How Sammy will slam Apple over LTE

**g1toevo678** · 06-09-2012, 11:30 PM

With all this talk about Apple being evil, unethical, bullies, and other online induced herd mentality vilification, you'd almost think people forget the history of chaebols, of which Samsung is one of the largest. In that light, Apple is a relative angel.

Sent from my GT-P6210 using Tapatalk 2

**20blks** · 06-09-2012, 11:42 PM

Who cares, I just want my damn phone on schedule. Lol

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I727 using Android Central Forums

**LazrRocketArm** · 06-09-2012, 11:59 PM

Originally Posted by g1toevo678

With all this talk about Apple being evil, unethical, bullies, and other online induced herd mentality vilification, you'd almost think people forget the history of chaebols, of which Samsung is one of the largest. In that light, Apple is a relative angel.

Sent from my GT-P6210 using Tapatalk 2

People are just going by what they know from the most recent couple of decades or so.

NO, no company is perfect. Samsung certainly has flaws, but NO, They do not make apple look like Angels.

Sent from my Samsung Galaxy S2 Skyrocket SGH-i727 on ATT LTE

**oldmanjenkins** · 06-10-2012, 12:29 AM

Www

Originally Posted by 20blks

Who cares, I just want my damn phone on schedule. Lol

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I727 using Android Central Forums

Amen brother. I'm not panning Apple as the epitome of evil (said with the voice of Dr Evil). I am also not saying Apple has not done its part in progressing the industry with cutting edge tech (Apple got me through my undergrad). What I am saying is that all parties involved are in a pissing contest to see who has the larger hard drive. If any improprieties have occured this is something that can be hashed out later not at the expense of the consumer. But like Ballmer has (and has not) done for Microsoft Jobs did for Apple. He was so focused on the destruction of an OS and so incapable of seeing consumers prefer their product over his he was willing to skutle his "ship" to sink his competitor. He was not interested in proving his product was better than theirs. He was on a juvenile power trip. Samsung has them by the ubiquitous balls since they have the tech Apple needs for their product to work.

I'm just ready for this phallic waiving to stop so the consumer can have access to the product. Let the lawyers do what they do, litigate and the consumer do what we do, consume.

Sent from my HTC One X using Android Central Forums

**nkd** · 06-10-2012, 03:53 AM

Originally Posted by LazrRocketArm

Yeah, anyone disagrees with you must not be using logic.

Sent from my Samsung Galaxy S2 Skyrocket SGH-i727 on ATT LTE

Well not if someone makes no sense. There is difference between logic and someone bullting, LOL.

**radar320** · 06-10-2012, 05:26 PM

I think Samsung should step up and go after Apple if they introduce phones with LTE technology. One, what's good for the goose, is good for the gander, and two, it had been said here that Apple going after everyone and anyone under the sun is good for their business, well the same holds true if Samsung does go after Apple.

**Speedygi** · 06-10-2012, 05:50 PM

I think a really drastic thing to do would be to simply withhold technology from Apple, if I were Samsung. But that wouldn't be fair because Samsung did in fact copy facets of Apple's software and two wrongs does not make something right. Apple is never going to back down and I understand that, but this is potentially going to hurt the consumers, which is essentially why WE are concerned, in one degree or another. What I can see is at least a peaceful settlement, but knowing how Apple operates and it's history, that is not going to happen.

This is becoming like the Windows fiasco all over again.

Sent from my HTC One X using Android Central Forums

**oldmanjenkins** · 06-10-2012, 05:53 PM

Originally Posted by radar320

I think Samsung should step up and go after Apple if they introduce phones with LTE technology. One, what's good for the goose, is good for the gander, and two, it had been said here that Apple going after everyone and anyone under the sun is good for their business, well the same holds true if Samsung does go after Apple.

It is the same way Fresenius Medical Care did it for dialysis. Not only are they dialysis providers but they control manufacturing of dialysis machines and dialysis filters so Davita (the next largest dialysis provider) not only has to compete for patients but has to purchase machines and filters from Fresenius if it wants to continue in the dialysis field.

Sent from my HTC One X using Android Central Forums

**Joseh720** · 06-10-2012, 10:18 PM

Originally Posted by metz65

So if Samsung tries to shut Apple down with litigation is that ok?

Everyone hates Apple because of litigation says it's BS and to let innovation decide the smartphone wars.

Do we apply a double standard and say it's ok for Samsung? Do we love Samsung for doing the same thing we vilify Apple for? Do two wrongs make a right?

Just curious.

Sent from my DROID RAZR MAXX via Tapatalk 2

no two wrongs doesnt make it but two wrights made a airplane

**sukant08** · 06-11-2012, 06:40 AM

I'd think Samsung will not be interested in trying to get any sort of injunction on Apple products, but rather ask for royalties for the use of LTE patents!! Maybe it might even bargain for letting go of all the silly lawsuits. I mean the money samsung might save in lawyers fees itself might be worth it!!

Stopping the sale of iPHONE will hurt Samsung!! After all Samsung makes the components !!

**gdbjr** · 06-11-2012, 09:51 AM

Originally Posted by Covart

Question is, who owns the other 90% of LTE patents? Does Apple own any sminal related LTE patents or joint own through NORTEL patents? Are the Samsung patents under FRAND? Lots of questions that article failed to cover or explain.

The FRAND issue is the key one. If these patents fall under that, then there is nothing Samsung can do.

**Chdwil** · 06-12-2012, 07:58 AM

I can understand that people are upset with Apple about the way they handle things, but I am not going to cheer for Samsung either. They are all about the money as well. Anyone who has ever had to deal with Samsung regarding product issues knows what I am talking about. One thing no one can bash Apple for is their superior customer support. Just because I use a Samsung product does not mean I am going to cheer for them. I like Samsungs current phones, but if something else comes along that I like more I will move on.

Ry · 06-12-2012, 01:18 PM

Originally Posted by Speedygi

I think a really drastic thing to do would be to simply withhold technology from Apple, if I were Samsung. But that wouldn't be fair because Samsung did in fact copy facets of Apple's software and two wrongs does not make something right. Apple is never going to back down and I understand that, but this is potentially going to hurt the consumers, which is essentially why WE are concerned, in one degree or another. What I can see is at least a peaceful settlement, but knowing how Apple operates and it's history, that is not going to happen.

This is becoming like the Windows fiasco all over again.

Sent from my HTC One X using Android Central Forums

Apple is buying hardware from Samsung and other vendors. It would be business suicide to go back on those deals.

Ry · 06-12-2012, 01:19 PM

Originally Posted by Chdwil

I can understand that people are upset with Apple about the way they handle things, but I am not going to cheer for Samsung either. They are all about the money as well. Anyone who has ever had to deal with Samsung regarding product issues knows what I am talking about. One thing no one can bash Apple for is their superior customer support. Just because I use a Samsung product does not mean I am going to cheer for them. I like Samsungs current phones, but if something else comes along that I like more I will move on.

Exactly. Everyone is arguing about businesses, whose first goal it to make money.

**mfriedman79** · 06-12-2012, 03:33 PM

If the patents are core to LTE then they will most likely end up falling under FRAND status and Samsung will have to license them. That said I actually don't have a problem with a company defending its inventions, my problem is that they purposely file patents that are extremely vague and are not specific and that our patent office continues to approve them.

Having a design patent that uses words like "roughly" or "approximately" is a joke. I also have a fundamental problem with software patents that generalize real world products and interactions with high level diagrams and are granted. Not to mention the granting of patents to multiple people that all do essentially the same vague thing, but word it differently.

**hoovhartid** · 06-18-2012, 01:12 AM

Originally Posted by Speedygi

This is becoming like the Windows fiasco all over again.

yup...only now Microsoft and Apple have agreements and they don't sue each other anymore...

Originally Posted by sukant08

I'd think Samsung will not be interested in trying to get any sort of injunction on Apple products, but rather ask for royalties for the use of LTE patents!! Maybe it might even bargain for letting go of all the silly lawsuits. I mean the money samsung might save in lawyers fees itself might be worth it!!

Stopping the sale of iPHONE will hurt Samsung!! After all Samsung makes the components !!

^THIS^ is the solution IMO. stop the BS in the courts because its not just their money its wasting....and take the time to sit down (with a mediator if they have to) and work this out.

Ry · 06-18-2012, 01:51 AM

I suggest some of you read up on SEPs and FRAND.

Sent from my DROID BIONIC using Android Central Forums

**jcp007** · 06-18-2012, 06:26 AM

At the end of the day, our GS3's are being shipped. As devices involved in lawsuits go EOL, the suits have less relevance. Does Samsung make the chips for the new iPhone coming out later this year? The next iPhone will have to have LTE and there must be a reason that AT&T no longer has exclusive rights. All carriers and consumers are getting sick of these suits as the costs to litigate are passed on. This is not to say that either party does not have a case in the argument.