away isn’t just an impulsive move.

          • Aaron

            Sure switching isn’t an impulse move, but neither was Apple’s billion dollar law suit against their top supplier of components. I’m sure Samsung can find some justification for price hikes, even if only one company is seeing those hikes. They do have legal fees. 🙂

            And how does a price hike stifle competition? Like kg said, Samsung isn’t the only ones making components. If you don’t like the price, this is the free market. Go get your parts somewhere else.

          • A car analogy: imagine if GM was the only company making large volumes of tires that would work on sports cars, and decided to squash Ford, Chrysler and everyone else by charging them $3,000 per tire. To accept this as-is, car makers would have to either take a major hit to their profit (if any was left) or charge much more for a car. If they just “go somewhere else,” though, they either can’t get enough tires or don’t get tires that will work with sports cars. People would be up in arms.

            That’s the ticket. It’s easy to pretend that there are 10 companies willing and able to do business with Apple at the drop of a hat, but there aren’t; they can’t all manage the technology and chip capacities that Apple needs, at least not without months of completing existing contracts, modifying plants and growing the workforce. If Samsung raised prices by a steep amount just to retaliate against Apple for its lawsuits, it would be knowingly holding Apple over a barrel. Since Apple can’t just pick up and move its business on a few weeks’ notice, it would have to either slash profits or accept possible supply shortages, all while Samsung and other companies went without a similar penalty.

          • Aaron

            But if you are Ford and you are dependent on GM for your tires, is it smart to sue GM at every turn knowing that you have yet to make any arrangements to get your tires elsewhere? And in your analogy every car maker has sit back and allowed GM to corner the market, so if GM decided to increase their price then isn’t that their own fault? They are competitors as well as partners, after all.

            And I’m just guessing here, but I think Apple might have more trouble finding anyone willing to play ball after this because everyone has seen how Apple treats their “partners”.

            Basically I’m saying that Apple climbed up and hung itself over that barrel, and they have no one to blame but themselves. It’s not Samsung’s place to worry if Apple customers are “up in arms”. And I doubt the US judiciary will be as much help on this one, given that Samsung is a Korean company and the international courts have been much less kind to Apple.

    • kg215

      That 1 billion dollar case is a tough one, though the foreman controversy gives Samsung some hope. But the other allegations are just Apple being patent trolls, don’t make it sound like every accusation by Apple is a truth or a done deal.

  • sc0rch3d

    the way that apple seems to be going is “play by our rules or we’ll leave you” … with the popularity of the Galaxy line (not too mention the other dozens of markets they play in)… i think samsung would be better off making a clean break.

    i know it’s not that easy, but it would be a fun drama to watch unfold. 🙂

  • Brian Meredith

    Good, Samsung shouldn’t stop till Apple gets what they deserve

    • michael arazan

      Now Samsung has raised their prices to apple 20% for the parts they need for the products. Apple tried to go elsewhere but couldn’t find anyone who would accept their large scaled orders and were forced to accept the 20% price hike by Samsung.

      Karma’s a bitch Apple, and your reckoning is coming