Samsung’s ‘infringe first and stall as long as possible’ strategy is nothing new

“As it turns out, stealing key ideas from other companies and then using its own portfolio of patents to draw out lawsuits is a tactic that Samsung used long before Apple came into the picture,” Juli Clover reports for MacRumors. “‘According to various court records and people who have worked with Samsung, ignoring competitors’ patents is not uncommon for the Korean company. And once it’s caught it launches into the same sort of tactics used in the Apple case: countersue, delay, lose, delay, appeal, and then, when defeat is approaching, settle,’ [Vanity Fair reports].”

“In 2007, Sharp filed a lawsuit against Samsung, alleging that the South Korean company had violated its patents,” Clover reports. “Samsung countersued, drawing out the lawsuit as it continued to produce TV sets using the stolen technology, building up its TV business. Samsung was found guilty of patent infringement years later in 2009, at which point it settled with Sharp to avoid an import ban.”

“There’s a similar story with Pioneer, who filed a patent infringement lawsuit against Samsung over plasma television technology in 2006. Samsung countersued, dragging on litigation and appeals until a 2009 settlement. The long and expensive legal battle caused Pioneer to shut down its television business while Samsung thrived,” Clover reports. “Samsung has pulled the same stunt with Kodak, Apple, and several other technology companies.”

Read more in the full article here.

MacDailyNews Take: Samsung = filth.

Related articles:
Samsung’s record of IP theft, other ruthless business tactics, and why Apple might win the battles but still lose the war – May 3, 2014
Samsung’s chilling move on product reviews – April 8, 2014
Samsung unveils plastic, 32-bit Galaxy S5 phone, world yawns – February 24, 2014


  1. What Samsung’s mentality succeeds in doing, however, may not save Samsung in the end!

    Copying a couple years late,
    Producing the low cost product,
    Constantly changing in implementing copied features,
    Failing to integrate features w/6 mo. product introductions

    After awhile, consumers know which products are the best value, and the copycats may not survive. A person only needs to use one or two inferior smartphones before they “smart up.”

    Samsung appears to be burning cash at a high rate, given its $12 Billion/year advertising, billions in R&D, low margins and declining market share in key markets to Apple.

    Samsung is playing a losers hand in my opinion. If Samsung were to play it right, they would be the Porsche to Apple’s Ferrari. Both those car brands are wildly profitable and successful. Samsung seems to be trying to do a Corolla off of a Corvette.

    1. Consumers haven’t caught up thanks to an advertising campaign to the tune of $12 billion annually. Couple that with an underhanded PR campaign with fake reviews and blog comments, and a huge segment of consumers have been hoodwinked — enough for Samsung to outsell Apple, at least in numbers. I don’t know how many fools have told me thir Samsung phone is better than an iPhone or just as good. Apple needs to counteract the manipulative PR and heavy marketing, while keeping them busy in the courts. Then focus, focus on innovation.

  2. Warning: I own a weekly newspaper so my opinions here are based as such.

    Here’s the problem with the Internet age when it comes to so-called “fair” or “balanced” coverage of things like technology. It’s all based now entirely (big emphasis on entirely) on advertising driven revenue because no one wants to pay for news or unbiased reviews. Hell, I own a paper and I get annoyed when a pay wall pops up. It’s how we’ve conditioned ourselves in recent years — now, now, now, free, free, free.

    Back in the day (and even now in my rural area) people were/are willing to pay a yearly price to have the news delivered to them. That extra revenue buys something more than the paper, ink and delivery. It purchases credibility.

    When the people seeking the information own a stake in it, and contribute to the revenue stream, it quite simply makes it easier for the publisher to do what’s right versus what keeps the lights on. Now, I am generalizing a lot here. There are good Internet sources and bad newspaper sources, no doubt.

    But I see this trend getting far worse before it ever gets better. And Samsung spends a lot more on advertising than research and development, if you see where I’m going with this.

      1. It has become the business model — and not out of some evil master plan but due to modern technological forces and missteps along the way (such as giving away content for “free” and hoping that online advertising would cover the cost).

        I firmly believe there are enough of us who are passionate about news that, like all pendulums, it will swing back the other way and enough people will be willing to pay for news again. The question is whether or not these new players will survive long enough for everyone to notice they are worth paying.

        1. This is the wildly successful “Google” model!

          Give away “FREE” stuff to the consumer in exchange for monitoring use, collecting personal information, and building personal profiles. Then turn the “consumer” into the product by selling the personal profile of each user for hundreds (or thousands) of dollars per year. Important – keep the customer happy, and the customer is not the consumer. Report only the news, or the version of the news, and deliver search results that keep the customer (Samsung et. al.) happy.

          The “Google” model is just as evil as the Samsung model!

    1. Thanks. ‘No one want to pay for news or unbiased reviews’…meaning the advertisers are looking for a slant or bias on the coverage. Hmmm. Interesting. I must admit that some websites (e.g. Cnet) seem to live up to that.

      1. I see the slants in tech news all of the time. More often than not, the review sort of tells the truth — or just enough of it.

        But there’s often a rounding of the edges when it comes to criticizes a clearly poor product or in over-stating how good a product might be (so as not to offend rival companies).

        Sometimes it’s very subtle and sometimes it’s impossible to miss. But I do believe that the companies whose dollars fund 100 percent of revenue are of central concern to the content creators. It may not be in back room meetings with direct language regarding expectations. More likely, it’s noticed on ad purchases and the human instinct not to bite the hand that feeds you.

    2. Thank you for your posts sir, it is nice to hear it from your perspective. I am a great critic of the modern day jouranalists and analysts that litter the internet with manipulations. As a newspaper owner I’d have no qualms about dragging you into that group.

      I won’t, mostly because you say you are from a rural area, and still from my travels that’s one of the few places left where there is some common sense. Plus you remember how it was, when integrity had a value beyond dollars that of sense.

      I do hope you are right and that the pendulum will swing the other day. I am not an American and the changes I have seen happen to this once great country over the last while sicken me. I do hope that the people can find what it takes to rise up and regain the moral high ground, because no amount of money or advertising can buy that. It has to be earned by the actions one takes and the principles one is willing to defend, sometimes to the very end.

      Good day to you sir and good luck.

  3. Leaving the moral discussion aside, who can blame them?

    From a purely business perspective, if they aren’t going to be punished, they would be stupid not to do this. It has made them billions of dollars.

    I just really hope that Apple is able to pull their component business some time in the near future.

  4. In criminal court, the trustworthiness & integrity of parties and their witnesses is typically taken into account when deciding cases. Otherwise, any defendant claiming innocence would never be found guilty. At some point, the jury may have to decide who is telling the truth and who is not, and for this they rely on character assessments and patterns of dishonest or unethical behavior of the various parties.

    I do not see that a similar “weighing of trustworthiness” has happened in the Apple v Samsung patent infringement case. Judge Koh could have nailed Samsung for sleazy behavior several times but chose not to. And the jury should have been informed about Samsung’s dishonest statements and behavior in this case (and in previous cases, too) when they made their decision. It is relevant information. Seems to me the legal system gives the benefit of the doubt to disingenuous parties. When any dishonest statements or behavior whatsoever is uncovered during the legal process, it should be highlighted, especially because it is likely only the tip of the iceberg…

  5. They are less evolved than normal humans. High level brain activity (impulse control, etc) is also not seen in many other animals. They are therefore, inferior to normal humans. Not racism, simply a fact.

    Do not buy their stolen and derivative products. Support original thinking. Get it, think different.

      1. I guess you are the supreme arbiter of correct and informed thinking for all. Who elevated you to that lofty position? Let me ponder that. You were either self-appointed or perhaps god selected you as his chosen one.

  6. Shame for America to support this POS company buying their products. If you hate Apple at least buy somewhere else rather than this slime bucket of a POS company Samsung.

Reader Feedback

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.