Samsung threatening to "destroy entire repair industry" with a patent on pixel patterns

[_Miew]

Summary

 Samsung is utilizing a patent on certain active matrix OLED display panels to request that aftermarket or refurbished replacement screens for their devices are barred from import through a general exclusion order. This, in turn, would mean the only possible way of replacing a broken screen on your phone is by buying from the official source or going to an official repairer. Causing phone repair of this nature to become financially nonviable on older devices.

 

Quotes

Quote

"Complainant seeks a general exclusion order barring importation of certain active matrix organic light-emitting diode display panels and modules that are used as replacement displays, and components thereof" -  Samsung request to the ITC

Quote

"The TLDR of this is: it seems what Samsung is looking to do is block people from being able to import aftermarket screens" - Louis Rossmann

Quote

"We are talking about parts that are very clearly branded as 'refurbished', 'aftermarket' or 'non-original'" - Louis Rossmann

Quote

"If you have a phone that you bought for a thousand bucks and after a few years it's worth only two hundred dollars in the used market it makes no sense for you to pay $250 to $300 for an OEM screen to a $200 phone" - Louis Rossmann

Quote

"They want to see the independent repair industry destroyed in my opinion, and if people don't push back against it... that might just happen" - Louis Rossmann

My thoughts

This will have a devastating effect on the ability for a user to repair their damaged devices - leading to more E-Waste, less money in your wallet and potentially the entire repair industry down the drain if other companies follow suit.        

 

Sources

Louis Rossmann Video
Samsung Request Document to the ITC
ITC Monthly Wrap Up

[Proud Cipher]

Samsung really wishes they were Apple, huh? Yikes.

[An0maly_76]

Keep it up, Samsung... My money will be going elsewhere for more than just phones. Crap like this is one reason I buy and recommend WD M.2s over those Samsung 9x0s everyone gushes over.

[porina]

If the screens do have some protected feature, it is well within their rights to prevent unlicensed copies from existing. However it should not block licensed copies (if they would even exist at all), or reuse of salvaged genuine parts. The last part was one of the worst of Apple's moves.

[An0maly_76]

36 minutes ago, porina said:

If the screens do have some protected feature, it is well within their rights to prevent unlicensed copies from existing.

Certainly, and consumers are well within their rights not to support monopolistic BS.

[_Miew]

28 minutes ago, porina said:

If the screens do have some protected feature, it is well within their rights to prevent unlicensed copies from existing.

Yes, unlicensed copies claiming to be original are not fair on anyone. But here they are also targeting aftermarket screen manufacturers who offer an alternative product designed to simply fit a given device at an affordable price. As stated in the video, it would be like a car manufacturer only allowing you to use their official brake pads even though your cars value is below the price they charge for their official part. If your cars value is now below the price of the replacement parts (which they have full control over) you are much more likely to just buy a new car instead (more profit for them).     

[Doobeedoo]

Really Apple of all finesses the way of right to repair not too surprising others doing something then. Maybe if this was properly regulated for all companies and repairs..

[mr moose]

I'm just going to add Samsung to the list of brands I will not be purchasing in the near future.  At this rate the products I'll be able to buy without feeling like I am slave to an evil corporation will be a CCP owned chinese device.

[Kisai]

2 hours ago, _Miew said:

Summary

 Samsung is utilizing a patent on certain active matrix OLED display panels to request that aftermarket or refurbished replacement screens for their devices are barred from import through a general exclusion order. This, in turn, would mean the only possible way of replacing a broken screen on your phone is by buying from the official source or going to an official repairer. Causing phone repair of this nature to become financially nonviable on older devices.

 

It's double-speak.

 

When company has a patent or trademark, they can claim imported products are counterfeit. EVEN if they were authorized products, they just were not authorized for YOU.

 

That said, I don't know why someone would replace a LCD panel with an inferior one, willingly. 

 

A lot of stuff you see on eBay, uses coded language to say they're counterfeit because it's illegal to sell counterfeit. So what they do is they strip off the branding of the product they are counterfeiting, but still rip off the marketing.

[jagdtigger]

10 minutes ago, Kisai said:

EVEN if they were authorized products

BS. Its either authorized or not. No flip-flopping based on liking and other BS excuses....

[Kisai]

1 hour ago, jagdtigger said:

BS. Its either authorized or not. No flip-flopping based on liking and other BS excuses....

Foreign companies routinely block the import of their OWN products into the US because of parallel import laws.

https://www.wipo.int/edocs/mdocs/sme/en/atrip_gva_99/atrip_gva_99_6.pdf

Quote

3. Parallel Imports and Continental Law Continental law follows a different philosophy in order to determine the limits of intellectual property rights. Instead of theoretically allowing the owner of such right to impose contractual conditions upon the sale of protected products, continental law rather assumes absolute limits of intellectual property rights that can be described as the principle of exhaustion. Unless otherwise stated in the law, the economic exploitation of intellectual property rights is limited to the act of first sale. Further contractual conditions would thus be null and void. Exhaustion is thereby assumed even without any particular mention in the law itself

 

Australia does not recognize Parallel Imports. You're allowed to buy foreign content and ship it to Australia, even if the domestic company who has license to it take issue with it. Or at least the last time I checked.

 

Anyway, actually read the document. https://pdfhost.io/v/POwuAEK21_lawsuit

 

Every single complaint, appears to be "replacement" iPhone 12 screens. 

 

 

Honestly I'm looking at this, and I think Samsung just went after all the drop shippers that mentioned "iPhone 12 screen", there's not a single complaint about Samsung Phones, only iPhone 12's. But this might just be selective targeting, as I'm sure if I go look at these sellers they have other screens.

 

page 104:

 

Samsung is within their right to claim these are counterfeit products, or patent infringing.

[Godlygamer23]

2 hours ago, Kisai said:

That said, I don't know why someone would replace a LCD panel with an inferior one, willingly. 

Depends on price and quality differences. I wouldn't be against it if the panel is slightly worse, but much cheaper. 

[Vishera]

I am pretty sure that such patterns are not copyrightable, just like knitting patterns are not copyrightable.

Circular 31 of the U.S. Copyright Office says copyright is not available for "procedures for doing, making or building things."

 

Also that move is an attempt to monopolize the trade, which is a violation of the Sherman Anti-Trust Act of 1890.

The question is if the US will enforce the law since they have been selectively enforcing their anti-trust laws since the 2001 court order to split Microsoft (The DOJ "privately settled" matters with Microsoft).

[TetraSky]

4 hours ago, An0maly_76 said:

My money will be going elsewhere for more than just phones.

To be fair, they aren't great in pretty much everything else either.

Their appliances? Fails quickly.

Their TV? Filled with "smart" BS with a low end CPU and spying shit that sends out ads.

 

Only things like their SSD is something I would recommend and even there...

 

So yeah, Samsung isn't earning itself good points here.

[porina]

3 hours ago, Vishera said:

I am pretty sure that such patterns are not copyrightable, just like knitting patterns are not copyrightable.

Copyright is totally separate from patents. There are also two types of patent, what I'd call invention and design patents. It'll take someone getting paid a lot more than me to sort that lot out.

[Lightwreather]

This is Samsung Displays right?

Because if so, this affects more than just Samsung devices…

[vertigo220]

8 hours ago, An0maly_76 said:

Crap like this is one reason I buy and recommend WD M.2s over those Samsung 9x0s everyone gushes over.

You should check out SK hynix if you haven't already. Great performance, best efficiency, and they're one of the makers of NAND itself, so you can expect good quality and reliability. I have two of their drives and they're great. And the best part is they're typically far cheaper than Samsung and especially WD, who tend to be the most expensive. Until they started releasing SSDs I always went Samsung, and SSDs were the only thing I'd buy from Samsung, but now, like you, I won't even buy them.

[_Miew]

8 hours ago, Kisai said:

That said, I don't know why someone would replace a LCD panel with an inferior one, willingly.

In my experience repairing phones for people in high school, it essentially comes down to finances. Many peoples devices fall below the value of the official parts. Many people simply can’t afford an official part while some of the clumsier ones get the cheapest screens cause they know they’ll be breaking it again anyway.

[Dracarris]

10 hours ago, _Miew said:

"If you have a phone that you bought for a thousand bucks and after a few years it's worth only two hundred dollars in the used market it makes no sense for you to pay $250 to $300 for an OEM screen to a $200 phone" - Louis Rossmann

Not really a clever move to buy a phone that loses value that quickly and drastically - yes there are phones which have much better value retention.

10 hours ago, _Miew said:

This will have a devastating effect on the ability for a user to repair their damaged devices - leading to more E-Waste, less money in your wallet and potentially the entire repair industry down the drain if other companies follow suit.        

As bad and annoying as this whole thing is: This conclusion/inference is pure click bait and sensationalism. There are many more things to repair than OLED screens and not even every screen type can be patented.

[Fasterthannothing]

10 hours ago, porina said:

If the screens do have some protected feature, it is well within their rights to prevent unlicensed copies from existing. However it should not block licensed copies (if they would even exist at all), or reuse of salvaged genuine parts. The last part was one of the worst of Apple's moves.

I remember many years ago when you could buy reject Samsung panels  they were sold under random brands but you could buy 2560x1440 panels for $200 back when those normally cost 4-500

[vertigo220]

2 hours ago, Dracarris said:

Not really a clever move to buy a phone that loses value that quickly and drastically - yes there are phones which have much better value retention.

Also not good to buy a phone just because it does retain value. That phone may not work as well for you, or if you plan to hold onto it for longer than a year or two, value retention doesn't really matter. And if you break it, it doesn't matter how much value it had, because it doesn't have that value anymore, and whether it's worth 50 or 500 in an unbroken state, that has no effect on what it will cost to repair or replace it.

[Jerakl]

14 hours ago, An0maly_76 said:

Keep it up, Samsung... My money will be going elsewhere for more than just phones. Crap like this is one reason I buy and recommend WD M.2s over those Samsung 9x0s everyone gushes over.

I've used Samsung ssds for a LONG time, but lately switched to wd and if they really wanna do what's in the Op post I can't see myself giving them money for like... anything. 

 

I don't buy their phones anyways so that's a non issue 

[Dracarris]

1 hour ago, vertigo220 said:

That phone may not work as well for you, or if you plan to hold onto it for longer than a year or two, value retention doesn't really matter.

Oh yes it does. There are enough phones that are worth selling even after 3+ years with decent and significant remaining value.

1 hour ago, vertigo220 said:

And if you break it, it doesn't matter how much value it had,

It absolutely does, as it determines whether getting a repair is economically viable, as stated in the quote from Louis Rossmann in the first post here.

[vertigo220]

7 minutes ago, Dracarris said:

Oh yes it does. There are enough phones that are worth selling even after 3+ years with decent and significant remaining value.

1 hour ago, vertigo220 said:

Also not good to buy a phone just because it does retain value. That phone may not work as well for you, or if you plan to hold onto it for longer than a year or two, value retention doesn't really matter. And if you break it, it doesn't matter how much value it had, because it doesn't have that value anymore, and whether it's worth 50 or 500 in an

unbroken state, that has no effect on what it will cost to repair or replace it.

 

9 minutes ago, Dracarris said:

It absolutely does, as it determines whether getting a repair is economically viable, as stated in the quote from Louis Rossmann in the first post here.

It certainly can play a role in that determination, but it doesn't make the determination. There are other factors to consider. But that's also not what I said. The bottom line is the value only matters if you plan to sell it or if it breaks. If you plan to hold onto it, and if you don't break it (and possibly even if you do), its value doesn't mean anything, whereas its usefulness means everything. So buying something based strictly on how it holds its value rather than buying something that may not hold value as well but works better for you or is simply more affordable would be the bad move. Unless you're talking stocks, you buy what you need, not what will sell for the most in a couple years, unless you just like to switch up every couple years, and even then it may not be the best move.

[An0maly_76]

  

4 hours ago, Dracarris said:

There are many more things to repair than OLED screens and not even every screen type can be patented.

 

Certainly, but I can tell you from experience that lots of repair shops are starting to turn down television jobs. I was turned away myself. Apparently, the complexity of these modern units makes them more difficult to diagnose, parts are expensive and repair bills are often more than replacement with an upgraded unit. And this is just one more thing to make this more common.

 

14 hours ago, _Miew said:

My thoughts

 

This will have a devastating effect on the ability for a user to repair their damaged devices - leading to more E-Waste, less money in your wallet and potentially the entire repair industry down the drain if other companies follow suit.

 

For the above reasons, I believe OP is right.