Samsung and Apple expose mutual anxieties in newly-released trial documents

Daniel Bader

April 7, 2014 3:25pm

In the second high-stakes trial in a year (the first ended with Samsung owing Apple almost a billion dollars), Samsung and Apple are once again at loggerheads over patents.

Apple is suing Samsung over five software utility patents — no hardware design issues this time — that the company claims were used in a number of its devices, including the Galaxy Nexus, Galaxy Note, Note 2, Galaxy S II, Galaxy S3 and a number of US-exclusives.

Most of the patents are integral, Apple claims, to the practical use of iOS as a whole, including “slide-to-unlock” and universal search, which incorporates web and local data into a single text input. Apple is suing for approximately $2 billion this time, or $40 per device sold, while Samsung is countersuing over two patents for around $7 million.


In order to make its arguments, Samsung released a number of documents it acquired detailing the California company’s anxiety over Samsung’s quick growth. In a document called “FY’14 Planning Offsite,” Apple shows the slowing year over year growth of the iPhone and boldly claims, “Consumers want what we don’t have.”

“What we don’t have” refers to larger-than-4-inch smartphones, for which Samsung has cornered the market. Specifically, Samsung released its first 4-inch smartphone, the Galaxy S, in 2010, and has since increased its flagship to 4.3″, 4.8″, 5″ and this year 5.1″. It’s Galaxy Note went from 5.3″ to 5.5″ to 5.7″ in that same time, and the company even offers a 6.3″ Galaxy Mega.


In other words, Apple recognizes that it needs to develop a larger iPhone, which had lead to speculation that the iPhone 6, coming later this year, will sport a screen 4.7″ to 5.5″ in diameter.

Samsung, however, also created a document showing how clearly it was aiming its sights on Apple. “Beating Apple is #1 Priority (everything must be context of beating Apple),” claims one line. “Threat from Apple is extremely real and urgent,” claimed the report from early 2012.


The goal of increasing the Galaxy brand’s prominence was already alive and well then, too, right before the Galaxy S3 was announced. “Greatly increased Galaxy Branding,” claims another headline, with “‘Continuous’ branding campaigns: Galaxy Nexus rolls into Galaxy Note into GSIII,” identifying the benefits of what happens when a consumer associates a single word with an entire company.

Ultimately, Samsung’s goal then, as it is now, was to “Drive consumer pull: customers walk into stores asking for Samsung; understand why consumers buy Apple and develop countermeasures by carrier/retailer.”

Apple also recognized this, saying in one of its slides that competitors are “Spending ‘obscene’ amounts of money on advertising and/or carrier/channel to gain traction.” There’s no doubt which Android OEM Apple was referring to there.

The trial’s second week continues today.

  • hamza

    Apple has been losing a lot of business to Samsung lately, so I’m guessing this their way of showing their gratitude.

    • Plazmic Flame

      Apple is a real stubborn company. They noticed Samsung a long time ago and it’s taken them 3+ years to react and that’s only true if there is a 5.5 inch iPhone coming out. That is horrible. All people want out of the iPhone now is longer battery life and a larger screen. C’mon Apple, let’s get moving already! Or do you want me to buy a Galaxy Note 3/4?

  • Jon-Michael Ursini

    Apple needs to get a life, scared of competition so they try to scare the competition away. Its retarded that you can even patent something as simple as “slide to unlock” every phone in the market slides to unlock some way or another. It is retarded the way the patent system works…

    • Chris

      And Apple didn’t even invent slide to unlock. Slide to unlock was first seen on the wrist of Predator (movie)…

    • It’s Me

      How many did it pre-iPhone?

      Samsung’s own docs showed they tried to avoid slide to unlock for quite while. They played with taps and double taps and taps with swipes, etc. Their docs show that they didn’t think swipe was the best method at first but then over time decided that they needed to use the swipe.

      Everything is obvious in hindsight.

      Neonode is the only one I can think of that predated the iPhone and there are fundamental differences in the implementation and patented details between Apple’s and Neonode, especially related to how the slide mechanics are represented in the UI.

    • FlamesFan89

      Meanwhile, in Europe, ten different judges have all determined those “fundamental” differences, to be trivial, and have led to Apple’s patent being tossed.

      Like I said elsewhere, we are talking about the difference of having markings or no markings on a volume knob. This is not a patentable invention, except in the US, where Apple can get a patent on the splatter that Tim Cook’s snot makes if he sneezes.

    • It’s Me

      How much more clear could neonode have been about what they did not patent than to say “x is not included under this patent”. That’s pretty frickn clear that x is not intended to be covered.

      That’s in top of the also limited areas they filed in at all.

    • FlamesFan89

      But Neonode’s patent DOES NOT say that. Please quote the relevant text, as the actual patent does not appear to make any reference to excluding markings or other claims which Apple makes in their patent.

    • It’s Me

      The first first paragraph of the patent, if you had bothered to read it says ” wherein the representation of the function is not relocated or duplicated during the gliding.”

      To translate for you:

      “representation of the function”- that’s the graphic image
      “is not relocated or duplicated during the gliding”-that means it doesn’t move.

      Not quite as explicit as I paraphrased but but the meaning is identical. Moving graphics are specifically excluded.

    • FlamesFan89

      Fair enough, I skimmed most of the patent, but missed that one, however, drag and drop wipes that out as being patentable.

      Apple, STILL doesn’t have a leg to stand on, other than the utterly inept USPTO.

      By the way, it’s always a joy to see you lower yourself back into the world of name calling in an attempt to win an argument which you are losing.

    • FlamesFan89

      Furthermore, even though Neonode states in their patent that the graphics are not included as you rightfully quoted, in what world is “adding pretty pictures” a patentable invention.

      It doesn’t fulfill the requirement of “non-obvious” as required by US patent law. Adding a graphic to an already patented process such as swiping from left to right to advance the device, is NOT a non-obvious invention.

    • It’s Me

      If it was obvious, neonode would have had no reason to specifically exclude it.

      The adding if the movement to apple’s patent was a marked improvement because users found that it was not always obvious in how to actually unlock the phone. Samsung’s own internal documents make that clear. They tested without movement and it was inferior. That’s the improvement that Apple patented.

      Likely all a moot point in 2014. In 2006/2007 it was clearly not obvious and hence Apple’s addition. In 2014 the movement is no longer needed since users now know what to expect.

      But to claim obviousness in hindsight is never a good argument.

    • FlamesFan89

      Interesting that ten judges in Europe completely disagree with you and have ruled as such, that it does not constitute a technical invention.

      Apple, in essence, is claiming to have invented putting an arrow on an exit sign. Their invention is almost completely literally “including instructions”. This is not an invention, it is simply, “including instructions”.

    • It’s Me

      And at a certain level, I can agree with those judges, mostly because of europe’s technicity requirement. But that requirement is not as strong elsewhere.

      If Apple’s patent is valid in the US, it won’t be because of a broken system. It’ll be because neonode explicitly and intentionally restricted the scope of their patent.

    • FlamesFan89

      I agree and disagree. I agree that it will be because Neonode restricted their patent, but I disagree about the state of the US Patent system. I think it IS broken, and patents like these are clear proof of that.

      There are sectors, and inventions, where it truly takes the underlying technical understanding to differentiate between prior art and the new invention, and then there are ones like these, that require zero technical training to see that the difference is the inclusion of instructions, and nothing more.

      I’m not sure what the silver bullet is to fix the system, I don’t know if there even is a silver bullet, but when doing the exact same thing, Now with moar picturey goodness equates to a patent that can potentially help you net millions, or even billions of dollars, then something is SERIOUSLY wrong.

      You invent the capacitive multi-touch screen, yeah, patent the crap out of that thing. You invent slapping a “this side down” label on the back of a ceramic tile and you deserve, at most, an eye roll.

    • It’s Me

      Do you believe that neonode’s patent was unique enough to be granted? Certainly there was prior art involving interacting with a capacitive touch screen to activate certain functions. In fact that would be primary reson d’être for capacitive touch.

    • FlamesFan89

      I suppose that is a very good question. Perhaps not. The entire idea of a touch screen is that you interact with it via touch, so a patent to describe specific types of touches seems rather trivial. Perhaps both should be invalidated.

    • It’s Me

      I think that quickly turns into a slippery slope which eventually leads no patents since all technology builds on other.

      Without patents and the protection they provide, you’d quickly see R&D go to zero. Why spend millions on improving your competitors products?

    • FlamesFan89

      That’s not the issue though. The issue is awarding patents for things that shouldn’t be patentable.

      Should I be able to patent volume knobs that are orange, since the existing patent on volume knobs doesn’t state what colour they should be? Should I be able to patent the process of turning a knob? The patent for the original knob only covers that it is a knob, and can be turned, but I propose a patent for turning it, and if you turn it backwards, it does the opposite action.

      Do you see what I’m getting at? Patent the knob, absolutely, that is the actual invention, but you shouldn’t be able to get a new patent for every new incremental little detail change to how a knob works. Now, if someone comes along and invents a knob that you don’t have to touch, you just wave your hand in front of it, well then, that’s a new invention, but then the next guy who takes the “wave” knob, and applies for a patent that instead of waving, you wiggle your nose at it, that guys can get stuffed. Same goes for the company that says, we slapped the word “wave” on the wave knob, so now we want a new patent.

      I get the point of “slippery slope”, but there has to be a line in the sand somewhere, and to me, adding graphics to an existing patent absolutely is across that line. Just as swipe this way or that might also be. The invention is the touch screen, and it was one heck of an invention. moving your finger across a touch screen is NOT an invention, just as there is no invention for “pressing keys on a keyboard to make letters appear on a screen” or “having the words ‘on’ and ‘off’ on a light switch”, or “including an instruction manual with a product”.

    • It’s Me

      But is that the point at this time and in this case? Samsung has tried to have the patents invalidated and have generally failed. That being the case, then the point is have they infringed. If they have, and from their internal docs it seems they knowingly did, then there is a penalty. As with laws that you or I might fight asinine, if you break them you have to expect a penalty.

      In terms of software, how far down the chain do you do? All software is built upon bits and bytes and instructions. How you assemble them determines the function, so should no software function be patentable? If that is too extreme, then we can move to foundational algorithms. Some of the basic routines we learn are sorting and searching. All searching algorithms derive from these basic routines on one way or another and most were not implemented suddenly but evolved incrementally over time. They didn’t invent search, they improved the concept and were the first to patent their implementations. Does that mean we should invalidate all of google search patents? They’d go out of business in a week if anyone and everyone could use the argument that they simply extended existing technology.

      With Slide to unlock, Apple may not have been the first with the basic concept. But they were the first to patent a specific implementation. We can argue about how important their differentiating features were, but the fact is that the do differ, explicitly, from what was previously patented in a very clear and delineated manner. Just as google’s implementation improved upon existing search algorithms, Apple’s markedly improved upon a UI function and in a way not already covered by someone else’s patent.

      You or I might think it is a minor difference not even worthy of note, but Samsung did studies on this and found that the feedback was critical in informing users. Not just as an instruction, because they could have just included it in a manual in that case. It was important as a built in component of the function. Obvious today, but not so obvious in 2006.

    • FlamesFan89

      First off, yes, I do believe that software patents should not exist. The code, i.e. the actual algorithms, are protected by copyright. If someone copies your code, you have a mechanism for compensation. Patenting code is no different than patenting math, which you CAN NOT DO.

      Secondly, Google would NOT go out of business in a week. They would not go out of business at all. They made their money on having a search engine that worked well, but more so on the fact that they presented a clean website, with unobtrusive ads, and it is the ads that brought in the revenue. Remember that when Google came on line, most websites looked like a Geocities atrocity, flashing banner ads all over the place, popups covering everything, ugly as heck. Google presented a catchy name, a white screen, clean, accurate results, and ads that you barely noticed, and were actually relevant to the stuff you were searching and therefore more likely to be clicked. Yahoo was likely presenting results just as good at the time, or at least good enough, and they were well known, but their site looked like a teenage girl threw up on it and their ads were based on which advertisers paid the most, and had nothing to do with the interests of each user individually. Google’s genius was the targeted ads, not some infinitely better search algorithm.

      As for “Samsung has tried to have the patents invalidated and have generally failed.” I append the words “in the US” to the end of that sentence. Like I have pointed out, Europe didn’t fall for the “moar pikturs”.

    • FlamesFan89

      Right from the actual patent in question:

      “It will be understood that the invention is not restricted to the aforedescribed and illustrated exemplifying embodiments thereof, and that these embodiments can be modified within the scope of the inventive concept illustrated in the accompanying Claims.”

      That would appear to state that if you do the same thing, but represent it differently, it is still covered by this patent, which covers SPECIFICALLY:

      “12. The computer readable medium of claim 1, wherein the user interface is characterised in, that an active application, function, service or setting is advanced one step by gliding the object along the touch sensitive area from left to right, and that the active application, function, service or setting is closed or backed one step by gliding the object along the touch sensitive area from right to left.”

    • It’s Me

      Ummm, to your first part, that is a standard disclaimer in patents that is saying their filing does more than cover the pictures they used in their filing.

    • Joseph

      In New Zealand companies can’t patent things related to software

    • It’s Me

      Hence the gigantic software industry in NZ.

    • beyond

      thanks,I didn’t know this, that’s amazing! All this patent BS that these companies are going through is such a waste of time and resources that could be spent solving other problems.

    • Jay

      Like researching new battery materials so I don’t have to plug my phone in 3 times a day!
      But Samsung will probably discover that too and then Apple will buy those parts from Samsung and then sue them over battery implementation…

    • alphs22

      I don’t think you understand how things in the world work hahaha.

    • Jay

      I’m a dreamer…

    • It’s Me

      Apple is one of the big investors in battery chem research.

    • alphs22

      Do you not understand that patents are what drive technological advancements forward?

      Think about this: without patents, what reason would a company have to justify spending millions of dollars and years of R&D to come up with something new? Your competitors would steal your ideas for free anyway.

      This is especially true when it comes to software, where a feature (such as the implementation of slide-to-unlock) could be copied and imitated within a very short time frame.

      In an environment where you can patent your innovations, there is an incentive to innovate – that is, being able to offer said innovations in your products exclusively.

    • Audrey Burne

      This is so ironic, because the broken patent system is also what hinders technological advancements.

    • beyond

      you think the technological world will grind to a halt without patents? you’re wrong, they aren’t the be all and end all to innovation. people will innovate and develop new technology regardless. There are always needs and opportunities to make money that people will exploit regardless if they can patent their idea or not.

    • It’s Me

      So, you would spend millions in developing things for competitor? because that’s what no patents would mean…hence massive reduction in R&D spending.

    • beyond

      actually it would increase R&D spending. Competitor comes out with same product and to keep up you are forced to innovate to surpass and make better what the competitor copied. Innovation would accelerate faster without patents.

    • realitycheck

      spending millions on R&D on top of your other costs compared to the competitor who funnels their R&D budget into marketing instead… who is the loser now?

    • beyond

      you’re assuming the competitor that copies always wins, and is guaranteed to become more successful than the original. There are numerous examples in other industries that go against your reasoning. Take a popular and successful Italian restaurant in a city with many other Italian restaurants, or some designer clothing amongst so many other labels. Knock offs may be successful, but I don’t see the originals going bankrupt because of the presence of copycat businesses.

    • realitycheck

      google, tencent, baidu are great examples of stolen ideas leveraged using existing eco systems to compete with the pioneers

    • beyond

      so what’s the patent system doing about all this theft?

    • realitycheck

      It isn’t doing anything in China….

    • thomas nguyen

      there is a difference between the ability to patent a working functioning idea, vs patenting a vague idea in a generalized patent.
      global search (which are already found in the computer industry – win 7, win 8, ubuntu).
      as well as background synching, i suspect every device in the market predating iphone was able to do background synching in the form of a computer. none of these ideas a specific enough.

      a real patent should be defined by a strict set of criteria, like algorithms used for a search function. Or developing a special battery. It seems like the current patent system, I can patent a shape and sue everyone for having the same shape devices :/

    • icyhotonmynuts

      Apple has been dying a slow death ever since Steve declared nuclear war on Android. The moment it stops inventing CREATIVE new things and instead devoting its resources for revenge by suing and by stifling creation

    • realitycheck

      slow death huh, revenue seems to show it….

      definition of slow death is BB.

    • thomas nguyen

      revenue sees an increase due to the decreased in price to create the device now, then a few months ago, I suspect what icyhotonmynuts is implying, is the lack of creativity in apples mobile os, and their devices, where apple used to be first out of the gates (touch screen, simplistic os), in the last few years, it feels like aside from a few new things added on to the ios, its pretty much the same as it was when it released in 2009.

      where as compared to android, they have grown in leaps and bounds since they first released. widgets, no auto arrange of apps icon, add or remove screens, and a host of other features that is still restricted in apple’s OS.

      dont get me wrong, the os is great for a few people, but the “magic” is definitely waning

    • realitycheck

      do you think androids high adoption speed and size is due to googles creativity alone?

      dont compare apples and googles…. not yet… the budget world still has a few more customers.

  • Ed Elliott

    apple really is freaking ridiculous, how in the hell do you patent slide to unlock? also love how their specifically targeting samsung when other oems use slide to unlock on their devices also..

    • Sweet

      Blame the patent office for granting the patent. Apple, and everyone else, is free to apply for a patent, but it’s up to the patent office to decide whether to grant it or reject it. I personally find the patent on universal search to be the most ridiculous.

    • jonnny

      I think their patent on the rectangle and the rounded rectangle to be the most ridiculous.

    • mwahahahaha

      This is the BEST excuse not to do your geometry homework!

      Teacher: “Johnny, you didn’t hand in your homework, can you explain why please? If you continue this, your not going to pass the semester…”
      Johnny: “I can’t help it Ma’am, I’m actually NOT allowed to do it. Apple owns patents on all these geometric shapes ”
      Teacher: “That’s preposterous…” scratches head…
      Johnny: “In fact I’m actually protecting you by not doing my homework. If I even so much as speak of these shapes, Apple lawyers will slap a lawsuit on you faster than your husband can slap your (_|_) !!!
      Teacher: “Oh Johnny!…” ….blushes…

    • It’s Me

      Good thing this case has nothing to do with design patents then…

    • MXH070

      Kinda like Google trade marking the word “Glass”. These companies are clueless thinking that they own everything.

    • Lyndon Boychuk

      Apple has apple, even though they can’t sue every grocery store that sells apples. When it comes to wearable tech, I think they should be able to use it. But seeing as it was rejected, it shouldn’t be an issue because we all know what ‘glass’ is in the tech world so Google can keep referring to it as glass…unless someone else gets approved to use the generic term…which would obviously escalate into a serious problem.

    • downhilldude

      More importantly, how many people would have changed their mind, on buying a Galaxy, if the only thing missing was slide to unlock? Not too damn many!

    • It’s Me

      Which is why Samsung had an internal document of almost 150 pages detailing how to make their products more apple-like in fine detail. The slide to unlock was just one of many areas Samsung internally decided to copy. It’s not any one area, it was an intentional to mimic as a whole. Apple was restricted to just 5 patents for this case.

      A new Samsung document was released last week that shows 60 slides of how Samsung evolved just their unlock mechanism until it ended up where is is now. They went from taps and button presses until they basically just said “f it, let’s just do the same thing”.

    • Plazmic Flame

      My history on tech and patents isn’t that great but I’m curious to know who did “slide to unlock” before them.

      Also, Samsung was targeted because they are the right-arm of the Android army. If they take down Samsung, all others will follow.

    • It’s Me

      Neonode did a slide to unlock but with big differences. There are actually mechanics in the UI for the function that neonode specifically excludes, as in the specifically say “X and Y are not covered by this patent”, while Apple’s then specifically claims and implements those as differences, which is how the patent system works. It woould be like you getting a patent on a traction control system for cars and specifically saying “this does not cover traction on snow, ice or water” and someone else doing a TCS one that specifically handles those conditions. Both are TCS but they don’t trample on eachother’s IP. Samsung played with using neonode’s method but settled on taking Apple’s method.

      if you search for samsung documents that have been released in the last week or so, you’ll see that their document trail shows this very clearly.

    • FlamesFan89

      I understand what you are saying about the underlying technicalities of a patent, and what is covered, and not covered, but in this case from the end user point of view, there is functionally ZERO difference between Apple’s slide to unlock and the one from Neonode. The “invention” by Apple is trivial and likely invalid, which, not surprisingly, is the EXACT reason it was tossed out in the Netherlands. In fact TEN European judges have reviewed Apple’s filing and have all come to the same conclusion including two German judges who are technically trained in science and engineering.

      Apple’s big difference is that it includes moving an object on the screen, i.e. the slider graphic. We aren’t talking about the difference in a traction control system here which has to operate in some fundamental different way in order to keep a vehicle from losing traction on the road. We are talking about the difference of having a volume knob that has numbers to indicate which way to rotate it to turn up the volume, and one that doesn’t have any cues, just the label “volume”.

      The USPTO is at fault for having awarded this patent, and Apple is within their rights to enforce it, however they are also colossal d-bags for doing so, which is obvious, and therefore likely not patentable 😉

    • It’s Me

      Fair enough. But in your analogy, if the first patent explicitly said it does not cover a knob with markings then it doesn’t apply to a knob with markings.

    • FlamesFan89

      Prior art is not required to be the EXACT, detail for detail, representation of the thing being applied for in the patent. The USPTO should have looked at not just at Neonode’s patent from a technical sense, but from the end user functional sense, and said, ok, is there prior art to swiping with your finger across the screen to unlock a digital device. The answer would have been yes, and then it should have been rejected. Saying “but we used a pretty graphic” doesn’t nullify prior art.

      If a volume knob with no markings existed, patent or no patent, on the market, and a company tried to patent a volume knob with markings, it would be laughed out of the room, and that is the real issue here, Apple was awarded a patent that clearly, it has no business having.

    • FlamesFan89

      Apple’s claim is that it has markings and is therefore different. Apple’s other claim is that if you don’t drag it all the way across, you have to start over, which Neonode’s patent doesn’t explicitly explain, but it doesn’t explicitly exclude it, and from the looks of videos on Youtube, Neonode’s device did in fact work this way, where if you didn’t complete the swipe, it didn’t perform the action.

      So really, Apple’s claim is “we added pretty pictures” and we put into words the same thing that this prior art did already, but didn’t put into words.

      This is a case of a patent saying, a volume knob that when turned clockwise increases the volume, and then the second patent saying, a volume knob that turned in the direction of the increasing numbers we painted on increases the volume.

      The end result is that Apple’s claims are trivial at best and do not support the awarding of a new patent. And, as for the action of moving the graphic across the screen, that is easily covered by the prior art of drag-and-drop.

      Apple SHOULDN’T have a leg to stand on here, but because of the USPTO being nigh on useless, they do.

  • Sweet

    Nice to see Apple finally sticking their head out of their bubble to see what’s going on in the real world. Maybe this year we’ll see an iPhone that’s suitable for adult males. And they need to start releasing their innovations, instead of keeping them in their labs. Even their board of directors raised that issue last year. And I don’t buy the “we’re perfecting” excuse. Whenever Cook says that, all I hear is “we’re sitting on our innovations because we’ve run out of ideas”.

  • downhilldude

    Man walks into store: “Hey, I’m thinking of buying a new smartphone. I have an iPhone, but am looking at one of those Galaxy’s. Does it have slide to unlock, because if it doesn’t, that’s a dealbreaker!” …said absolutely no one, ever!

    • It’s Me

      Yeah, because it’s about one feature…

      Would you bought the galaxy if it was more like the Samsung blackjack? Because that’s where their focus was pre iphone.

  • Jay

    Am I the only one happy to actively avoid purchasing product from either of them? I’m running a Moto X and a Z10 right now and all I feel like I’m missing are huge amounts of OEM bloatware and a sandbox operating system.

    • nekkidtruth

      I’m admittedly a Samsung fan. I like their devices (not just phones) and I will certainly go out of my way to purchase a Samsung device if it performs as expected (such as TV’s etc). But even I have moved on from their phones. This had more to do with Google’s updates more than anything though. I think that’s the key thing here though especially with Android users. I see a lot of people moving on from that “zOMG best flagship phone ever!” to a Google Play Edition or a Nexus device.

  • J-Ro

    I no longer really see any big changes in either company in this legal battle. They both make slight changes year after year and are both getting dry. They are liking engaging in legal battles to tie up news feeds because their devices failed to.

  • WatDah

    So sick of these hateful comments. Look people, if you own a patent, then you have every right to sue if you think another party is violating it. Doesn’t matter what the patent is about. Doesn’t matter who you are. Doesn’t matter how insignificant. You own it, you have the rights. It’s that simple. Don’t hate the player, hate the game. The system is broken, so players are taking advantage. It happens everywhere/anywhere in the world. In sports, in life, and especially in business. Don’t start giving the all mighty, non-greedy, doing good for the world speech now. Cause if you’re the CEO of one of these companies, you will do exactly the same. Yes, you will, and you know it. You will protect what’s rightfully awarded to you. If you don’t, you do not qualify to lead a world wide business. Sorry, correction, you do not qualify to lead ANY business.

    • Joseph

      It’s not that it’s just that Apple is winning all the battles in the USA cause they are more biased towards non American companies and it shows….

    • realitycheck

      so you think there’s no bias in South Korea? get real.

    • WatDah

      Wow. Because a home team is winning all the home games, people should hate on them? Is that even a reason? So if Samsung is suing a foreign company for the same thing in Korea, for violating a Samsung owned South Korea patent, and they win – which they rightfully will – does that mean everyone should hate on Samsung as well? Or any company for that matter? The home team will always get home court advantage, even if the officials are playing by the book. All the defendant has to do is to provide enough evidence to prove their innocent. But Samsung, the defendant, could not and so they lose. Over and Over again. Does that say anything, or people just gonna hate?

      Just to clarify, I’m not saying this to defend Apple, it goes towards anybody and everybody.

    • It’s Me

      They also won in the EU (lost one in UK) and won in Japan and even in South Korea, where Samsung is heavily invested in the government and judicial system.

      Oh, those South Koreans…why do they hate Samsung so much too!!

  • TrollSoul

    I’m getting so sick and tired of Apple. They used to be the “cool” and different company, but since 2008-2009 they have changed for the worse. I own an iPad, iPod and iMac as well, but the more I use Apple products, the more I DON’T want to use them. There are many better, cheaper and multiplatform alternatives available out there.

  • realitycheck

    The title is pretty misleading. Apple was concerned about competition in general whereas Samsung was focused on apple.

    • Plazmic Flame

      You have to read between the lines… Samsung was the only Android OEM “Spending ‘obscene’ amounts of money on advertising and/or carrier/channel to gain traction.”

      Side note: Apple is a very smart company, they even write emails in vague terms and their internal slides are designed oddly. Smug, smart dastards, lol

    • WatDah

      People can hate all they want, but Apple’s business model and culture is absolutely brilliant, and they have the bragging rights. Their 147 Billion cash reserves is proof. Damn bastards!

    • Stan

      well how much of it came from iphone?
      The case is, Apple is not just iphone but rather multi diverse company with partial vertical and horizontal supply line. In other words, the money htey have comes from macs and other staf like ipood…. and w/e they do else. and I would say I agree with apple being great at what they do with one exception, iphone, since it is an overpriced 2 year old technology garbage that waste materials(yes apple own silicone location, but still…)

    • WatDah

      You really have no idea what you said do you?

    • Colin

      Actually he does. the iPhone IS way behind in many aspects of both hardware and software. The excuse of Iphone enthusiasts is that they are waiting to get it right ….. While others get it right then carry on improving. Bigger screens and higher resolutions are just one example of this.

    • It’s Me

      I think Samsung was part of thier focus, but they also had to watch Nokia, Motorola, Sony, google, etc. remember, just a few years ago Samsung still had the reputation but building bargain basement phones (BlackJack, Galaxy 1). So, yes, Apple obviously recognized the threat from Samsung, but they were not the only threat. So, yes, their language intentionally was vague, but that’s because their threats were numerous.

      Contrast that Samsung who apparently, over the last 6 years, has been singularly focused on becoming more like Apple, especially in product, and in beating Apple. They are obsessed with Apple.

      That’s part of why it’d funny to read Android people say how crappy iPhones are…most of them are using Samsung’s admittedly best effort at copying the iPhone.

    • nekkidtruth

      You’ve mistaken crappy software with crappy hardware here. Most people (I said most) have no issues with Apple’s build quality. In fact, you would probably have trouble finding many Android “people” who would specifically say Apple builds “crap” products. The issue is in the wall-garden approach with their software. In which case, you’re darn right I would say iPhones are crappy 😉

    • It’s Me

      Good thing for Samsung then that their copying applies to both sides of the product.

    • FlamesFan89

      except that nowadays it is Apple’s iOS that is becoming more and more Android-like with each release, and not the other way around.

    • realitycheck

      what makes android android? Google learns from the modding community and has a good sense of what people what.

      boss prefs was out before android came out…..

    • FlamesFan89

      That’s not the point whatsoever. My point was that It’s Me was saying that Samsung has been copying both the hardware AND software of Apple, but it was said in a manner implying that it is still taking place. I was pointing out that many of the new features added to the past few releases of iOS, in particular iOS7 could be seen in Android before iOS, and not the other way around.

      If they originated somewhere else prior to stock Android, or TouchWiz, so be it, but that does not change that it is Apple who is copying from Android (or others) and not the other way around. Android may be copying from the modding community, but they aren’t copying from Apple.

    • nekkidtruth

      That’s truly a matter of opinion. 😉

    • It’s Me

      Might soon be a matter of law. They’ve already been found guilty if infringing some hardware design and some software. Their own internal docs demonstrate they wanted to do both. So no, not really opinion at this point.

    • nekkidtruth

      Except that it is. You and I have done this dance before. You claim Apple wins out yet some of them have been appealed and overturned. Putting aside the obvious legal mumbo-jumbo (which btw is still really a matter of opinion, just so happens to be a judge’s opinion), there is no clear cut in this case. Of course the court will decide, but people make bad decisions all the time. Including judges 😉

    • Stan

      just curious what part of plastic or fake leather is coping apple product? evenly though if phone made out of metal like htc one,it is definitely not coping apple, since vetru phones are made from metal as well. In terms of software, touch whiz doesn’t look like ios …and if you refer to icons, well, it is windows who came up with icon(while developing for apple ) and in terms of screen unlock, not sure how they evenly place it as a copy since anroid unlock is much superior to apple just slide. in overall, apple is pressed for market share and can no longer be dominant share holder, therefore they are fighting back, but due to lack of variety of phones or brands, they only could do so in court. Especially now, when Steve jobs is a gonner, apple is like a 3 day old cute kitten with butt load of money in the account. but at the end of the day, the poo still stinks

    • It’s Me

      It’s amazing that you can post so much and yet get nothing factually correct.

      I especially loved the part about MS inventing the icon. That’s classic! Thanks for the laugh today.

      I love when people that don’t understand technology post…it’s cute.

    • Joseph

      I hate Apple with a passion but it’s cause they make everything so proprietary that you can’t do anything without spending tons of money or without going through hell and back and yes I use a Samsung galaxy note 3 but I’m not totally for Samsung either considering my last phone was an Xperia

  • thomas nguyen

    The U.S. patent system can be defined as “allowing for software patents that are
    so broad and ill-defined”

  • downhilldude

    Having Apple say that competitors are “Spending ‘obscene’ amounts of money on advertising, is saying something, as they seem to spend an obscene amount of money on advertising, themselves. I would venture that they were spending more than all their competitors combined, for the first 3 generations of iPhone.

    I’d also venture that they’re spending more on iPad, today, than any of their competitors in the tablet market.

  • John Chernichenko

    It is funny that Apple could have sued Samsung AT THE TIME of those older phones being mainstream devices.
    Apple only will sue when they need the money, they need to hurt another competing company, and when they are in a spiraling downfall.
    Apple is the true American corporate business; using sleazy business practices to run down a company who became a bigger success than them faster.