Samsung, Apple in DRAM, NAND, SSD Marketplace

Samsung benefits a lot in its relationships with Apple from the consolidation of  DRAM memory fabs. The consolidation keeps DRAM prices high, while limiting the choice of Apple of vendors for its products. While Samsung and Apple compete on cell phones, Apple still needs Samsung for its processors and memory chips.

The article below discusses Samsung's semiconductor production investments and it shows the preference of investing more in DRAM than NAND -

"we invested around ..$9.36 billion in memory...We have set DRAM and NAND production ratio to 7 to 3"

The article also shows the path Samsung is taking this year in its transition from 2D to 3D on SSD, while mobile will use 2D NAND this year.

More about the consolidation of DRAM in February 2015 Samsung, Apple's iPhone, and Fabs Consolidation and in February 2014 IBM Selling Foundry Fabs and other blog posting from 2013 and 2012.

More about 3D semiconductors in February 2015 3D Flash NAND, SSD Challenges and in May 2014 3D NAND Race is On

Ron
Insightful, timely, and accurate semiconductor consulting.

Semiconductor information and news at - http://www.maltiel-consulting.com/

Samsung to inject $10 billion into semiconductor businessin 2015

Summary: Samsung plans to pump up to $10 billion into its semiconductor business, which drives the South Korean tech giant's best-performing business division.

By Cho Mu-hyun | April 30, 2015 -- 00:08 GMT (17:08 PDT)

Samsung plans to inject as much as $10 billion during 2015 into its semiconductor business, as unprecedented demand continues to fuel growth in the company's best-performing division.

"Last year, we invested around 10 trillion won [$9.36 billion] in memory semiconductors," said Jeeho Baek, senior vice president of Samsung's semiconductor division, during a conference call with analysts. "We plan to maintain similar volume this year. We have set DRAM and NAND production ratio to 7 to 3, but will manage this flexibly depending on demand, going forward."

Samsung is increasing its production capacity for memory chips. An additional line that will produce DRAMs is being built at Hwaseong, its main hub for memory chip production in South Korea, which will be completed by the end of the year.

The South Korean tech giant is planning to start construction of a new plant in Pyeongtaek, South Korea, next month. It plans to invest 15.6 trillion won in the new factory by 2017, the same year that it is tentatively set to start production.

The world's second-largest semiconductor vendor also plans to increase offerings that use 3D V-NAND. Only Samsung and Japan's Toshiba have commercialised 3D V-NAND, which stacks cells vertically within a chip to increase storage capacity in the same space.

Baek said the company will offer new 3D V-NAND solid state drives (SSDs) aimed at consumers by the second half of the year, as well as next-generation offers for enterprise-aimed goods.

Samsung cemented its leadership in SSDs last year. According to market research firm IHS, Samsung Electronics held 34 percent market share for 2014, with revenues of $3.996 billion -- double that of runner-up Intel, which posted $1.99 billion in the segment.

Last year, Samsung launched a variety of 3D V-NAND SSDs for the enterprise. The senior vice president said talks with clients were going smoothly, and he expected a surge in orders in the second half of the year.

Samsung insiders said the firm has clinched supply deals with Google and Amazon to supply SSDs for the latter's datacentres. Samsung SDS, the IT service arm of Samsung Group, will also use Samsung-made NANDs when building servers for clients.

Rival makers Toshiba, SK Hynix, and Micron have just begun ramping up efforts to commercialise 3D V-NANDs, but are yet to join the fray, which will likely contribute to prices being stable, allowing Samsung to continue to reap high margins in the area.

For mobile clients, however, supply will still be 2D NANDs. Samsung believes 2D NANDs are still more appropriate for mobile set products, said Lee Myung-jin, head of IR, during the conference call.

"For high-integration, high-reliability NAND flashes, we will use V-NANDs, and for mobile and consumer products, we will use 2D NANDs and secure competence in both product lines,” said Lee.

According to Gartner, the worldwide semiconductor market grew 7.9 percent last year to $339.811 billion. Memory segment grew 16.9 percent and led the growth, it said.

Samsung's contract chip business, called System LSI, will likely enjoy a surge in profit as well. Its migration to 14-nanometer FinFet process ahead of rivals has helped it clinch new clients.

Samsung will produce chips for Apple, Qualcomm, and Nvidia, both in 14-nanometer and 20-nanometer processes, for the latter's next-generation chips, insiders have said.

More or Less Patents?

Whether a company should own a few or many patents is not a simple question. The article below suggests that a trend started of having few good patents instead of a large basket of patents. 

The problem with few solid patents is that they can be perceived as too broad and would be narrowed down in litigation.  One of the benefits of having a basket of patent related to a specific technology is that different patents will cover facets of the technology through well crafted set of claims. Often it is very difficult to locate a prior art with the same specific structure.

Ron
Insightful, timely, and accurate semiconductor consulting.
Semiconductor information and news at - http://www.maltiel-consulting.com/

Patents Strategy Shift Predicted

Quality not quantity to be focus, says expert

Rick Merritt

1/13/2015 09:00 AM EST 

SAN JOSE, Calif. — Patent strategies will shift from a focus on quantity to quality over the next few years, according to one expert. At least one analyst expressed skepticism, predicting the big-numbers game in intellectual property will continue for the foreseeable future.

Today companies file for patents by the basket, gearing up for battles with competitors doing the same. But a new set of realities will change the dynamic to a "flight to quality," in which a few good patents are more important, said an intellectual property expert who asked not to be named.
The new factors include:

• Recent Supreme Court decisions such as Alice Corp. vs. CLS Bank reducing opportunities for spurious patents
• Emerging natural-language processing tools that can help automate the process of measuring the quality of large numbers of patents
• New processes at the US Patent and Trademark Office for challenging a low quality
• An open market for patents that companies can purchase when threatened with specific suits

One early sign of the shift may be coming from China. That country's patent office reportedly granted a whopping 850,000 patents in 2014, down 3-5% from the prior year. It was the first such dip after many years of 10% or greater increases, the expert said. "Folks in China think it many to continue to decline."
Some observers disagree with the analysis. Larry Cady, an analyst at IFI Claims Patent Services who tracks patent grants, said the rate of increase in US patents granted each year has been slowing down, hitting 8% in 2014, but is likely to shoot up again.
"The trend of companies piling up large defensive patent portfolios has been going on for many years, and I don't see it shifting," Cady said. "There's been a slight slowdown in the growth of patents in the last few years… but that's due to the cyclical nature of the economy."
Companies tighten their belts in down years such as after the 2008 recession. It takes an average of three years to get a patent granted, so reduced filings will take time to filter through the system.
"Now that economic growth has resumed, I suspect we will return to historical norms of increased patent grants in 2016-17," Cady said.
In any case, patent reform is expected to bubble up in the US Congress again as one of the biggest stories in intellectual property in 2015.
One side advocates legislation that tweaks a system that is coming to grips with major changes from court decisions and the America Invents Act, which passed in 2011. Another side says major changes are still needed.

— Rick Merritt, Silicon Valley Bureau Chief, EE Times

IBM Selling Foundry Fabs

The article below discuss IBM announcement that it is selling its manufacturing operations. It will impact SOI (Silicon on Insulator), a process  that IBM specialized in.

It is not likely that Intel will buy an existing fab. Intel always duplicates an existing process in a current fab when they build a new fab 

It is just another example of consolidation chip manufacturing see in March 2012 Moore's Law End? (Next semiconductors gen. cost $10 billion

" chip industry without IBM will be a diminished industry."

IBM has been number 10 in foundry ranking for several years ( Top Semiconductor Ranking 2012 (Sales, Growth) 

More recent IBM dropped to number 11 in ranking (Top 13 Foundries Account for 91% of Total Foundry Sales in 2013)

Ron
Insightful, timely, and accurate semiconductor consulting.
Semiconductor information and news at - http://www.maltiel-consulting.com/

IBM fabs for sale – the semiconductor shockwave

 

david manners

 

10th February 2014

Following the semiconductor shock of IBM pulling out of chip manufacturing, David Manners considers who could buy and run the IBM fabs, whose processes include SOI and SiGe, and which supply manufacturing process technology to half the world’s major companies: Samsung, GloFo, UMC, ST, Renesas, NEC, Freescale, Toshiba and Infineon.

The biggest shockwave the semiconductor industry has had for years is the IBM announcement that it is pulling out of chip manufacturing.

IBM CEO Ginni Rometty has decided that IBM’s future is in software and services and chip manufacturing clearly doesn’t fall in either of these categories .

Moreover IBM’s chip manufacturing business lost $130 million last year and is slated to lose another $130 million this year while the capital costs to stay in the game are $5 billion a factory and rising.

That’s one way of looking at it.

The other way of looking at it is that IBM has been a stalwart of the world semiconductor industry, inventing the DRAM, mastering SiGe, SOI and much more besides and supplies manufacturing process technology to half the world’s major companies: Samsung, GloFo, UMC, ST, Renesas, NEC, Freescale, Toshiba and Infineon.

It is shocking to think IBM’s legendary R&D operation may be curtailed but, without the justification of a business outlet for its innovations, it may be.

One rather assumes that the obvious candidates for buying IBM’s fabs have already been tapped and that the announcement that Goldman Sachs has been appointed to look for a buyer for the fabs is to find an unobvious candidate.

The obvious candidates are Intel, TSMC, GloFo and Samsung.

However, Intel has net cash of only $7 billion and makes only CMOS chips, while IBM’s capacity includes processes like SOI and SiGe which Intel won’t need and the IBM fabs are not as advanced as Intel’s.

TSMC says it doesn’t want to operate foreign fabs; GloFo’s owners are said to be getting fed up with their capital-greedy chip investment and may not want to expose themselves further to the chip industry; Samsung already has as much operational and planned capacity in the USA as it needs.

So how about the non-obvious candidates?

Suggestions have been that Apple could enter into a jv with IBM to run the fabs. This would involve Apple putting a lot of money in to upgrade the fabs to the latest processes, but Apple has lots of money and IBM has the latest processes.

TowerJazz is another suggestion. The company has just formed a jv with Panasonic in which TowerJazz has a 51% share and which will own three Panasonic fabs in Japan.

The Panasonic deal gives TowerJazz’s already impressive array of specialty processes the addition of Panasonic’s specialty flows such as High Definition FSI for sensors and high voltage SOI power management technologies.

If TowerJazz now added IBM’s specialty processes like SiGe and SOI to its stable, it would become the world’s No.1 specialty fab.

Another suggestion is China. China has been trying, unsuccessfully, to build an indigenous chip industry for 30 years. Following the successful integration of IBM’s PC business into Lenovo, followed by the recent sale of IBM’s x86 server business to Lenovo, it would seem quite logical that a sale of IBM’s chip manufacturing would be to China.

Of course the European authorities, wedded to the idea of gaining 20% world market share in IC manufacturing, may see the opportunity to acquire IBM’s world-class process development capabilities as a sufficient reason to buy the fabs. IBM’s proficiency in SOI would give a boost to the European-developed FD-SOI process.

Then, of course, there are other emerging national tech players like Brazil and India who could see this as a once in a lifetime opportunity to acquire the basis for a chip industry.

Whatever the outcome of this, a chip industry without IBM will be a diminished industry.

Proving Obviousness in Patent

The article below explains the difficulties in proving prior art (IP) obviousness.


Ron
Insightful, timely, and accurate semiconductor consulting.
Semiconductor information and news at -www.maltiel-consulting.com


Proving Obviousness in Patent Cases From the Experts
By John Haynes and Rishi Suthar All, March 6, 2013
http://www.law.com/corporatecounsel/PubArticleCC.jsp?id=1202591012772&Proving_Obviousness_in_Patent_Cases=&et=editorial&bu=Corporate%20Counsel&cn=cc20130306&src=EMC-Email&pt=Corporate%20Counsel%20Daily%20Alerts&kw=John%20Haynes%20&slreturn=201302060913

Companies accused of patent infringement often ask “How did they get a patent on that? It is so obvious.” The reality is that most modern patents are nothing more than a combination of known elements assembled in a novel—or not so novel—manner. The challenge for accused infringers is how to prove that the claimed combination of elements was known to those skilled in the art. The “smoking gun” in such cases is a single prior reference that discloses the exact same combination, but such smoking guns are all too rare. Accused infringers are thus often forced to argue that the patented combination would have been obvious to others using only the ordinary skill of those in the field.

Practitioners generally agree that since the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling in KSR v. Teleflex (2007), proving obviousness has become easier, because KSR eliminated any rigid formula for proving obviousness and placed renewed emphasis on the problems being solved and the use of plain common sense. KSR’s looser framework, however, can also create a trap for the unwary who fail to gather the proof needed to satisfy even the looser standards set forth in KSR.

Awareness of these traps, and how to avoid them, is essential to the successful litigant.

Common Pitfalls in Proving Obviousness

1. More is not always better: Accused infringers may spend hundreds of thousands of dollars creating claim charts that map out invalidity theories across dozens of prior art references. These charts often focus on finding each individual element of a combination in as many places as possible, but rarely focus on the reason why a “skilled artisan” (i.e., a person having ordinary skill in the art) would want to put those separate pieces together. Proving obviousness is like putting together a jigsaw puzzle: You certainly need all the pieces, but if you do not put the pieces together the jury will never understand the full picture.

2. Legal rhetoric is no substitute for competent evidence: Attorneys often make the mistake of using legal arguments as the glue to hold their puzzle together. Bald assertions that a person skilled in the art would know how to fit the puzzle together, however, do little to explain what the puzzle should look like or why the skilled artisan would know exactly where the pieces fit
A recent Federal Circuit decision, ActiveVideo v. Verizon (2012), provides a good example of how lawyer rhetoric is rarely sufficient to demonstrate obviousness. In ActiveVideo, the defendant’s expert testified that each of the claim elements were “modular” and could be combined to achieve the claimed combination because of efficiency and market demand. The expert’s assertions were rejected, however, because he failed to explain how the “modular” puzzle pieces fit together in the exercise of ordinary skill.

3. Common sense must be common knowledge: Although KSR placed renewed emphasis on the use of common sense to solve ordinary problems, it did not sanction the use of “common sense” to plug holes absent proof that the skilled artisan was aware of both the problem and the common sense solution. Litigants need to frame the problem facing the skilled artisan and then explain how that artisan would use their ordinary skill to solve the problem in the same manner as is claimed in the patent.
This requires more than lawyers’ arguments about “common sense” dictating the claimed combination. It requires a careful analysis of how the skilled artisan would have approached the problem, the tools available to solve it, and the reasons why solving it would have resulted in the claimed combination. In the jigsaw puzzle analogy, you need the pieces, the picture on the box, and the knowledge that putting the pieces together will yield that picture.



How to Avoid the Pitfalls

As the Supreme Court stated in KSR, the obviousness analysis is a flexible one. In other words, the approach is highly dependent on the technology at issue and the problems the patent seeks to address. Regardless of the approach, however, following a few simple guidelines will go a long way towards a successful defense.


1. Don’t forget the basics: The Supreme Court provided the framework for proving obviousness in the seminal case of Graham v. John Deere (1966). KSR did not lessen the importance of this framework, and litigants should always begin an obviousness analysis by outlining the proof needed to prevail on each element of that framework. This requires not only developing a clear picture of the prior art, but also a clear picture of the industry at issue, market pressures, and secondary considerations like long-felt need and commercial success.

2. Analyze the invention as a whole: Most inventions are comprised of combinations of known elements, so proving obviousness requires more than finding each piece of the puzzle. Care must be taken to explain, in detail, the modification to the prior art as a whole.
Obviousness in some cases, such as in KSR or Stone Strong v. Del Zotto (2011), may be satisfied by explaining the reasonable expectation of success of combining the prior art’s known elements, but more complex inventions may require expert explanation of why one skilled in the art would have been inclined to combine the teachings in seemingly unrelated disciplines. Although composing an owner’s manual is unnecessary, enough detail should be presented so that it is clear that one skilled in the art would recognize and perform the modifications to the prior art with anticipated results.


3. Always identify a convincing reason why the specific combination of known features claimed in the patent would have been obvious to the skilled artisan: While the Supreme Court acknowledged in KSR that the prior art need not explicitly provide a motivation to combine prior art features, it did not eliminate the requirement that the skilled artisan have a reason to combine prior art features in the manner claimed. In KSR, the reasons to combine stemmed from market pressures of transitioning from cable-actuated throttles to drive-by-wire systems, in connection with common problems existing in the prior art. Motivation may also be shown through “common sense” or by demonstrating that the claimed combination would have been “obvious to try” in order to solve a particular problem. To prevail using such motivations, litigants must do more than simply repeat the language of KSR.
As the Federal Circuit recently explained in In re Novel (2012), succeeding on a common sense theory requires the accused infringer to provide a rational explanation as to why the skilled artisan would consider a specific combination a product of common sense. Similarly, when relying on an “obvious to try” rationale, care must be taken to explain precisely why there are only a finite number of solutions to the problem at hand, as well as why the particular modification to the prior art yields nothing more than expected results. See Perfect Web v. InfoUSA (2009). Even though conclusory statements in these scenarios are tempting, they will almost guarantee an unsuccessful defense.

4. Develop a solid evidentiary record for each aspect of the obviousness inquiry: This requires forming obviousness theories early, using the discovery process to develop those theories, and then carefully funneling the evidence to support them through fact and expert witnesses.
While obviousness determinations often turn on the sufficiency of an expert’s opinion, successful litigants should not assume that experts alone will carry the day. It is just as important to gather literature and fact-witness testimony that directly or indirectly supports the obviousness defense. Litigants should seek to introduce testimony from knowledgeable individuals in the industry to establish known problems and known solutions in the prior art, as well as reasons why it is desirable to combine those solutions in the manner recited in the claims of the patent. Such evidence will not only bolster the expert’s opinion, but may also help preserve important invalidity defenses in the event the fact finder does not give the expert’s opinions much weight, or in less complex cases, no weight at all. See, e.g., Stone Strong v. Del Zotto (2011).

While no set blueprint exists for guaranteeing a perfect obviousness combination, the main point to remember is that proving obviousness requires proof, and a lawyer’s argument or conclusory expert testimony is not sufficient. Careful litigants form their obviousness theories early in the case and develop the factual record to support those theories. Keeping each of the above points in mind throughout litigation will put you on the right track to avoiding the usual pitfalls and presenting a convincing invalidity defense.
John Haynes is a partner in Alston & Bird’s Intellectual Property Litigation Group and has experience litigating a wide variety of disputes involving complex technology and intellectual property. He specializes in complex patent cases involving electronics, wireless communications, computer software, and networking. Rishi Suthar is an associate in the firm’s Intellectual Property Litigation Group. Prior to attending law school, Rishi worked as a patent examiner for the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office.

Ranking Top IC Foundries (Pure-play and IDM) for 2012

The article below about top IC foundries ranks from 2010 through 2012 documents Samsung's improved foundry position.  The improvement was mainly due to Samsung's complex relationship with Apple.

"the Samsung/Apple IC supply relationship is the large amount of memory, both DRAM and flash, that Apple buys from Samsung, the largest memory manufacturer in the world. Since Apple is such a big memory customer, Samsung is able to “bundle” its IC offerings to Apple and deliver a cost-effective high-volume supply of leading-edge flash memory, DRAM, and application processors to the company."

Samsung is trying to diversify away from Apple (see Samsung Foundry Replacing Apple)

The turn around time for designing and qualifying of a new microprocessor design in a new fab vendor takes many months. Only very few companies have the processing and fab capacity capabilities to manufacture and design a new microprocessor (i.e. Intel and TSMC) This is a result of the continuing consolidation of the semiconductor industry (see March comments Moore's Law End?).

Ron

Insightful, timely, and accurate semiconductor consulting.

Semiconductor information and news at - http://www.maltiel-consulting.com/

Samsung Jumps to #3 in 2012 Foundry Ranking, Has Sights Set on #2 Spot in 2013

Apple's application processor business still driving Samsung's foundry success, but for how long?

The 2013 McClean Report analyzes the top 12 IC foundries (pure-play and IDM) for 2012 (Figure 1). TSMC remained the leader; in fact, TSMC’s 2012 sales were almost 4x that of second-ranked GlobalFoundries and more than 10x the sales of the fifth-ranked foundry SMIC. ...

More

Samsung Foundry Replacing Apple

The article below discusses Samsung's efforts to supply chips to Chinese and other emerging smartphone makers to reduce their dependence on Apple. More about Chinese smart phones at Apples' Cook in China (MediaTek Impact) . It would makes sense for Samsung to diversify their chip production to other smart phone vendors. Other semiconductor areas such as DRAM memory are not growing as they used to (Flash Memory Growth & Sales Surpass DRAM).

It takes years to shift from one foundry vendor to another. Designing the A6x or A7 new processor and the details and design rules of the manufacturing process is slow and complicated.
I already discussed this in September 2012 Apple Cutting Out Samsung Chips?

("Teardown of iPhone 5 reveals that none of the DRAM, and NAND memory and other chips on the iPhone were made by Samsung. Already in the iPad (See March iPad teardown) Samsung had fewer parts than in the prior Apple products. Samsung is still making the A6 processor for Apple.").

Additional information - iPhone A6 Teardown Update .

Ron
Insightful, timely, and accurate semiconductor consulting.
Semiconductor information and news at - http://www.maltiel-consulting.com/



Samsung seeks broader chip base as Apple cuts loose
Credit: Reuters/Steve Marcus, By Miyoung Kim, Wed Jan 9, 2013 5:03pm EST

Stephen Woo, president of Device Solutions Business for Samsung Electronics, talks about the new Samsung Exynos 5 Octa processor during a keynote address at the Consumer Electronics Show (CES) in Las Vegas January 9, 2013. The processor is faster and uses less power than Samsung's previous models, Woo said.

LAS VEGAS (Reuters) - Samsung Electronics Co is looking to supply chips to more Chinese and other emerging smartphone makers, the head of its system chip business said, to counter any fall-off in demand from Apple Inc, which is weaning itself off Samsung chips used in its iPhones and iPads.

Samsung and its main U.S. rival, and biggest customer, together account for more than half the global smartphone market, and the South Korean group is the main supplier of mobile processors, or application processors (AP), powering both Apple devices and its own range of Galaxy phones and tablets.

But, as Apple looks to be less reliant on its rival for parts for its gadgets - it is already buying fewer Samsung memory chips and display screens as the two have gone to war over patents - concerns have grown that Samsung may see its processor revenues tumble.

"As there are just two smartphone makers that are doing really well, chipmakers supplying them have grown in tandem. So we plan to bolster our relationship with those key customers," Stephen Woo, president of Samsung's System LSI business, which makes processors for Apple products, said in an interview.

Supplying processors for Apple products has been the mainstay of Samsung's system chips business.

Goldman Sachs estimates Samsung's AP chip sales to Apple will rise to 9.3 trillion won ($8.8 billion) this year, or nearly 80 percent of Apple's spending on Samsung processing chips, memory chips and flat screens. But that could tumble to just 2.5 trillion won next year, as Apple will shift 30 percent of its AP business from Samsung and eventually 80 percent by 2017, according to Goldman.

"(We) should diversify our customer base and are making such efforts already, adding some Chinese customers," Woo told Reuters ahead of his first keynote speech at the annual Consumer Electronics Show in Las Vegas on Wednesday.

China's Meizu, one of the local smartphone newcomers, uses Samsung's Exynos quad-core chip for its MX smartphone, and Lenovo's K860 LePhone is also powered by Exynos.

Still, Samsung's mobile processor business is almost entirely tied to the fortunes of Apple and its own mobile business - the Galaxy range. By comparison, chip rivals such as Qualcomm Inc, Texas Instruments and Nvidia have a broader client base - from LG Electronics Inc and Nokia to HTC Corp, Huawei Technologies Co and Google's Motorola.

"We see emerging players who have potential to grow in smartphones and we will continue to make efforts to supply them with our chips," Woo said.

The mobile processor market, driven by roaring sales of smartphones and tablets, is a bright spot for a semiconductor industry that is struggling with falling computer sales. Research firm Gartner estimates the mobile processor market will grow 30 percent this year to $13.5 billion and hit $16.5 billion next year.

To strengthen its chip capability, Samsung bought UK chipmaker CSR Plc's mobile phone connectivity and location technology for $310 million last year, and it is now looking at how it can improve modem chip technology, especially the baseband chip solution that enables wireless devices' radio communications.

"Baseband is a very important segment, but we don't have it. Given its importance, we're reviewing various options," Woo said, suggesting Samsung could be scouting for potential targets.

Qualcomm is the biggest baseband chip company with nearly 50 percent of the market, followed by the likes of Mediatek, Texas Instruments and Broadcom.

Chipmakers are increasingly seeking to produce a single chip solution that combines AP, modem chip and connectivity chips that support Wi-Fi, Bluetooth and near-field communication functions, in one chipset. This combo-package is popular among low-end smartphones as it allows phone makers to cram various chips into compact devices.

Woo said Samsung, however, was not considering expanding into a single chip solution and will instead continue to focus on pure AP chips favored for high-end phones, as it allows manufacturers to differentiate their hardware offerings with various chip combinations.

The explosion of mobile devices has opened a big opportunity to Samsung as Intel Corp, the world's top chipmaker, struggles to crack the mobile processor market dominated by the makers of ARM Holdings licensed chips. Samsung is the biggest maker of ARM-based chips, such as Apple chips and Samsung's Exynos brand.

Intel's market share in mobile devices is just 1 percent, as UK chip designer ARM holds a near monopoly.

Woo said Samsung was not looking to break into the desktop computer or server processor market - which Intel dominates, but is under threat from ARM-based chips that boast low-power consumption and compact design.

"For the time being, our focus will pretty much be on enhancing our AP offering, especially for high-end mobile devices," he said.. At his keynote speech, Woo unveiled Samsung's latest "Exynos 5 Octa" processor, tailored for high-end smartphones and tablets.

The new processor boasts eight cores: four to handle processing-intensive tasks and four to take on lighter workloads, to conserve battery life.

Glenn Roland, vice president and head of new platforms at Electronic Arts, demonstrated its processing power by running the high-octane, fast-paced "Need for Speed: Most Wanted", on a Samsung reference tablet.

Other guests at Woo's speech included ARM Chief Executive Warren East, Microsoft chief technical strategy officer Eric Rudder, and former U.S. president Bill Clinton.

Samsung also unveiled a prototype phone with a flexible display that can be folded back and forth - almost like paper - by replacing a glass panel with super-thin plastic to make it bendable and unbreakable, as well as a smartphone equipped with a curved display.

"It won't break even if it's dropped. This new form-factor will really begin to change how people interact with their devices, opening up new lifestyle possibilities ... allow our partners to create a whole new ecosystem of devices," said Brian Berkeley, senior vice president of Samsung Display, a flat-screen unit of Samsung Electronics.

($1 = 1062.9500 Korean won)
(Editing by Ian Geoghegan, Bernard Orr)

Apple Cuts Samsung Orders: Lawsuits Impact?

Considering all the legal patent fights between Apple and Samsung, it would make sense that Apple would want to diversify away from Samsung.

Taking into account the very long lead time and tightening demand for chips, it will be very slow for Apple to separate.

More on the crosscurrents for DRAM and flash chips demand




Ron Maltiel
www.maltiel-consulting.com



Apple reportedly cuts order for Samsung chips for new iPhone
iPhone maker has reduced its order for NAND and DRAM chips from its courtroom foe, industry sources report
http://news.cnet.com/8301-13579_3-57508009-37/apple-reportedly-cuts-order-for-samsung-chips-for-new-iphone/
by Steven Musil  September 6, 2012 9:47 PM PDT

Apple has cut its orders for memory chips from Samsung for its next-generation iPhone as it tries to reduce its dependence on its legal foe and competitor, according to industry sources.
Samsung has been a primary supplier of both DRAM and NAND storage for iPhones, iPads, and iPhones, but Apple has been reducing its orders to the South Korean electronics giant in an effort to diversify its supply lines, according to a Reuters report.

Meanwhile, the Korea Economic Daily reported that Apple had completely dropped Samsung from its list of memory chip suppliers for the first shipment of the new iPhones, choosing instead to go with Toshiba, Elpida Memory, and Korea's SK Hynix.

However, Reuters' source said Samsung remains on Apple's list of initial suppliers for the iPhone but is making up for the reduction with orders from other handset makers, notably Samsung's. The source also said the decision was unrelated to the recent courtroom clashes between the two tech titans.


Apple is said to be trying to reduce its dependence on Samsung, the world's largest consumer electronics maker by market value. Apple reportedly tried to secure exclusive access to Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co. smartphone chips by making a $1 billion investment in the chipmaker -- possibly in a bid to replace Samsung's contract for the A6 processor. TSMC reportedly rejected the offer, saying it had no need for investment capital and was unwilling to sell part of itself.

Apple vs. Samsung: Not Really an Apple Win

While on the surface it looks that Apple won this round in court against Samsung. Apple did not really win.





1. The case is likely to go to appeal.
Comments from juror "because we had hard time believing there was no prior art, that there wasn't something out there before Apple. "In fact we skipped that one," Ilagan continued, "so we could go on faster. It was bogging us down."
"How can you determine whether the patents are invalid if you skip determining whether there was prior art? Determining if there was prior art is requisite to determining validity. The jury verdict is null and void."
(patnews@ns1.patenting-art.com)

2. Jury decisions regarding the design patents that Apple won were already designed around by Samsung, Google and the rest of android ecosystem. It will just temporally slow down android phone ecosytem.

3. Samsung did not lose in the tablet market, which is very important. This market is younger and tablet makers are trying to start a strong growth to counter iPad success.

4. A some what different prospective is in the article below has some good point about the momentum of  market acceptance of Apple and Samsung products.

Ron
www.maltiel.com




Microsoft and Nokia Win, Google Loses in the Samsung Apple Patent Case?
http://www.forbes.com/sites/timworstall/2012/08/26/links-26-aug-microsoft-and-nokia-win-google-loses-in-the-samsung-apple-patent-case/
Tim Worstall, Contributor , 8/26/2012

Move up Move down Apple is About to Reduce Google's Revenues Tim Worstall Contributor Google Makes More From iPhones Than it Does From Android Tim Worstall Contributor Windows Phone Could be Cheaper Than Google's Android Tim Worstall Contributor Google Blasts Past Apple: Android Now 50% of Market Tim Worstall Contributor


The verdict in the Apple Samsung patent case came a little too late on Friday, West Coast time, for the think piece people to really comb through who was likely to benefit from the verdict. Plenty of very good reporting of what had happened but that’s not really the purpose of the press these days. What has happened is one thing: what it means is where the value is added. Now that we’re 36 hours on from the verdict we’re seeing the ruminations on who has really won and lost.
A general feeling is that it might be Microsoft that has really won with the results of this case. Our own Ewan Spence makes the case:
“Apple walks away with a ruling that Samsung copied the iPhone. Samsung will appeal and look to have the decision mitigated as much as possible. And over in the corner, Microsoft and Nokia look at each other, nod their heads, and smile. This was a good court verdict for Windows Phone.
Half of Apple’s win was about hardware design, something that can be changed over time (indeed, largely is already on newer models). Half was on software features and that’s really Google‘s Android. So, the idea is that manufacturers will look more kindly on Microsoft’s Windows Phone as it is entirely clear of such problems. If that’s true then it will be Google which is the ultimate loser:
“The biggest loser in the case might not be Samsung, but Google, the company some analysts say Apple was targeting all along, as the New York Times points out. And Microsoft could end up being a collateral winner from all this. Bill Cox, senior marketing director for the Windows Phone, quipped on Twitter: “Windows Phone is looking gooooood right now.”
Google doesn’t actually charge for Android, but it is still part of its strategy to make money from mobile:
“Samsung’s Galaxy line of phones run on Android, and ISI Group analysts viewed the verdict as a blow to Android as much as Samsung.

If Android lose any ground in the mobile computing market, that would hurt Google, too. That’s because Google relies on Android to drive mobile traffic to its search engine and services to sell more advertising.
Google also charges for certain Google services to be incorporated but as we’ve noted before, Google’s revenue from iOS currently outstrips that from Android for these.

Yet Microsoft does face a problem:
“Some analysts are skeptical that Microsoft can produce a device that the mobile consumer will love.

“Microsoft has been the beneficiary of this whole fight as the other non-Android option,” said Ron Laurie, a Silicon Valley-based specialist in IP and investment banking and co-founder of Inflexion Point Strategy. “But safety (from lawsuits) by itself is not enough. You have to appeal to consumers.”

And so far the market has seen that consumers want phones and tablets that look like Apple’s devices, he added.
If it really is true that people like Android because the look and feel is like Apple’s iOS then producing something like Windows which has an entirely different look and feel might not do the trick.
And maybe Android has already been changed enough to make it safe from attack by Apple?

“Meanwhile, Pure Android, in its Jelly Bean iteration now significantly different in look and feel from TouchWiz, has so far escaped Apple’s iOS comparison wrath. That might make an untampered Android OS more appealing to manufacturers (and make Google more likely to speak out in their defense should Cupertino come calling).
That is, it was Samsung’s specific tweaks to Android to make it more like iOS which infringed Apple’s patents, rather than Android itself?
Of course, it’s always open to people to try and license Apple’s patents. But why should Apple do so?
“And we shouldn’t take for granted that Apple *wants* to license its design patents. It isn’t like they need the money; they are already sitting on $1B in cash. Right now its priority is to grow its platform, not its revenues. And there are no FRAND (Fair, Reasonable, and Non-Discriminatory) requirements for design patents.
Given that Nokia is just about ready to go with models running the new Microsoft Windows, perhaps they’ll be the big marketplace winners?
“When Nokia decided to go with Microsoft instead of Android, many considered the move foolish. With Android now dealt a major legal blow by Apple, the move looks like genius. The company does not have to worry about Apple coming after it with as many patent claims and can clearly show that its products are radically different. With uncertainty over the evolution (or even support) of Samsung products in the marketplace (while the case will surely go to appeal, further wins for Apple could force Samsung to pull its products from the American market), carriers will pay more attention to products that are not running on the Android platform and the biggest player in that market is now Nokia.
Yet it’s entirely possible that not a great deal will actually change. Recall, again, what Apple actually won on. Three patents relating to hardware design and these are not, at least as far as anyone has proven in court as yet, being violated by the new Samsung models. The other three were software patents. And those, well, it’s not all that certain that these are an insuperable barrier. As above, the latest build of Android may or may not violate them. Further, it’s not all that difficult:
“Others said the effect will be limited.
UCLA law professor Douglas Lichtman said the fixes could be as simple as offering software upgrades. For example, one of the decisions in the case was that Samsung infringed Apple’s patent concerning screen icons.
“Icons sitting in perfect rounded squares, for instance, will be replaced by icons sitting in smooth circles,” Lichtman said, “or icons sitting directly on a uniform black background. No big deal.”

It’s all too early to tell of course. And prediction is very difficult, especially about the future. But opinions seem to range from Samsung having to cough up for past misdemeanors and tweaking the hardware design (something they’ve, arguably, already done on newer models) and similarly tweaking the version of Android they use to Android itself being entirely crippled and Microsoft’s Windows being about to take the mobile world by storm. On that last I’m not entirely sure that Nokia will be the big winner though: Samsung itself has a range of phones running Windows……

Apple vs. Samsung Cost: $700 million to defend iPhone patents

" Legal fees will cost Apple Inc. $700 million to defend its iPhone patents against Samsung"


Ron



Apple-Samsung fight can scare all inventors


Published: Monday, August 13, 2012 at 1:00 a.m.
http://www.heraldtribune.com/article/20120813/COLUMNIST/120819894/-1/news?p=2&tc=pg

Legal fees will cost Apple Inc. $700 million to defend its iPhone patents against Samsung, according to a National Public Radio report on July 30. Even if you lop off a couple of zeros, it still costs big bucks for small-business owners to defend their inventions.



The Neustel Law Offices in North Dakota estimates "it is not uncommon for even simple patent-infringement lawsuits to end up costing a company $2 to $5 million." Its website says, "The attorneys' fees alone can put many small businesses out of business."



But few inventors focus on the cost of defending their patents against infringers. Instead, they discover needs in the marketplace and dream up products to fill them.



That is what Sarasota-based inventor Mark Schreiber did. "We make and sell the Aqua Comb, which I invented and designed," he says. The product cleans pool and spa filters. He makes a second version for washing horses, pigs, cows and dogs. Schreiber and his family own Mi-Way Inc.



"One thing one must do when inventing a product is explore other uses for the invention so as to open up the number of markets," he says. He offers third version for beauticians.



Schreiber says that he filed three provisional patent applications, which can cost as little as $125 each. Filing the PPAs sets the filing dates, even though the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office has not yet approved the patents. The final documents then must be filed and perfected within 12 months for the patents to be approved and published by U.S. Patent and Trademark Office.



"I found the USPTO website and patent office staff extremely helpful," Schreiber says. "They encouraged and aided me in filing my patent without the use of a lawyer."

Greg Hunt, a patent lawyer with Jenkins, Wilson, Taylor & Hunt in Durham, N.C., says, "Provisional patent applications are a way to save upfront costs."




But because there are statutory requirements to be met, "we do not recommend filing provisional patent applications without review by an attorney or patent agent."



After filing your PPA inexpensively, you have a 12-month sprint to learn if your product is marketable before spending approximately $8,000 to $10,000 in legal fees to file the final documentation.



Schreiber built a prototype of his product and decided to use distributors as the most expedient sales and marketing vehicle. So he is demonstrating his products at the trade shows distributors attend.



"I decided that I wanted to sell to distributors, so I limited my marketing to trade shows that would put me in contact with distributors both nationally and internationally," he says.



"We subscribe to trade magazines to glean industry news and mine distributor contact information," Schreiber says. He also uses Internet search engines to learn about organizations that sponsor trade shows attended by distributors.



Thomas Register, Manufacturing Extension Partnership and Manufacturers' Agents National Association are online examples at thomasregister.com, mep.nist.gov and manaonline.org.



But when Schreiber's marketing efforts become successful, there will likely be copycats. As a result, he may spend millions of dollars to defend against patent infringers -- albeit less than what Apple is spending in its infringement suit against Samsung.



Jerry Chautin is a local volunteer business counselor with Manasota SCORE, Counselors to America's Small Business. Send business questions and stories to him at jkchautin@aol.com and follow him on Twitter.com/JerryChautin.

Smartphone Patent (IP) Wars Solutions

At Stanford 12th annual Intellectual Property (IP) Scholars Conference one of the papers studied two historical cases of patent wars (see below).

Some highlights from the conference are summarized in gigaom blog such as "Supreme Court and unlimited copyrighted".... impact of "the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (the patent court) and the United States Patent and Trademark Office, have an outsize influence on the country’s innovation policies."

It would be interesting to find out how other cases of patent wars, such as the radio development in the 1930s were resolved.
Ron





http://gigaom.com/2012/08/12/patent-trolls-and-horse-powered-boats-8-highlights-from-stanfords-ip-conference/
"The smartphone patent mess: the past is the key to the future
The sight of Apple and Samsung using hundreds of thousands of patents to sue each other all over the world is enough to induce despair about the patent system. But Professor Colleen Chien of Santa Clara puts this in perspective by studying two previous patent epidemics — one over farmers’ tools in the 1880′s and another over railroad technology around the turn of the century. In both cases, interest groups built the requisite pressure over a period of 15-30 years to reform the system. To address the current problem, Chien says history shows that narrow laws will fare better than broad bills aimed at reforming the entire patent system."

Apple vs.Samsung Case: Can Design Patents Win

"The potential for huge damages awards is one reason for the new focus. Design patents have a unique remedy: Whereas infringement of a utility patent allows a patentee to recoup only those profits associated with the patented feature—not the entire profit from the sale of the infringed product—infringement of a design patent allows the patentee to recoup the total profit without apportionment.


The provision has largely been a sleeper for 125 years"

Ron




Apple-Samsung Case Shows How Far U.S. Design Patents Have Come

http://www.law.com/jsp/cc/PubArticleCC.jsp?id=1202565565740&AppleSamsung_Case_Shows_How_Far_US_Design_Patents_Have_Come
Lisa Shuchman
Corporate Counsel  August 01, 2012



The high-stakes battle between Apple Inc. and Samsung Electronics Ltd. that began this week in federal court highlights a significant change that has taken place in the world of intellectual property law since the 1980s and 1990s: the steep rise in importance of the design patent.



Back in 1988, Apple sued Microsoft Corporation, alleging the company had infringed its copyright on the “look and feel” of the Apple Macintosh’s graphical user interface. That suit, which Apple ultimately lost, was a copyright case in which Apple had to show to the court that Microsoft had actually copied the design and appearance of Apple’s computer. In 1994, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ruled that under copyright law, “Apple cannot get patent-like protection for the idea of a graphical user interface.”



Fast forward to Apple’s current lawsuit against Samsung and the focus is once again on design. But this time, Apple is alleging patent infringement—not copyright. And while some of the case deals with utility patents—those that focus on how something works—much of it revolves around design patents, which center on how something looks. In fact, Judge Lucy Koh, who is presiding in the case, noted in an earlier ruling: “It is the design patents that are at the core of this preliminary injunction motion.”



“With this case, design rights have taken center stage in the world of patent law,” said Christopher Carani, a partner at McAndrews, Held & Malloy.



In the 80s and early 90s, patents weren’t as much of a focus in technology as they are today, according to Ron Epstein, chief executive officer of Epicenter IP Group. “But patents today play a more important role in protecting innovation,” he said.



Design patents in particular are playing a more important role. In 1994, for example, 11,000 design patents were issued in the United States, according to the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office’s database. In 2011, the USPTO issued almost double that number: 21,356.



Big technology companies such as Apple and Samsung have caught on to the importance of design patents. In 2001, for example, Apple was issued 10 design patents and Samsung was issued eight. In 2011, Apple was issue 123 and Samsung was issued 333. And in 2012, projections show that Apple is on track to be issued about 160 design patents, and Samsung (which makes many more products than Apple), about 500.



“Until recently, utility patents received most of the attention,” Carani said. “This case is causing corporations to take a second, hard look at design patent rights—not only to secure them for themselves but also to make sure they are not infringing design patent rights of others.”



The potential for huge damages awards is one reason for the new focus. Design patents have a unique remedy: Whereas infringement of a utility patent allows a patentee to recoup only those profits associated with the patented feature—not the entire profit from the sale of the infringed product—infringement of a design patent allows the patentee to recoup the total profit without apportionment.



“The provision has largely been a sleeper for 125 years,” said Carani, noting that this “no apportionment” language was inserted into the Patent Act in 1887 in response to an 1886 U.S. Supreme Court case regarding infringement of a design patent on a carpet design. “Now it has surfaced in a big way—to the tune of $2 billion.”



Indeed, $2 billion of the $2.5 billion damages award Apple is seeking come from its design patents; the other $500 million is attributable to Apple’s utility patents. “If Apple prevails, it could yield the largest U.S. patent infringement award of all time,” Carani said. The largest amount awarded to date for patent infringement is $1.67 billion, in a 2011 Eastern District of Texas case in which Abbott Laboratories Inc. was found to have infringed patents owned by Centocor Ortho Biotech Inc. (The verdict was later reversed on appeal.)



Samsung can do little about appealing such a large damage award if it loses the case, Carani said, because the design patent damages provision is codified in the statute. If Apple wins, however, Samsung, could benefit in another way. “If Apple prevails, Samsung may be in a position to assert its own huge design patents portfolio,” Carani said.



Until this case, design patents and their potential power rarely had a chance to rise to such prominence, notes Carani. But if Apple wins, he predicts more attention will be paid. “Companies will recognize that design patent rights can have teeth,” he said.

Top Patent Recipients (33% Semiconductor Companies)

Semiconductor companies are a major force in applying, receiving, and prosecuting patents. They have a long history of protecting their market shares through patents (Intel vs AMD in the early 90s) and increasing their revenues with patent royalties ( for many years about 10% of Sandisk revenues is from patent royalties).




Ron






6 out of 15 Top Patents in 2011 were Semiconductor Companies


http://analogsolutionsgaryfowler.blogspot.com/2012/07/6-out-of-15-top-patents-in-2011-were.html?m=1

For the first time in history the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office will open offices outside of the Washington, D.C. area. These new offices will be in areas that have a strong semiconductor presence (Dallas, Denver, and Silicon Valley).
It is exciting to see so many new patents being granted for our growing industry. However, the Patent and Trademark Office does have over 600,000 pending patent applications. It can take up to three years for the patents to be fully processed and approved. In our industry this can pose a definite challenge, as innovative ideas need to be implemented quickly for our ever evolving technology world