HTC and LG join Google in backing Samsung against Apple

“The most notable case in which members of the UPC industry coalition stand on opposing sides is Apple’s appeal of Judge Lucy Koh’s August 2014 denial of a permanent injunction against Samsung over the patents on which Apple had prevailed at the spring 2014 trial,” Florian Müller writes for FOSS Patents. “Apple says that a feature-specific injunction should be granted here and claims to have better evidence in place this time around (Apple filed a reply brief this week that reinforces the points made in its opening brief) but Samsung argues that Apple still can’t tie patented features to lost sales. Google sides with Samsung on this and has, together with other significant companies (LG, HTC, SAP, Red Hat, Rackspace), asked the Federal Circuit for permission to file an amicus curiae brief.”

“Apple formally opposes the proposed filing, noting that Google accepted to indemnify Samsung with respect to certain patents. However, no liability was established with respect to those patents, and as a result, they are not at issue in this injunction appeal. Apple also points to various business relationships between Google and some of the other amici curiae, even including some small-scale business partnerships compared to which there’s actually a much closer cooperation between Apple and Samsung in certain (component-related) areas,” Müller writes. “Notably, HTC and LG compete with Samsung, and since HTC has a ten-year license agreement in place with Apple, it has no reason to be concerned about the particular patents at issue here.”

Read more in the full article here.

MacDailyNews Take: Anyone who thinks Apple IP wasn’t ripped off is ignorant, stupid or blind.

What was Samsung’s intent in making their inferior products look as close as possible to Apple’s?

To ride on (steal) Apple’s massive R&D investments in creating the modern day smartphone and tablet along with stealing Apple’s huge marketing investments that created and continue to create a huge market for both categories. Samsung is a thief, plain and simple.

In a just and moral world, Samsung would actually owe Apple multiple billions of dollars and nobody on the planet would patronize such a company, either. Sadly, we live in this world, where massive thievery goes virtually unpunished and where confused and/or morally-bankrupt ignorati reward thieves for their crimes.

Apple’s products came first, then Samsung’s:

Samsung Galaxy and Galaxy Tab Trade Dress Infringement

Here’s what Google’s Android looked like before and after Apple’s iPhone:

Google Android before and after Apple iPhone

Here’s what cellphones looked like before and after Apple’s iPhone:

cellphones before and after Apple iPhone


  1. Florian Mueller is a hack for hire. He has been ‘bought’ in past to write favorable articles for a number of companies. Once a supporter, he turned sour on Apple when he became an Android developer. A long time ago his writing was objective and credible, but now it is best not to click on his pages, as you can never be sure of what the truth really is.

    1. Come on guys, I have bills to pay and no real skills.

      Android developer bahaha did you fall for that? This Android game I’m making sure is taking a long time ahahah. In reality I couldn’t write a line of code to save my life, the only programming language I know is Lie++ but unfortunately there’s no compilers for that.

      Fortunately Microsoft still sends me my monthly cheque. They sure love sitting on the sidelines watching all this controversy I stir up, all while cashing their own cheques from the Android puppets er I mean manufacturers.

  2. This court case seems like a lost cause for Apple. I’m wondering if it’s really worth the effort for Apple to continue. No court is going to give anything to Apple. Google has probably been bribing every key individual related to the case. The Wall Street crooks certainly want Apple to lose after betting so heavily on the Android platform as a sure thing. Apple just needs to concentrate on how to suck the last remaining profits out of the smartphone and tablet markets which will end up as being far more lucrative than winning that court case.

  3. Like MDN take. Agree.

    In addition, I would like to say,

    Samsung was a partner; hired to build what Apple paid them to supply. For a partner to brake that business agreement and produce something so close in the hardware, components etc. and teaming up with Google – accepting their free OS by which was also far too similar to IOS — seems far too easy of a path. Something that just must have been wrong anyways. That’s my first point and wonder why Apple never sued based on that. Not worth losing a partnership over??? Oh come on Apple.. then why not draft up a the terms of the contract for Samsung to not bling them to compete with a similar product.

    Besides the fact that Samsung was exclusively offered by Apple to have iOS licensing rights and that Samsung refused Apples offer – is truly strange too. Google must have had a bigger carrot to entice them.

    My second point, I trust that Apple had always proceeded with proper measures; licensing JPEG, MP4, WIFI, Blue Tooth, and any other standard and communications protocol that needed to be done… I do not Trust Samsung or Google had taken the time to owe or buy or licence technologies needed. However, what matters more here is Apples statement that Software and Hardware, IOS APPS and the Product itself are to be considered ONE. The entire innovation. The iPhone, iPad are clear extensions of devices they had on market just extended and brought to further realization combining certain new technologies and Apple taking a chance at mass marketing them. The iPhone idea is not so simple. I agree you can not separate the OS from the Phone – its apps and method of use… that together is it Apples mobile computing answer. And that Google stole too quickly coping the way it all worked – without hardware Samsung was convinced to provide what Google could not. A great plot against Apple. The facts that certain members of Apples board leaked information and a certain Ex-Apple engineer interested in mobile platform also met up to compete — are all things that should not happen in the auto industry – so why can it happen in the computer industry? To steal, or to copy too closely – as I believe they did — in such short time should never be allowed. It does not happen in the pharmaceutical companies either. Patents need better protection. If Microsoft believes Apple stole its ideas from Surface then Microsoft should be leading some of these battles in court. Surface Table was not a mass marketing product for consumers. Apple took the lead and risks to get their innovation there and should be rewarded protection up to seven years of any generic copying. Thats my take.

Reader Feedback

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