Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Networking Iphone Patents The Courts Wireless Networking Apple

Samsung Expected To Sue Apple Over iPhone 5 LTE Networking 283

Posted by timothy
from the knock-down-drag-out dept.
An anonymous reader writes with this excerpt from Geek.com: "The courtroom battle between Apple and Samsung seems to be far from over, and come tomorrow Apple is in for a major headache as soon as it makes the iPhone 5 official. That's because Samsung is poised to sue the company over patents it owns relating to LTE connectivity the new smartphone is expected to use. All Samsung needs to confirm is that the iPhone 5 is shipping with 4G LTE and it can then apparently set its lawyers into action. As is typical with these patent lawsuits, Samsung will most likely seek an import ban meaning the iPhone 5 may not be able to leave its manufacturing plants and make it to the U.S. to fulfill pre-orders. If such a thing ruling was made, Apple would most likely do a deal that meant it no longer pursued Samsung product bans, and might even forget about that billion dollar payout." Samsung's not the only one hoping to gain some leverage: itwbennett writes, "Apple's iPhone 5 and iPad 3 may violate a pair of patents bought by HTC back in April 2011 that cover methods used in 4G devices for faster downloads. International Trade Commission judge Thomas Pender said it would take 'clear and convincing' evidence to renounce the U.S. patents."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Samsung Expected To Sue Apple Over iPhone 5 LTE Networking

Comments Filter:
  • by Sydin (2598829) on Tuesday September 11, 2012 @11:30AM (#41301285)
    With any luck, this tangled web of patent wars will go on for so long, and reach such an intensity, that legislatures will finally recognize the problems with current patent laws. If our court system has to be tied up into a knot who's density rivals that of dark matter in order to get the point across, then so be it.
  • by Githaron (2462596) on Tuesday September 11, 2012 @11:42AM (#41301467)
    That is why we need major patent reform. The current system seems to favor the big dogs. The little guys can't spend resources defending their patents and the big dogs can use patents to fight each other and squish little guys.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 11, 2012 @11:48AM (#41301567)
    Apple doesn't make their own comm chips, they buy them from Qualcomm. Qualcomm licenses the patents from Motorola, Samsung, etc. So, yeah. (Some of the earlier iPhones didn't use qualcomm chips and Motorola successfully sued over them).

    That said, Motorola and Samsung have both told Qualcomm that they can no longer re-license the patents to Apple (non-discrimanatory much?). To which Qualcomm said: go fuck yourself. And so far, the courts have agreed.

  • by Chirs (87576) on Tuesday September 11, 2012 @12:08PM (#41301875)

    Samsung and HTC both have standard FRAND licensing rates. However, generally everyone just cross-licenses patents instead of paying cash royalties.

    Apple doesn't want to cross-license, but also complains that the (standard, charged the same to everyone) cash royalty rates are too high.

  • by UnknowingFool (672806) on Tuesday September 11, 2012 @12:10PM (#41301921)
    That would be rather stupid legally for Qualcomm to manufacture chips and not have the ability to pass the license forward to clients. Why would anyone buy from Qualcomm then? It would be like saying that a standard ARM chip from TI, Samsung, nVidia requires the manufacturer to negotiate with ARM separately for licensing. Now if Apple had Qualcomm custom design a 4G chip for them, that's different. As far as I know, Apple uses a standard chip.
  • Re:Yay!!! (Score:5, Informative)

    by Lunix Nutcase (1092239) on Tuesday September 11, 2012 @12:35PM (#41302349)

    So then why all the sympathy for Samsung? They have their own history of patent suits long before their current spat with Apple. They have also been part of cartels that have conspired in price fixing on DRAM chips and LCD panels, etc. Samsung is one of the companies least worthy of sympathy right up their with Apple themselves. Samsung has contributed to the patent idiocy and should have no sympathy when it is brought to bear on them.

  • by goombah99 (560566) on Tuesday September 11, 2012 @12:36PM (#41302357)

    Another rational for not cross licensing patents in this case is that Apple's patents are design patents and Samsungs are methods implementations for standards. Design patents are intended to distinguish a product so licensing them makes no sense. Standards are intended to unify operations so licensing their methods for money in non-discriminative ways makes sense.

  • by Theaetetus (590071) <.moc.liamg. .ta. .todhsals.suteteaeht.> on Tuesday September 11, 2012 @12:47PM (#41302535) Homepage Journal

    Apple's definition of FRAND is (in typical Apple fasion) vastly distorted.

    Apple's claim: Samsung wanted more for their patents than any other company has asked Apple in licensing fees. Note: This is NOT a violation of FRAND. Licensing fees for patents are proportional to the value of those patents. Apple said the fees were too much and chose not to pay.

    Samsung's claim: Samsung asked Apple for the same amount of money they have asked from other licensees. This is the very definition of the "Non-Discriminatory" part of FRAND.

    "In his cross-examination, Teece was presented with a letter from Samsung dated July 25, 2011 where the company proposed Apple pay a 2.4% royalty rate to license technology from any of 86 patents. Since the patents in question are deemed standards-essential, they should be licensed under fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory (FRAND) terms, but the 2.4% rate was never before levied to a licensee." [modmyi.com]

    And: The lawyer showed Teece a July 2011 letter from Samsung to Apple proposing the iPhone maker pay the 2.4 percent rate to license any of 86 patents. Samsung had never published the rate, and “you have no evidence that Samsung has ever asked any other company for such a rate,” Mueller said. [bloomberg.com]

    So, do you have a citation for your claim that "Samsung asked Apple for the same amount of money they have asked from other licensees"?

  • by jo_ham (604554) <.moc.liamg. .ta. .999mahoj.> on Tuesday September 11, 2012 @12:48PM (#41302543)

    Samsung and HTC both have standard FRAND licensing rates. However, generally everyone just cross-licenses patents instead of paying cash royalties.

    Apple doesn't want to cross-license, but also complains that the (standard, charged the same to everyone) cash royalty rates are too high.

    Actually, in the lawsuit where that was discussed (Nokia vs Apple), Apple claimed that Nokia was undervaluing the patents Apple held, not that the licensing rate for the FRAND patents was too high. It's a subtle difference.

  • by Dog-Cow (21281) on Tuesday September 11, 2012 @12:52PM (#41302605)

    When has Apple made such a complaint? They have an issue with Motorola, who is provably trying to charge Apple more than other companies. IOW, ignoring the ND portion of FRAND.

  • by R3d M3rcury (871886) on Tuesday September 11, 2012 @01:08PM (#41302875) Journal

    Depends.

    I have a patent. You wish to use my patent. I will charge you one million dollars to use my patent. Now, cash is fine, but what I really want is access to a couple of your patents. I figure those two patents are worth $999,999.97. So let me use those patents and pay me 3 cents and we'll call it even.

    Apple now comes along and says, "No, you can't use our patents and paying one million dollars isn't fair because other people are only paying 3 cents."

  • by wfolta (603698) on Tuesday September 11, 2012 @01:08PM (#41302877)

    You do realize that Steve Jobs himself offered this kind of cross-licensing to Samsung and Samsung refused? They wanted to use their FRAND technology patents to force Apple to give them its design patents. And it looks like Samsung is about to try to use their LTE FRAND patents against the iPhone 5.

  • by shutdown -p now (807394) on Tuesday September 11, 2012 @01:39PM (#41303341) Journal

    Wasn't the reason why that 2.4% rate "never before levied to a licensee" because all other licensees have entered patent cross-licensing agreements instead?

  • Re:Yay!!! (Score:5, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 11, 2012 @04:00PM (#41305405)

    Samsung didn't start the fight against Spansion.

    Samsung discloses in the complaint that on November 17, 2008, Spansion filed a complaint with the ITC alleging that Samsung and others import, sell for importation, or sell after importation into the U.S. products that allegedly infringe four of Spansionâ(TM)s patents. Samsung states that the ITC instituted an investigation in response to Spansionâ(TM)s complaint, which is now pending as Inv. No. 337-TA-664. Samsung notes that the investigation was stayed on March 12, 2009, but that the ALJ issued a new procedural schedule on June 30, 2009. See our March 13 and July 1 posts for more information.

    Samsung also discloses in the complaint that on November 17, 2008, Spansion filed a patent infringement suit against Samsung in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware, alleging infringement of six Spansion patents. Samsung states that it filed counterclaims against Spansion in the district court, alleging infringement of the two patents listed in the present section 337 complaint (and three others). The litigation was stayed on March 31, 2009, but the court recently scheduled a status conference for August 11, 2009.

    Samsung didn't start the legal action against Kodak either.

    Thirteen different Kodak models are accused of infringement and Samsung alleges that all of these models are made outside the U.S. Samsung based, in part, its importation allegations on a November 17, 2008 ITC Complaint filed by Kodak that stated that it does not presently manufacture its digital cameras in the U.S. As a result of the Kodak complaint, which named Samsung as a proposed respondent, in addition to LG, the ITC instituted an investigation (337-TA-663 â" Certain Mobile Telephones and Wireless Communication Devices Featuring Digital Cameras, Components Thereof ), which is currently pending at the ITC.

    Samsung tried to reach an agreement with Matsushita before filing a lawsuit.

    Samsung has accused Matsushita's Panasonic subsidiary of violating nine plasma display panel patents it holds, and today filed lawsuits with the US District Court in Los Angeles and Pennsylvania, South Korean news sources report.

    Samsung's PDP division, Samsung SDI, said it had held talks with Matsushita on nine separate occasions during the past 12 months, but was unable to negotiate a deal amenable to both parties.

    Samsung was willing to settle with Fujitsu out of court through cross licensing.

    Both firms have a history of display-related litigation. In 2003, Samsung sued Fujitsu, accusing it of infringing its PDP patents. In April 2004, Fujitsu counter-sued, though the two companies eventually settled out of court by signing a cross-licensing agreement.

    Apple has been far more of a pompous dick than Samsung ever was. They aren't even willing to reach any kind of settlement, unlike Samsung.

  • Re:Yay!!! (Score:3, Informative)

    by GeckoX (259575) on Tuesday September 11, 2012 @06:11PM (#41306767)

    Before the first car, no one had ever made a car with 4 wheels!
    After the first car though, 4 wheeled cars everywhere!!!

    Besides, that is just BS to start with. Every phone I have ever owned has had rounded corners (I'm talking cells before smartphones came on the scene). And I'm on my 3rd smart phone, none of which have been iPhones, and only one of which could even remotely be considered to have corners rounded even similarly to an iPhone. Even that one could not be confused with an iPhone.

    But that's all beside the point anyways. It's a freaking Phone. It has a screen and maybe some buttons. They all look very similar. Just like every tv I've ever had has looked similar to the rest. And every laptop. And every car. And every ....

    If it's not at least a technically novel patent, it's a fucking retarded patent. Period. Fuck ALL of the patent trolls, may they sue each other into oblivion!

God may be subtle, but he isn't plain mean. -- Albert Einstein

Working...