Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Patents The Courts Apple

Dutch Court Rejects Samsung Patent Claims Against Apple 148

Posted by samzenpus
from the we-don't-think-so dept.
angry tapir writes "A judge at the district court in the Hague has rejected claims that Samsung had made against Apple regarding four patents. Samsung wanted Apple to pay for licensing the patents in question, and the court to issue an injunction banning the import and sale of Apple's iPhone 3GS, iPhone 4, iPad, iPad 2, as well as upcoming products, until licensing terms are in place. But the latter won't happen at this point. The ruling came in the in the same week that an Australian court blocked sales of Samsung's Galaxy Tab 10.1."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Dutch Court Rejects Samsung Patent Claims Against Apple

Comments Filter:
  • FRAND process (Score:3, Interesting)

    by msobkow (48369) on Monday October 17, 2011 @05:23AM (#37736630) Homepage Journal

    The judge says Samsung didn't go through FRAND negotiations properly. I'm confused by this. Isn't it Apple that refused to negotiate? If so, it would seem Samsung has done their part to come to an agreement, rendering the judgement invalid.

    There doesn't appear to be any question of whether Apple infringed the patents or not -- the article clarifies that the patents are for essential technology, which means you can't actually build such devices without infringing the patent.

    • Re:FRAND process (Score:5, Informative)

      by beelsebob (529313) on Monday October 17, 2011 @05:34AM (#37736660)

      No, Apple negotiated, and indeed owns a license for the 3G RAND patent pool. Samsung's patent that they're now saying apple doesn't have a license for is required to implement 3G, because of this, they were legally obliged to put it into the patent pool. That's where they failed at negotiating –they didn't disclose the existence of the patent, and tried to submarine the whole 3G standard.

      • by msobkow (48369)

        Have you got a reference link confirming that? I've never heard that claim before and want to read up on it.

      • Re:FRAND process (Score:4, Informative)

        by JAlexoi (1085785) on Monday October 17, 2011 @06:54AM (#37736936) Homepage
        FRAND != patent pool. Those are totally different things.
        Since 3G patents aren't actually in a pool, Apple owns no such thing. Remember the issue with Nokia? Same thing.
        • Re:FRAND process (Score:4, Informative)

          by msobkow (48369) on Monday October 17, 2011 @07:12AM (#37737016) Homepage Journal

          From the article:

          The patents are standards-essential, which means they are incorporated in internationally accepted technology standards -- in this case 3G. Standards-essential patents are licensed under so-called Fair, Reasonable, and Non-discriminatory (FRAND) terms, which is what Samsung has to offer Apple.

          Not that it means the article or the judge were necessarily using the right terminology.

          • by chrb (1083577)
            Your quote doesn't say anything about a patent pool. There is no single patent pool that you can license that covers the 3G FRAND patents. You have to go to each patent holder individually and arrange a license agreement that covers their FRAND patents. From TFA it appears the judge has found that Samsung's patents should be covered by the FRAND agreement, and has sent them back to the negotiating table. This means that Apple still needs to get a license for those patents. This puts Apple in basically the s
            • by msobkow (48369)

              Actually I expect to see a patent licensing exchange with little or no money changing hands. Don't forget Apple is suing Samsung, too. In the end, the whole thing will probably be settled out of court after they're done their patent-waving contest.

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by Anonymous Coward

        What stinks here is regardless of FRAND and negotiations is that one company can get another's products banned based on something utterly arbitrary and which took no amount of effort or imagination to produce (the concept of a rectangle with rounded corners) but that when that company tries to strike back using patents based on actual real solid research that cost real money to come up with and produce in the first place they're told they don't have a case.

        There's something very wtf about that, Samsung's pa

        • I do wonder why Apple aren't going after any of the other tablet manufacturers such as Sony, Motorolla, and even Amazon. Why only Samsung, a business partner of theirs?

          Could it be that it's not just about rounded edges?

          • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

            by Anonymous Coward

            I see this as because Apple, despite catching all the flack from people here and other places, isn't actually doing the evil people are painting it to be. They are going after Samsung directly becuase Samsung had access to exact specifications of the ipad and iphone ( since they were making a considerable number of their parts ) and were a very close business partner. Samsung basically stabbed them in the back. RIM, Dell, HP, Amazon, Sony, Motorola are all companies that genuinely made their own products th

            • Maybe Samsung are just great artists.

            • by Nadaka (224565)

              Then why is the galaxy tab such a different aspect ratio if they intended to copy it to "exact specifications"?

            • by unity100 (970058)
              its because samsung's tablets started to outsell and eclipse ipads in europe.
            • by Genda (560240)

              I doubt this is so, not because it doesn't make sense, on a person to person level. I could totally see this between people. On a corporation to corporation level, the game is a lot colder and a lot more aggressive. I would guess that Apple acted because Samsung actually had a cool product that might actually garner some interest and then market share. They learned from their competition with Android phones, that the way to stay ahead is to nip their competition in the bud, kill their momentum, keep coming

        • Italy makes lots of designer stuff. Stuff of same or lower value than competing products, but sold solely because how it looks. So it is important for the EU to protect designs.

          EU does not recognize software patents.

          BTW: Multitouch is a patent that Apple holds. So just prevent all competition from recognizing more than 1 finger would kill the competition.

          Samsung is a company that had inside knowledge, producing to Apple, which is why they are in front of the competition.

        • by chrb (1083577)
          If the wireless patents are essential then they should be covered by the FRAND terms of the 3G standardisation process. In contrast, Apple's patents are "design patents [wikipedia.org]" - a special type of patent that covers the form and appearance of items. These are two very different types of patents, covered by different contractual terms, and so they will get treated differently by the courts. In terms of the design patent, the Samsung photo frame [androidauthority.com] predates the iPad design patent and has a strikingly similar form, thou
        • by ceoyoyo (59147)

          Slashdot keeps parroting this rounded rectangle thing. Samsung copied a little more than that, right down to putting some of Apple's app icons on some of their marketing. Note also that there are quite a few OTHER rounded rectangles that are NOT being sued by Apple.

          Maybe Apple's design patents aren't fair, but repeating this rounded rectangle hyperbole isn't adding anything useful to the debate.

          • Maybe Apple's design patents aren't fair, but repeating this rounded rectangle hyperbole isn't adding anything useful to the debate.

            Then maybe Apple shouldn't have filed a lawsuit arguing in significant part that they have a design patent on rounded rectangles? Or are you arguing that people shouldn't be allowed to criticize them for that? Or that people shouldn't criticize the legal system for allowing injunctions based on patents like that, which are of dubious validity, while denying them for almost certainly valid patents on actual technology?

            This concept that 'your patents are FRAND so you can't get an injunction' is of a highly qu

            • by ceoyoyo (59147)

              "Then maybe Apple shouldn't have filed a lawsuit arguing in significant part"

              Ah, weasel words. Aren't they great?

              Here's a breakdown of Apple's complaint: http://thisismynext.com/2011/04/19/apple-sues-samsung-analysis/ [thisismynext.com]

              Note the first list:

              Hardware and software trade dress claims

              a rectangular product shape with all four corners uniformly rounded;
              the front surface of the product dominated by a screen surface with black borders;
              as to the iPhone and iPod touch products, substantial black borders above and below

              • Yes, a rounded rectangle is in there as one item.

                You say that as though the other items are any different. It's black? It has a screen and the borders are symmetrical? Really?

                They're complaining that Samsung is making devices that so closely mimic Apple's that the two are difficult to tell apart (something even Samsung's lawyers have trouble doing, apparently), for all the reasons listed.

                Except the question isn't whether Samsung's lawyers can tell them apart from across the courtroom when they aren't shown the trademark on it (you know, the thing that actually identifies it to the customer). The question is, when a customer goes to the store looking to spend hundreds of dollars on a device, whether they'll be confused into buying the Samsung device thinking it's an A

                • by ceoyoyo (59147)

                  Individually most of the claims are ridiculous. All together it's unlikely Samsung would infringe on all of them without blatant and willful imitation. You know those cheap knockoffs that every brand name manufacturer in the world fights? Samsung has apparently decided they want to be one of those knockoff manufacturers.

                  No, I did not say that. I said that if you want to freely exploit your invention however you see fit, you should not lobby for it to be included in a standard. If you DO push it into a

                  • All together it's unlikely Samsung would infringe on all of them without blatant and willful imitation.

                    Maybe if the list was full of arbitrary stuff that had nothing to do with the function of the product and was only used to brand it, but that isn't the case. Making the front of it black is fashionable; people like it. It isn't because people think it's an iPad, it's because black is the new black. Having symmetrical borders is completely functional: The thing has got a touch screen and you have got to be able to pick it up without inadvertently pressing anything, and the width necessary to do that is the s

                    • by ceoyoyo (59147)

                      Maybe if the list was full of arbitrary stuff that had nothing to do with the function of the product and was only used to brand it, but that isn't the case. Making the front of it black is fashionable; people like it. It isn't because people think it's an iPad, it's because black is the new black. Having symmetrical borders is completely functional: The thing has got a touch screen and you have got to be able to pick it up without inadvertently pressing anything, and the width necessary to do that is the s

                    • I'd agree with you if Apple were suing EVERYONE who makes black rectangles, but they're not.

                      But they wouldn't anyway. Samsung's aim is to make a product that feels familiar to Apple's customers. There is a significant difference between confusion and familiarity -- you can be quite aware that something is made by a different manufacturer and yet buy it because you know that when you intentionally switch, you don't have to learn an entirely new set of icons and interface conventions. That's not trademark infringement, it's competition.

                      Naturally Apple would like nothing more than to prevent that. Bu

                    • by ceoyoyo (59147)

                      "The problem is it isn't at all clear that Apple has any right to do that. They're arguing consumer confusion. But nobody is going to the store and buying a Galaxy Tab thinking it's an iPad. Just making something similar is not illegal, it's the basis of the free market -- Apple has to have a valid and infringed monopoly right in order to prevent competition. And it isn't clear that they do."

                      They've managed to convince a few judges (you know, actual legal experts) that not only are Samsung's products probab

                    • They've managed to convince a few judges (you know, actual legal experts) that not only are Samsung's products probably infringing, but they certainly have a right to complain about it.

                      You're conflating what it takes to get a preliminary injunction with who will win on the merits.

                      Plaintiffs tend to win preliminary injunctions because they happen early in the process: The plaintiff can take as long as they like to get all their ducks in a row and do all their research before they file the lawsuit, then the defendant has a short period of time to defend against the motion for an injunction (which comes almost right away), which gives the plaintiff a large advantage at that stage because the

        • by MrDoh! (71235)

          Once again, Samsung need to watch TV to show this amazing rectangle with rounded edges;

          https://plus.google.com/u/0/100241261662852079434/posts/En6cqNeQqDJ [google.com]

          air date of that show, april 2003.

          Well, if not Samsung, at least their lawyers arguing all this, as the amount of prior art for that shape is just crazy. Not that 'tablets before ipad/tablets after' pic, but there's a huge amount of prior art that the iPad closely copies.

        • by Genda (560240)

          For the Love of Peat... So put little circular pads at the corners with extra buttons for navigation or menu control or whatever the hell, just so its obviously not an iPad clone, still looks cool, and has simple added features which could be made to make common tasks even simpler.

          There are other product designers out there who can envision a simple, elegant and beautiful product. COMPETE!

          We are seriously in danger of losing our capacity to invent. I think its the Wilipediafication of our school children. A

          • Innovation is great. But there is an expression: Don't reinvent the wheel. You want the innovative thing to be not only different, but better. Change for the sake of change is a waste of effort.

            So now I hear you say that people should make innovations for the better. But they do. They make incremental improvements -- because that's how it works. Once you have a wheel, well, you can prove by math that "round" is the best shape. You can make one that is a spherical rather than cylindrical, but unless that is

        • They really do. When I read about Samsung's lawyers not being able to distinguish between their own device and apple's, I thought that Samsung deserved to fail in court. This particular battle between apple and samsung is about as evil and bad for the market as it gets, but apple seems to have done their homework, although I am surprised at how pro-apple the law is.

      • by chrb (1083577)
        Except there is no such thing as "a license for the 3G RAND patent pool". Engadget had a patent lawyer write an understandable article on the situation [engadget.com] in 2009. Because of patent cross-licensing, and the fact that there is no independent examination of potential FRAND patents during the standardisation process, the result is that a) nobody really knows which patents are (or should be) considered FRAND, and b) there is no "fixed price" for licensing FRAND patents. "In reality FRAND is nebulous and undefined,
    • I don't believe he rejected any patents. He only rejected the idea that Apple should be sued by Samsung for the patents in question, rather they should have been negotiating according to their rules.

      This doesn't mean Apple gets out from under the suit. It just means more delays. It is likely that Samsung is learning well.

      My opinion to date is that Samsung is inept at pursuing their claims. Surely Samsung can get some better lawyers to deal with these issues.

      My prediction is that Google will begin suing

  • by aaaaaaargh! (1150173) on Monday October 17, 2011 @05:37AM (#37736674)

    That's really a pitty---what an injustice! I think that all alleged patent violations should lead to an immediate stop of sales. Moreover, to serve justice, patent laws must be adjusted such that all patent violations have to be investigated and punished, no matter whether the patent holder wants to or not. For the sake of innovation and the protection of "intellectual property rights" all companies that violate any patent must pay hefty fines in the range of millions or billions!

    • by Pieroxy (222434)

      The patent system is hopeless, at least when it comes to software and technology. It is based under the premise that whatever you might invent yourself, in your garage, may not be yours to sell. But you don't know.

      This cannot be fixed as it is the basis of the patent system.

      The patent system is just nuts and should be abolished entirely.

    • by msobkow (48369)

      Oh, yes, I could see how that would be good for business -- block every product from being marketed based on the unproven allegations of a patent holder or troll without any proof whatsoever.

      Maybe you'd like to see everyone held in jail until their court case is heard instead of allowing bail hearings, too?

  • spreading ... (Score:3, Informative)

    by TESTNOK (2476330) on Monday October 17, 2011 @05:44AM (#37736696)
    Samsung is not backing down because of that Australian ruling: here's [businessweek.com] an article that they have now also filed suite against the iPhone 4s in Australia and Japan (following existing cases in France and Italy)
    • by beelsebob (529313)

      Unfortunately for them – those suits rely on the exact same patents the dutch ruling was about, given that one court has already said Samsung is the one in the wrong, it's not likely to help them.

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by Zironic (1112127)

        As a rule national courts do not care much about what other national courts rule.

        • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

          by beelsebob (529313)

          No, but as a rule, they all apply logic and reason, and generally reach the same conclusions because of that.

          • by Zironic (1112127)

            Well, I haven't read the actual court decision (is it available anywhere?) though I know in general it's often a coin toss what the decision will be in high profile court cases.

            This is because often certain terms might be lacking a strict definition (FRAND for instance is never defined, so it's up to the court itself to decide if something is FRAND or not) and even when things are defined, it can be hard to establish whether it applies to the particular situation or not.

            While I might change my mind after re

          • by Rhaban (987410)

            No, but as a rule, they all apply logic and reason, and generally reach the same conclusions because of that.

            Logic and reason? In a court? In what universe?

          • I see what you did there, nice sarcasm.
      • by TESTNOK (2476330)
        Hm, as I understand it, Samsung asked for a sales ban because Apple has to pay licensing fees, and the ruling says "no sales ban until you negotiate more (the FRAND business)". That would suggest that if negotiations happen but fall through, a sales ban could still be in consideration. Or do I miss something?
        • by gl4ss (559668)

          well, yes, but how do you conclude that negotiations have ended? you don't.

          samsung should use the same thing against apple to get tab bans lifted, saying that they'd be willing to negotiate for the right to sell a rectangle..

          • by peted56 (1842988)
            As ever it seems that apple can stop the sale of someone else's product while they fail to negotiate but other companies do not get the same deal, seems a bit cock eyed to me.
            • by gabebear (251933)
              Samsung is claiming to own an international telecommunications standard(and they might)... Samsung could take every 3G capable piece of equipment off the market if this was allowed which is why patent's covering this technology are by law required to be fairly licensed to everyone.
              • by Tomato42 (2416694)
                There's a difference between non obvious (as most 3G patents would be) and bloody obvious (as any geometrical shape is).

                I'd suggest the judges to measure all people (and companies) using the same rule.
                • There is a difference between a design patent and a function patent. After all, do you think courts should let Toyota copy the VW Beetle design and sell it as the Bug?
          • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

            by gnasher719 (869701)

            samsung should use the same thing against apple to get tab bans lifted, saying that they'd be willing to negotiate for the right to sell a rectangle..

            The design case is not about "a rectangle". Apple's design patent is for a long list of design choices, and you need to copy them _all_ to get a tablet that looks like an iPad, and you need to copy them _all_ to get a tablet that Apple can sue you for successfully. If you look at many of Samsung's competitors, they had no problem at all creating tablets with rectangular screens and rounded corners where Apple doesn't have a chance in hell to sue successfully. These companies will also not be able to make cu

            • The design case is not about "a rectangle".

              Assuming that the design patent that I saw is the one that Apple accused Samsung of infringing (it was linked to on Slashdot, so that's a big assumption, I know), it really was just a rectangle with rounded corners and a screen.

              After a quick Google search, I found this one - http://www.scribd.com/doc/61944044/Community-Design-000181607-0001 [scribd.com]. Of course, that's from Troll-of-the-Century Florian, so keep the grains of salt handy.

              • Assuming that the design patent that I saw is the one that Apple accused Samsung of infringing (it was linked to on Slashdot, so that's a big assumption, I know), it really was just a rectangle with rounded corners and a screen.

                The main thing is that many slashdotters think Apple is claiming that they are the originators of the rectangular with rounded corners. What Apple is saying is that it is part of their design as one aspect. There are other aspects which Apple complained about. The icon placement is another. Again slashdotters will say that icon placement is necessary for a touch based phone which misses the point. Apple is complaining that Samsung copied that aspect of the iPhone (4 x 4 grid and 4 in the launch bar).

        • Hm, as I understand it, Samsung asked for a sales ban because Apple has to pay licensing fees, and the ruling says "no sales ban until you negotiate more (the FRAND business)". That would suggest that if negotiations happen but fall through, a sales ban could still be in consideration. Or do I miss something?

          That's in principle it. Why the negotiations fell through would make a difference. If Samsung asked for $500 per iPhone and Apple refuses, or if Apple offered $500 for _all_ iPhones and Samsung refuses, that would make a difference. Or hypothetically, if Apple offers $X and Samsung demands $2X, Apple might offer to pay $X now and put another $X plus interest into escrow and let a court decide how much should be paid; that could make it hard for Samsung to get a sales ban.

      • by Kartu (1490911)

        Exact same patent ("community design" of rectangle with rounded corners, no I'm not joking) that have not worked in Netherlands worked wonders in Germany.

  • by andydread (758754) on Monday October 17, 2011 @06:41AM (#37736884)

    The real story here is that Apple and Microsoft are on a coordinated campaign to own all your code.

    The notion that you cannot sit down in front of your computer and write code without needing a massive legal department to go up against the likes of Apple and Microsoft as they come to either ban products based on your code or demand a license from vendors based on your code is chilling to say the least

    These companies rose on the backs of others. These companies became successful using ideas of others and writing lots of code that was unchallenged by patents for decades. Now they want to use software-patents to raise the barrier of entry so high that even Samsung is having trouble in the marketplace

    The companies are also on a mission to use software-patents to make the use of open source software more expensive than their own.

    The fact these companies are using the legal system against open source and free software shows that they can no longer compete in the marketplace based on the merits of their own products.

    The sad thing here is that they will win and open source will lose and they will become the gatekeepers to all development in the future. The days of free software innovation are coming to an end.

    • The real story here is that Apple and Microsoft are on a coordinated campaign to own all your code.

      I cannot quite see how you come from a story about Samsung wanting a ban of iPhone sales because of an alleged patent infringement by Apple, to the conclusion that Apple (and Microsoft) wants to "own all your code". Can you give an example where Apple has tried to gain ownership over someone else's code?

      • by andydread (758754) on Monday October 17, 2011 @07:10AM (#37737002)

        Sure. Software-patent on swipe to unlock. They sued Samsung in the Netherlands over this., software patent on scroll bouncing and other effects. Effects that have been around for decades. Software-patent on "a picture viewer that displays thumbnails and when clicked displays the picture in an image viewer" They got an injunction against Samsung in the Netherlands for this. I could go on and on and on but that should be enough.

        Now let me break it down for you ok? Software is already protected by copyright. That means that if I write a feature and you write a feature and the features are similar they are protected by copyright. If I copy your code then that is a violation. however if I file a software-patent on what my code does and your code though completely different from mine solves the problem in a similar way then I can then claim ownership of your code by suing the shit out of you until you 1) pay me a license to use/distribute your totally different code or 2) you remove your code from the marketplace. get it?

        • by joh (27088) on Monday October 17, 2011 @08:09AM (#37737276)

          Sure. Software-patent on swipe to unlock. They sued Samsung in the Netherlands over this., software patent on scroll bouncing and other effects. Effects that have been around for decades.

          Have these really been around for decades? I mean, it looks totally obvious when you see it (which is the point of implementing it this way) but very often what looks totally obvious and the only right way to do it with hindsight is everything else than obvious before that. And if you work hard to come up with great and totally intuitive ways of doing something you're not happy if others just copy it without any effort spent on it. Without protecting it in some way everybody could just copy it and nobody would ever bother to put much effort into coming up with own solutions. You'd get mediocre half-assed solutions all over the place.

          Well, maybe this is wrong. But evidence seems to support that view. If you look at copies and ripoffs from China and elsewhere how often do you see products where someone intelligently and carefully picked the best ideas from the products he has stolen from? He should be able to afford this, or not? He doesn't has to pay licenses and can freely chose whatever he wants to copy. But what you invariably see is just badly ripping off from the currently best selling products, nothing else. Small wonder: it's much cheaper, it takes much less effort and it's much faster -- and if there is no protection, being on the market a few weeks earlier than others is imperative.

          No, I think we've taken a long time to get us into that mess and we will have to take a long time and careful measures to get out of it again.

          • by Solandri (704621)

            Sure. Software-patent on swipe to unlock. They sued Samsung in the Netherlands over this., software patent on scroll bouncing and other effects. Effects that have been around for decades.

            Have these really been around for decades? I mean, it looks totally obvious when you see it (which is the point of implementing it this way) but very often what looks totally obvious and the only right way to do it with hindsight is everything else than obvious before that.

            The bouncing effects are based on cartoon effects

            • All software are based on Turing machines which have been around since at least the 1940s. The Turing machines are based on pen and paper which have been around for ~2000 years.

              I mean, a lot of people have been writing with pen and paper for centuries. If there was a non-obvious part to this, it was the concept of letting a machine do its thing. Once you think of that all "innovations" in computing are just obvious.

              No wonder some idiot commissioner of the patent office once (allegedly) said "Everything that

          • by houghi (78078)

            but very often what looks totally obvious and the only right way to do it with hindsight is everything else than obvious before that.

            I agree. Imagine that the wheel had not yet been invented yet. Now it is something obvious, before that it wasn't.

            I am just not sure that the invention of the would would be something that I would want to have somebody able to trademark, copyright, patent or limit its use in any way.

    • by JAlexoi (1085785)
      Do you think that it's only Apple and Microsoft? There are lots of big companies with the same idea.
      Yet fanboys and companies themselves cry bloody murder, when their favourite company gets sued by a patent troll using the same "infrastructure" that the big players spend billions to maintain and enlarge...
    • by gabebear (251933)
      Make sure you include Google and IBM in your list of opponents to free software.

      In reality, this legal crap between Apple and Sumsung is how progress is made. What's awesome about the Samsung/Apple cases are they AREN'T SETTLING! Out of court settlements don't move law forward.
      • by oakgrove (845019)
        At what time and against whom has Google used a single patent offensively? Should they just allow themselves to remain defenseless against the Apple MS Oracle et al onslaught? Yeah right.
    • The real story here is that Apple and Microsoft are on a coordinated campaign to own all your code.

      The notion that you cannot sit down in front of your computer and write code without needing a massive legal department to go up against the likes of Apple and Microsoft as they come to either ban products based on your code or demand a license from vendors based on your code is chilling to say the least

      These companies rose on the backs of others. These companies became successful using ideas of others and writing lots of code that was unchallenged by patents for decades. Now they want to use software-patents to raise the barrier of entry so high that even Samsung is having trouble in the marketplace

      You're absolutely right with the first part but it is idiotic to assume that it's only MS or Apple or that anyone else in their position would do anything different. The patent system needs an overhaul, but just replacing one company with another wouldn't change a bit. They *can't* act different. It's not a point of "evil companies" at all. They are just doing what they must do in the position they're in.

      Additionally it's very questionable to assume that without patents and copyright and trademarks and so o

      • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

        by andydread (758754)

        You're absolutely right with the first part but it is idiotic to assume that it's only MS or Apple

        I did not say nor did I assume that they are the only ones running this campaign. They however are running a concerted anti-competitive campaign against open source software and even Microsoft has said that they will do this if they start to lose footing in the marketplace against open source software. They promised this years ago. And even without the honorable mention by Microsoft it is still transparently obvious what they are doing. And well if the big players are OKing this type of software-paten

      • by devent (1627873)

        Isn't it "evil" if a company lobby congress (or other law makers in other countries) to implement software patents? Is that then the same that "they can't act different"?

        Or is the congress (or other politicians) the evil ones, who listen to such selfish lobbying?

        I think both are to blame and both are "evil". And the people are too lazy or to stupid and let it happened. I'm really exciting to see Occupy Wall Street and similar protests in Greece and Italy. Because that is the only way to change things.

  • by JAlexoi (1085785) on Monday October 17, 2011 @07:03AM (#37736970) Homepage
    I hate to say it, but this time I have to agree with Florian Mueller... This decision, on it's own, is a win for the industry. Simply because it reaffirms the fact that you can't use FRAND'ed patents for an injunction.
    • +1 for not blinding bashing Apple or Microsoft which seems to be the norm around here.
    • Re: (Score:2, Redundant)

      by Nemyst (1383049)

      On the flip side, the "sane" resolution would be for Apple's design patents to be nulled. While I agree with the judge here, I hate the fact it gives Apple reason to keep bullying because it's working. You should never be able to disrupt competition through such tenuous accusations (not even condemnations, mere accusations are enough!).

  • Samsung don't have a case, and never had one... They're just gaining time to establish a dominant position on the Android side. They will eventually bend over, and they know it.

    For those FRAND patents, it's said they asked 2.4% on each iPhone sold, and for each one of their 13 patents... That was a stupid move, it will backfire big time...

    Apple just nailed it by offering a license on their low-level patents, showing who's the sensible party here...

Luck, that's when preparation and opportunity meet. -- P.E. Trudeau

Working...