Samsung Sues LG Display for Lacking Innovation
Pair have lengthy history in court battles.
Samsung has filed a lawsuit against LG Display accusing that the latter's OLED displays lack innovation.
According to the Yonhap News agency, the suit was filed with an intellectual property tribunal in Korea, which aims to invalidate seven LG patents due to the fact that they "lack innovation".
The ongoing legal dispute between the two technology firms has been well documented. Back in September, LG Display filed a suit against Samsung alleging that it violated seven organic light-emitting diode patents. The company stressed that the conglomerate violated the design of its OLED panels, driver circuitry and device design.
LG asked the court for an unspecified amount in damages and a permanent injunction of five infringing products, including Samsung's best-selling Galaxy S3 smartphone, its Galaxy Tab 7.7 tablet and the Galaxy Note phablet.
During the summer, 11 current and former Samsung Mobile employees stemming from Samsung Mobile were arrested as they were found guilty in stealing and leaking details to LG about a Samsung AMOLED TV. Six of LG's own workers, however, were involved in the theft of Samsung's OLED technology back in 2011 and 2010.
The two Korean firms compete with each other through the AMOLED (active-matrix organic light-emitting diode) display market. These displays provide thinner, brighter and lighter screens than the usual LCD displays.
Samsung's display panel division experienced a return to profitability during the last quarter with operating profit equaling $1 billion, representing a 19 percent increase over the same period last year.

Samsung is trying to say that the patents LG has are invalid, because the patents were not innovative. Samsung believes the patents should never have been given, because they brought nothing new that wasinnovative.
It beaks down to this...
I cant patent taking a step where you start with your right foot, becasue its too basic to walking. The patent of taking a first step with your right foot is not innovative.
Samsung is trying to say that the patents LG has are invalid, because the patents were not innovative. Samsung believes the patents should never have been given, because they brought nothing new that wasinnovative.
It beaks down to this...
I cant patent taking a step where you start with your right foot, becasue its too basic to walking. The patent of taking a first step with your right foot is not innovative.
Samsung is suing to get rid of LG's patents because they lack innovation. You can't patent something that already exists. A patent is supposed to be for a new, unique product.
When can we start!!!
The entire patent system is a sick joke for the software/hardware business.
Sorry, you're wrong. There are countless patents for hammers and light bulbs. If you invent a better hammer, you're allowed to patent it, as long as it's different from existing hammers.
Another complaint people try to use to invalidate a patent is saying it's obvious. Obvious to who? All good ideas are obvious AFTER you've seen it. That's why people go "why didn't I think of that?" when they some new idea.
An article that doesn't even involve Apple yet some loser tries to bring them into the argument anyway. And even using the term "iCrapple" with the properly capitalized C. What are you, 12?
On the flip side, how do you identify innovation for software or hardware? What do you do when companies (such as Rambus) sit on their patents for more than a decade and never attempt to use it other than setting up a minefield for other companies? What do you do if someone patented your design, YEARS after you were the first one to build it, and got sued?
LMAO...what are you, the forum police?
iCrapple (see what I did there...????) has 1,000's of patents for things that DID already exist before they even filed, but yet those patents were approved anyway (we really need to check the approver's house to see how much new stuff he has from them). This would be a way to void those (yes) CLEARLY obvious "ideas", and already in-use tech.
Patents are supposed to be used for something that doesn't already exist so the creator/inventor can reap the reward for invention. Not used for something that's already in use - JUST to prevent others from using it.
It DOES relate to the story.
Apple is not even mentioned in this article, and I was just waiting for the first anti-apple message in the comments. Congrats
iHaters are a trolling bunch. It has become a running joke within TH, no harm done
I don't think it's a joke. I think people are really cursing at their computer screens about how much they hate apple. It's sickening.
Then its truly sad. Apple is a great American company and they have a right to hate on Apple if they must. Personally I prefer to buy from American company than always from foreign companies since that was a trend during the 80s-90s. Glad to see USA firmly back in the consumer electronics industry!!!