Samsung seeks to buy Corephotonics, firm suing Apple over iPhone camera tech

Samsung is reportedly nearing a deal to acquire Israeli firm Corephotonics, a firm specializing in smartphone camera technology that's currently embroiled in a legal battle with Apple.

The deal could be worth $150 million to $160 million, according to Israel's Globes. Samsung Ventures is already a key investor in Corephotonics, alongside other parties such as MediaTek and Apple assembly partner Foxconn.

Corephotonics has lodged multiple lawsuits against Apple, claiming that the dual-lens camera systems in the iPhone 7 Plus, 8 Plus, and iPhone X infringe on patented concepts. Specifically these cover dual-aperture, fixed focal length systems that enable expanded zoom, along with supporting software algorithms.

Apple executives and engineers allegedly met with Corephotonics staff as far back as 2012, reviewing the company's intellectual property at the time. In the following months Apple allegedly sent various hardware and software teams to Corephotonics' headquarters in Tel Aviv to examine prototype components and learn about optical processing methods, as well as to discuss partnership opportunities.

In June 2014 Apple expressed interest in licensing Corephotonics' algorithms and set up a meeting to discuss a business deal, according to filings. Following that, Apple requested access to a prototype telephoto lens, suggesting the companies could collaborate on hardware design.

Negotiations were halted in August 2014, though technical discussions continued between Apple and Corephotonics engineering teams for a few weeks. The communication lull continued until 2016, when Corephotonics reached out to a "high level hardware executive" offering to discuss collaboration on future smartphone projects.

Following yet another meeting, Apple again expressed interest in formalizing a business agreement and requested information regarding IP licensing. That was in August 2016, one month prior to the debut of the iPhone 7 Plus. By October, negotiations had again cooled and two subsequent meetings relating to potential licensing agreements bore no fruit.

20 Comments

SpamSandwich 19 Years · 32917 comments

About 5 years ago

Y’know... Apple could easily buy up these little troublesome companies and avoid getting cornered by Samsung idiots.

coolfactor 20 Years · 2341 comments

I think the patent system is flawed.

Person A comes up with an idea, and patents it.
Person B comes up with the same idea, with no knowledge of Person A or their work.
Person B now owes money to Person A for that same idea.

Maybe I'm oversimplifying it, but that seems flawed to me. There should be some way to allow ideas to be fully owned by their creators without a first-come-first-served model. Yet the patent industry positions the above as "stealing", which it isn't.

melgross 20 Years · 33622 comments

SpamSandwich said:

Y’know... Apple could easily buy up these little troublesome companies and avoid getting cornered by Samsung idiots.

I don’t get it. $150 million, if that’s the right number, is pocket change to Apple. They seem constitutionally unable to do that. They buy small companies they don’t have issues with. It’s the companies they do have issues with that they should be buying.

coolfactor said:

I think the patent system is flawed.

Person A comes up with an idea, and patents it.
Person B comes up with the same idea, with no knowledge of Person A or their work.
Person B now owes money to Person A for that same idea.

Maybe I'm oversimplifying it, but that seems flawed to me. There should be some way to allow ideas to be fully owned by their creators without a first-come-first-served model. Yet the patent industry positions the above as "stealing", which it isn't.

You can’t patent an idea. You can only patent the expression of an idea as embodied in either a process, or a mechanical or electronic product. Software are processes, as are chemical processes, as examples.

The flaw in your reasoning is that all patents are available for review. You hire a patent attorney specializing in the area of your invention, who checks to see whether something very similar has already been patented, or is in the process. If you don’t do this, then it’s entirely your fault. Occasionally, a patent is missed in the review process. It happens as nothing is perfect.

it is stealing. What you want won’t work. How many people can look up a patent, and with your reasoning, take it as their own, while claiming they came up with it too? It’s not “the patent industry”. It’s the Constitution.

Soli 9 Years · 9981 comments

SpamSandwich said:

Y’know... Apple could easily buy up these little troublesome companies and avoid getting cornered by Samsung idiots.

melgross said:

SpamSandwich said:

Y’know... Apple could easily buy up these little troublesome companies and avoid getting cornered by Samsung idiots.

I don’t get it. $150 million, if that’s the right number, is pocket change to Apple. They seem constitutionally unable to do that. They buy small companies they don’t have issues with. It’s the companies they do have issues with that they should be buying.

At $150M a pop you two really think that it makes business sense for Apple to "buy up these little troublesome companies" when anyone has a patent issue against the company? I can't even fathom how you two think that makes business sense.PS: Were either or you for Apple making the hugely successful Beats acquisition?