Apple and Samsung CEOs will meet to discuss patent settlement opportunities


Apple and Samsung could finally be coming to terms with their ongoing patent disputes. Reuters, based on a court filing, is reporting that Apple’s CEO Tim Cook and Samsung’s CEO Oh-Hyun Kwon will meet with a mediator “by or before February 19, 2014″ to discuss settlement opportunities.

This is not the first time a meeting like this has occurred. Back in 2012, Cook met with Samsung Vice Chairman Choi Gee-sung to discuss royalty options, but talks failed and the two proceeded to court. Samsung met with defeat and massive $1 billion fine, which was later reduced.

Apple and Samsung have been battling it out for a few years over infringements of various mobile related patents. Apple specifically declaring that Samsung knowingly copied the iPhone’s design and the look and feel iOS. On the other hand, Samsung previously said that “there can be no iPhone without our patents.”

Source: Reuters
Via: Apple Insider

  • Columbo

    I don’t get it, why are they meeting to settle AFTER it’s already been decided in court?

    • bicecream

      They are fighting over again. Its all cause Apple want to ban a few more products like the s3 or others.

    • TonyC

      Apple won the jury verdict in one lawsuit, but even that one is FAR from over. Beyond the fact that Samsung could tie that one up for years with appeals, there are at least another 19+ lawsuits between the two of them. As much as the two companies may despise the other, they both know they need each other.

      Samsung has the manufacturing capabilities that Apple needs to get the quantities AND quality of components they want for the iOS products. Funny how we started hearing stories of screen issues when Apple tried to give that business to Sharp and others, only to have to get Samsung to backfill.

      The same is true for Samsung, they needed Apple’s component business. Always found it funny when someone would say that Samsung didn’t need that business because there were other companies lined up to take those components, because the reality is there would need to be multiple companies to do the volumes Apple did.

  • Miguel A

    lmao yeah right

    • Bbrysucks

      Is there something wrong with your face or is that just the “goofinyou” showing? Lol

    • Miguel A


  • Plazmic Flame

    You know who wins in all of this? The lawyers. Those guys are rich for life… Damn.

  • Super_Deluxe

    I still don’t see a single resemblance between any of Samsung’s phones and the iPhone. Apple is just so butthurt they’re not on top anymore and use cheap tactics like use biased judges to win bogus lawsuits. Someone show me one Samsung phone that resembles the iPhone and I’ll rest my case. The only time ive seen any similarities was when Samsung had the grid icon layout that looked like iOS and that’s it. Someone try to prove me wrong tonight!

    • Noah Roesler

      Can… you not see the picture?

    • Super_Deluxe

      Well I did say besides the already known grid layout resemblance from like 6 years ago. I’m saying anything other than that only one that everyone keeps bringing up. I don’t think Samsung was even close to Apple’s market share at the time so for Apple to use that as an excuse just to make some easy is a low blow.

    • Noah Roesler

      I think they are talking about the old Samsung phones that came out close after the iPhone like the i9000. The more modern Samsung phones look much different from the iPhones now.

    • Super_Deluxe

      The timing of which they brought this up is what’s interesting, can’t be a coincidence.

    • It’s Me

      It’s about more than just the icons and physical form. They also borrowed IP involving user experience, like the user feedback when scrolling a list of items or the rubber banding effect. One can argue that these patents should never have been granted or that they were obvious and would have eventually happened anyway, but that simply ignores the reality that they were granted and as such, Samsung’s use of them violates those patents. There are literally hundreds of patents at play, though the courts, in the interests of expediency, has required that Apple reduce the patents involved to a few dozen. Everyone thinks multi-touch is just how smartphones should work today, completely forgetting that before the iPhone, multitouch on phones didn’t really exist and what did exist was extremely primative. It was a big risk for Apple to bet the farm on evolving multitouch to the point they did with the iPhone. Samsung simply piggybacked on that work without license.

      As far as Apple being butthurt about not being on top anymore, they were never “on top”. They never had dominant marketshare, so that’s a bit of a strawman. Before Samsung ever dominated the smartphone market, back when they were still considered the bargain basement knockoff brand (remember their BB clones), Apple met with them and offered them the chance to license the IP. Samsung refused and hence the lawsuits.

    • cs098

      Yeah but most of said ip isn’t really apple’s anyways, palm had rubber banding, the neonode m1 had slide to unlock, the FIC-GTA001 has multitouch. I can go on.

      But don’t get me wrong, my point is just that there is plenty of prior art for everything that apple did so saying that Samsung is piggybacking isn’t exactly right, but that doesn’t change the fact the iphone heavily improved and polished everything up and kickstarted the smartphone trend we see to day.

    • It’s Me

      Which is why I said that one could argue the patents should never have been granted or were obvious. But that doesn’t matter insofar as they were granted. They have been repeatedly and thoroughly re-examined and revetted by the USPTO and challengers have been granted multiple opportunities to have them invalidated. For those that have stood up, they are therefore legally and technically valid and differ enough from others so as to be upheld.

      Given those facts, then is Samsung is using that IP without license or permission, that is a legal violation of Apple’s IP and they are therefore piggybacking on Apple’s IP.

    • cs098

      But is that the case? Apple only major win is in the us, you would’ve heard that many other court else do not find samsung piggybacking.

      It’s not as clear cut as you think.

    • It’s Me

      They’ve won in South Korea, Japan, Germany and the EU. The most discussed loss they had was in the UK, but that was actually more of an outlier. The appeals court there even said the judge (who later went to work for Samsung) was out of line and made errors but they would stand by his judgement mainly because of Apple’s behavior afterward.

      Many cases are still ongoing, but on balance, Apple has won much more than they’ve lost. On the other hand, Samsung (and Moto) have lost every single one of their own “offensive” suits.

    • cs098

      They also lost in those same places as well. And those wins are small potatoes, no as big as the us win.

      I don’t know about you but they actually lost quite a lot outside the us, I find it to be the opposite really. It’s big reason why I don’t think it’s so clear cut in the first place.

    • It’s Me

      Setting aside the cases outside of the US, which we can agree has been small potatoes, the discussion now revolve around the US, where Apple has been doing well. It is pretty clear that Samsung has copied their IP, even if one disagrees that the IP in question was/is valid. Given it has been granted legal protections then Apple is in the dominant position in any out of court discussion now scheduled.

    • cs098

      So you saying morally Samsung isn’t necessarily copying apple (considering all the prior art), but legally they are piggy backing in the us but not necessarily elsewhere.

      I can agree with that.

    • It’s Me

      Sort of. I do think that but for the iPhone, Samsung phones would be far different. So, while there may be prior art one could accuse them of copying (and Apple as far as that goes) it was Apple they lifted.

      I may copy someone else’s homework, but if you copy mine because of how well I did, in the end, you are still copying me.

    • cs098

      I sorta agree and disagree, while yes Samsung might be copying apple, apple does not really have the moral high ground considering the prior art. By your explanation either are morally correct in this case.
      Besides (again morally speaking not legally), Samsung could’ve taken inspiration for said prior art not from apple. Couldn’t they have taken from the lg prada? Or the htc touch, or the other devices I mentioned above? The f700 for example has iphone like hardware from samsung before the iphone or at least couldn’t be linked to the iphone/apple in anyway possible.

    • It’s Me

      The LG and f700 you mention could be claimed to have similar forms to the original iPhone, but neither was seen prior to the iPhone was demo’ed in Jan 2007. The f700 was announced a month later and not launched until that Nov. The LG Prada, while announced the dec earlier, was not spec’ed at that time and was not seen in public (and then only as as a promo photo) until months after the iPhone was already publicly demo’ed.

      Also, the f700 had a resistive touch screen, so it’s hard to see how it could be used to claim a direction toward the multi-touch paradigm, which is really what set the iPhone UX apart.

      So, in terms of physical form and UX, I don’t see how Samsung could have drawn much inspiration for their modern phones from them.

      In terms of morals (and not legal) Apple did enough to differentiate from prior art to get a patent(s). Samsung did not. It isn’t automatically morally wrong to use prior art. It is to use it without permission, if permission is needed, legally and morally.

    • cs098

      It doesn’t really matter when they are released or announced, it’s far too close for the iphone to have any influence on them.

      The f700 is more for hardware and minus the slider it had a lot of iPhone like attributes with out any connection to the iPhone.

      As for software the design for ios is nothing new. Just icons really. And as I have said all of the multitouch gestures came before the iphone, although the iPhone was the first to put them together.

      In the case of samsung, there’s a pretty good case that Samsung had these hardware ideas independent of apple. For software and multitouch I’m more on the side of you but it can be argued that like apple, Samsung took multitouch gestures from prior art., and icons and icons on docks existed for way too long for apple to have any claim on them for the iphone.

      “In terms of morals (and not legal) Apple did enough to differentiate
      from prior art to get a patent(s). Samsung did not. It isn’t
      automatically morally wrong to use prior art. It is to use it without
      permission, if permission is needed, legally and morally.”

      I think it’s more of the case that apple actually trying to get the patents while Samsung did not, although having a differentiated product form prior art does help apple getting them.

      However if you consider the prior art apple technically didn’t have permission, so apple is as morally wrong as well. Considering everything I think we can say both apple and Samsung are morally wrong and that Samsung may have not taken their ideas from apple. Legally though I agree Samsung is 100% wrong atleast in the us.

    • It’s Me

      Nicely written post and while don’t agree and won’t concede, I’ll let it rest for now…with only the following comment about Samsung not trying to get patents while Apple did:

      Samsung is now the world leader (for the last few years) in patent filings. They have taken over from IBM which held the top spot for decades. They will patent anything and everything if there is even the very slimmest of chances it will be awarded. Samsung has and will try to patent anything they think is differentiated enough. In the mobile UX space, there just hasn’t been many areas they’ve done enough to warrant valuable patents (but they hold a butt load on the technical side of wireless, mostly FRAND however). Samsung has tried. They just haven’t been as successful there yet or no one has illegally copied their IP.

    • cs098

      You might be right about Samsung patenting a lot, but like you said they focus on the the technical stuff. I haven’t seen instances of them trying to patent design concepts software or hardware.

      Thanks, I agree to just agree to disagree. Great posts as well, nice to see an opposing commenter that isn’t immature, illogical and stupid. But I think at the very least we know and understand each others points. Which is the point of a good discussion in the first place.

    • Jamesology

      WOW.. your discussion It’s Me is very interesting. I salute both of you for having logical claims and to support these claims.

    • cs098

      Thanks :D

      Always happy to have these kinds of discussions.

    • Noah Roesler

      Awesome read! I did not know any of this stuff… Thanks for the info. :)

    • Bbrysucks

      Will full blindness on your part. Sorry.

    • taylor

      you’re right my friend. the funny thing is that every one of those Samsung devices shown are running android. so the operating system was sort of copied by google, but at the same time a user can change where any of those go, unlike an iphone which couldn’t have 1 icon only in the left column. also after the iphone came out, every interface began to be made similar, same with blackberrys and palms. Every time something comes out and people like that way better than the old way or current, every one will adopt a similar look/feel

  • Ryan

    Didn’t Apple just come out with a bunch of cheap plastic phones with oversaturated colours? (Not to mention iOS 7 with its Nexus like stock wallpapers and Android like quick settings.) Hypocrites ;)

    • Noah Roesler

      When I was getting my first phone the iPhone 3 was much better then anything on the market. Today, many phones compete easily with the iPhone 5 now,

    • Ryan

      Yeah the iPhone is still good but it’s not the best..neither is the Galaxy line. HTC and LG blew them both out of the water last year despite less sales.

    • Bbrysucks


  • shamedroid


    • Jakob

      Thankfully you used all capitals. Otherwise I would not have been able to discern what you were attempting to communicate.

    • TrainAss

      Your opinion is muchly appreciated and holds many weights due to your overabundance of capital letters. All other opinions, facts, etc. are now null and void for you have shown us the way, the truth, and the light. The error in our ways and that Apple is truly our lord and savior.

    • Matt


    • RussianDroid

      Oh, finally a comment that make sense, just because it’s in caps.

    • Jamesology

      Thank you for sharing. I never thought of it that way. I believe it’s the caps lock that made a difference.

  • Jakob

    If we can all just agree that cell phone manufacturers all copy each other to some degree and just move on, that would be great. At least they’re willing to sit down and hash it out for now.

    Each manufacturer has a list a mile long of rip-offs from someone else.

    • TrainAss

      And this is why patent and copyright laws are so broken. Microsoft tried to copyright the name “Windows” but it was denied (you can’t copyright a generic term such as Window). Apple tried to patent a black rectangle. WTF are these companies thinking?

      I imagine the lawyers are sitting in a giant boardroom, puffing on their Cuban cigars, while women dance in cages around the room. A fountain off to the side with a constant stream of liquid gold, pouring out of it. Guards patrol the grounds with Bengal Tigers instead of attack dogs. And Interns crawl around delivering drinks, food or acting as foot stools. The lawyers, discussing what sort of strange thing they can try and patent next. “ROUND SPEAKERS!!” someone yells, and they all nod and grunt in agreement.

      The head lawyer smiles, “Now, we celebrate!” he says before clapping his hands “B1tches, come!” 2 large 25ft solid redwood doors slide open to reveal 2 rows of women, who enter the room and proceed to provide “sexual services”to all the lawyers present.

      Two of the lawyers “brofist” and say “Damn it feels good to be a gangster!”

  • Matt

    This whole thing is ridiculous, as is the picture above. Saying Samsung copied Apple’s black rectangle with rounded edges is like saying General Motors copied Ford’s motor in a box with 4 wheels.

    Not to mention that EVERY smart phone in existence after the iPhone is a rounded black rectangle with a touch screen.

    The lawsuits aren’t even about the terrible comparison in the picture. Most of them were about software “patent” infringements.

    Or is this MobileSyrup trying to troll the Android fanbois into a flame war? (I think it worked :P)

    • TrainAss

      That image was created by someone else trying to troll Android users.

  • Jamesology

    It’s a good day to be a lawyer for these two companies.

Trending News

Other Articles