Apple Says Samsung 3G Patents Violate RAND Requirements 282
judgecorp writes "The patent dispute between Samsung and Apple has finally boiled down to clear understandable terms. Samsung says Apple has not been paying it royalties for use of patented 3G technology. Apple says Samsung smuggled that technology into the 3G standards, disclosing its IP demands later. The Dutch court will rule on 14 October."
The issue at hand now seems to be whether Apple already has a license to the patents under the 3G "Reasonable and Non-Discriminatory" requirements for patented technology used in the standard. If Samsung really believes Apple needs a separate license, when can we expect them to sue everyone else?
RE: When can we expect them to sue everyone else? (Score:3, Insightful)
Why would they sue anyone else? Apple attacked them, they're countersuing. They're under no obligation to sue anyone else and from their history there's no reason to assume they will.
Re: (Score:2)
I believe it was a challenge to the commentors
on Slashdot to prove that their stated convictions are consistent and non-biased.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: When can we expect them to sue everyone else? (Score:4, Insightful)
> Even patent trolls start out with one victim
Oh please. Apple is no "victim."
Apple is a scummy patent troll, and I hope they sued out of business.
Re: (Score:2)
Does that agreement even apply to Apple?
Often FRAND only applies to those who are part of the standard body when the standard was made.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: When can we expect them to sue everyone else? (Score:4, Insightful)
Of course it does - the reason it exists is to facilitate useful standards. What's the point of a standard if one company can dictate its use? This is why things like GSM and 3G that are required for a standard communication system have RAND terms applied to them - so that if a company wants to put forward a patented tech for the standard, they can't do so for anti-competitve reasons; everyone who wants to build a cellphone that works on the GSM system pays the same amount to use the patents that went into the GSM spec.
In this case, anyone who wants to build a device with 3G capability has to pay the same amount of money (or equivalent if cross licensing) as anyone else. If Samsung are claiming that *only* Apple are not covered by the 3G RAND licensing that they have already paid, then they are not playing by the RAND rules. In other words, if they are arguing that the patent in question that they are accusing Apple of violating is a necessary part of the 3G standard and that the current RAND agreement for 3G patents doesn't cover it then everyone else who makes a 3G compatible device is also not covered so Samsung would be obligated to either sue (or negotiate) with all of them to pay the same price or agree that it was already covered under the licenses already paid for.
When it applies to a standard like this, the terms apply to all of the players involved. If Bob Smith decides to make a cellphone, he pays the same as Apple, HTC, Microsoft, Sony etc for the right to use the GSM/3G standard.
Samsung can't selectively enforce a patent with a single party and simultaneously claim that patent is a part of a standard covered under RAND terms - it's either not an essential part of the spec, or they have to sue everyone for violating (or settle with everyone for the same amount).
Re: (Score:2)
The words Free, Reasonable, Non-Discriminatory oblige them to not single out Apple for any reason, especially one so vindictive as a countersuit.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair,_reasonable,_and_non-discriminatory_terms [wikipedia.org]
Its FAIR, not FREE. As in a FAIR price, offered to anyone who wants to license it.
If you don't pay, you can still be sued.
Says the company.. (Score:3, Insightful)
...who wants to block sales of a device because it has rounded corners.
The tab ultimately got temporarily banned because of the gallery application: It is not allowed to display thumbnails, that when tapped are displayed fullscreen, where it is then possible to scroll horizontally to the next/previous.
My point is: Apple is a hypocrite.
Yes, I know there is no way around RAND patents and that there IS a way around rounded corners, but it's equally absurd.
Re:Says the company.. (Score:5, Insightful)
Actually it is not equally absurd. By trying to say their technology in the 3G standard is not covered b the 3G license, they are not being absurd at all. They are being fraudulent.
Re: (Score:2)
Didn't Rambus win a while ago for doing pretty much the same thing?
Re: (Score:2)
Eventually on appeal they won the fraud charge, but I believe all of their past and future license claims (in the s-dram case) were tossed out. Fraud is a hard crime to prove, does not mean they did not do it.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, they are. Samsung is probably being fraudulent, never said otherwise. Not arguing about any legal stuff, just common sense:
C'mon. Do you really think it is not absurd that someone gets away with the stuff Apple has been claiming from Samsung? They got the exclusivity to produce black devices with rounded corners? I really think that is just as absurd as Samsung trying to block Apple because they use standards. Both are abusing the legal system, IMHO: It's really really absurd.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Kind of. The funny thing is, Apples claims are pretty accurate. Samsung is using their advance and intimate knowledge of apple products to replicate them. I don't really care, but it is delusional to believe they are not doing it.
Re:Says the company.. (Score:4, Insightful)
Kind of. The funny thing is, Apples claims are pretty accurate. Samsung is using their advance and intimate knowledge of apple products to replicate them. I don't really care, but it is delusional to believe they are not doing it.
News flash: tablets were around long before Apple. What would expect a "tablet" to look like? A tire iron?
Apple did not invent: tablets, smart phones, color icons, rounded corners, or much of anything else.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Says the company.. (Score:5, Insightful)
No – that would be very discriminatory... RAND is specifically supposed to stop companies offering crappy terms to companies they don't like much (or are being sued by).
Re: (Score:2)
Yes – notably, the same terms will be offered to everyone – whether I am in the process of taking it up the ass from them, or not.
You are just such an idiot (Score:2, Informative)
What if those terms include things like "you must assign to me all revenue you make from selling anything with a fruit-based logo on it"? Motorola and Nokia will happily agree because the cost to them for that term is $0, for Apple the cost is $100 Billion. Are those FRAND terms?
Nope? what's the difference?
Samsung may have signed some cross-licensing agreements with other companies for IP reasonably valued at millions, and now they want Apple to hand over IP reasonably valued at billions--that's not non-dis
Re:Says the company.. (Score:5, Insightful)
My point is: Apple is a hypocrite.
Yes, I know there is no way around RAND patents and that there IS a way around rounded corners, but it's equally absurd.
This is a dirty war, there are no good guys. Want to end it ? Ban the munition (patents.)
Re: (Score:2)
Exactly. Taking sides doesn't do any good. Sending letters to your congressman does.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah ban patents. Who needs those lazy nerds using their brains? Everyone knows that if you aren't a manufacturer you aren't worth anything.
Why the intellectual class is the first in line to sell off their only value in society as worthless is beyond comprehension to me...
Re: (Score:2)
There are most definitely good guys here: Samsung.
They have actual inventions that are relevant to 3G phone hardware. Apple has silly design patents on obvious shapes.
Yeah, I'm using a bit of hyperbole, but the point stands: between an actual innovator and a shiny packager there is no moral equivalency.
Mart
Re: (Score:3)
There are most definitely good guys here: Samsung.
They have actual inventions that are relevant to 3G phone hardware.
Apple has silly design patents on obvious shapes.
Yeah, obviously the good guys are the one not doing what they have to.
You don't understand technology (Score:2)
Perhaps you shouldn't hang out on a tech website?
> Apple just re-release stuff with Apple logos and claim they invented it
What they hell are you talking about?
Re: (Score:3)
By jove! I think you are right and the XX million people who all bought iPhones were all too stupid to realise that they were being duped.
Yes, that must be it!
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
That actually is it.
Everything apple sells is due to a good marketing department, not due to the product itself.
My old Galaxy S blew the iPhone 4 out of the water. My Galaxy S2 crushes my Galaxy S. In both features and usability.
Re: (Score:2)
That must be why everyone flocked to Final Cut Pro X and Apple made tons of money. Oh wait, no they didn't. People freaked out, demanded refunds, bought from Adobe, and Apple had to scramble to release an update with requested features and a free trial period, as well as bringing back FCP7.
Does Apple spend a lot on marketing? Yes, obviously. But marketing alone won't bring in sales for long, so they must be doing something right with the products.
Re: (Score:2)
Once again, your anecdotal evidence is a masterful triumph over the several billions of dollars of hard sales to the contrary.
Their mac lineup and OSX must surely be terrible too, I haven't figured out whether you'll plump for windows or linux as being the one true way.
Damn, Apple fanboys.
Re: (Score:2)
Submarine patents in open standards is NEVER the lesser of 2 evils.
Re:Says the company.. (Score:5)
...who wants to block sales of a device because it has rounded corners.
The tab ultimately got temporarily banned because of the gallery application: It is not allowed to display thumbnails, that when tapped are displayed fullscreen, where it is then possible to scroll horizontally to the next/previous.
My point is: Apple is a hypocrite.
Yes, I know there is no way around RAND patents and that there IS a way around rounded corners, but it's equally absurd.
As a consumer I expect competition to drive the best products in the market, not the courts. Kinda sick of Apple and their behaviour.
Same goes for all these other piddly IP suits which ultimately deprive the consumer.
Re: (Score:2)
So your idea of competition is: company A invests tons of money in developing something useful (like 3G), company B takes company A's invention and adds ROUND CORNERS, and we let the consumer decide how the money is split up? Sounds unfair, stupid, and ultimately about as anti-competitive as you can get.
Re: (Score:2)
Sure Apple took an unprofitable niche market and turned it into the hottest property in tech today by just adding round corners. Do you guys even listen to yourselves ?
Re: (Score:2)
I didn't say that anywhere, did I? Nope. What I said was that company B got to avoid a whole bunch of expense by letting company A spend the money and then using their results for free. This lets company B either sell an identical product for a whole lot less than company A, or they can spend a little bit of money making their product slightly better than company A. In either case the consumer is likely to choose company B, even though it was company A that did all the work/invested all the money.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Apple is currently paying for a 3G license through Intel. They are not using it for free. As I have already stated, Samsung is committing fraud in a desperate attempt to force a settlement.
Re: (Score:2)
3G phones have been a hot property for at least ten years. May I point out how absolutely huge the established players like Nokia and Samsung already were before Apple showed up?
Kudos to Apple for gauging the market correctly and taking a chunk of a very competitive market. But they were late to a party that was already in full swing.
That some countries with a third world 3G infrastructure didn't notice the party doesn't change those facts.
Mart
Re:Says the company.. (Score:4, Insightful)
> Sure Apple took an unprofitable niche market and turned it into the hottest property in tech today
So what if they did? Just because your marketing (let's face it: that's an essential and the decisive factor) opened up a new market niche, doesn't mean you're entitled to keep that market niche for yourself. Rounded corners or not. Apple fanboys seem to think that because Apple "was there first" and opened up that market niche, they're morally entitled to keep it forever.
Re: (Score:2)
That's exactly how it's supposed to work.
This word you use, "developing" is very interesting. By "developing" you seem to mean everything leading up to actually manufacturing and selling the product. Why should a company expect anything at all for "developing" a product? If they can make it, and bring it to market,
Re: (Score:2)
So your idea of competition is: company A invests tons of money in developing something useful (like 3G), company B takes company A's invention and adds ROUND CORNERS, and we let the consumer decide how the money is split up? Sounds unfair, stupid, and ultimately about as anti-competitive as you can get.
Imagine how crippling to the consumer electronics industry it would be if someone held patents on Touch Screen, Power Button, Using Software To Control A Device, Back Lighting, etc. and chose to either not licence it or charge an outrageous licence fee.
That's effectively what we, the consumer, are watching play out here.
Apple is well aware that they won't hold the market captive with their products forever, so they're attempting to strangle competition through legal means, thus protecting their market domin
Re:Says the company.. (Score:4, Insightful)
Yeah, I have a feeling that Apple is probably legally correct here.
And you know what? I don't give a shit. I want them to lose anyway. But lose in such a way that only Apple loses, and that Samsung can't then go after companies that have been playing fair. (If there are any. Are there any?)
The bottom line is that Samsung patented actual, real, physical technology. Apple patented rounded corners and taking existing PC interfaces and replacing "point" with "touch." (Also, please note that multitouch doesn't even enter into the patent Superken7 is talking about - it's talking about taking the existing thumbnail interface that exists in a million photo applications, and instead of clicking on photos, tapping on them.)
So while I expect Apple is probably legally correct, all that means is that the law is clearly wrong and needs fixing - at least as far as preventing "existing technology, but with touch! / on a phone!" type patents.
Re: (Score:2)
Thank you. Yes, I am not talking about who should win in court. I am just talking about common sense here. I think you portrayed the situation much better than I did.
Please mod parent up.
Re: (Score:2)
You laugh, but a patent lawyer didn't already think of this when writing a claims section needs to be fired.
Re: (Score:2)
(And I really don't care if that poker is a metal rod used to prod burning wood, or an entire 52 card deck, with or without jokers, so long as it's red hot.)
Re: (Score:2)
I don't know about the first and last photos, but the middle one?
My Barnes and Noble Nook came with one of those (but labeled "nook"), and I know I've seen third party "USB charger" type devices that look just like that.
It's a small AC adapter that outputs power to a USB port. You can use them to charge anything that charges off USB, including things like the iPhone and more useful things like the Nook or PS3 controllers.
(Disclaimer: I own an iPhone.)
Re: (Score:2)
Agreed on the middle image, I had a generic one for my MS Pocket PC back in 2004 and it looked basically identical to both of those.
Re:Says the company.. (Score:5, Insightful)
How do you Apple apologists argue with this [businessinsider.com] and this [computechgadgets.com]?
Re: (Score:2)
And this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:JooJoo_01.jpg [wikipedia.org]
The designed was unvieled before the iPad was announced.
Re: (Score:2)
Thanks, nice link :)
Those devious open source folk, now they've started copying design even before Apple have created it! Shame on them
Re: (Score:2)
Not exactly, do a little more research than the Wikipedia page.
Re: (Score:2)
Oh, and this [pdadb.net], too. Round corners, by the way.
Re: (Score:2)
I didn't say I think Samsung is "good" and Apple is "bad". You did not understand at all. I am saying BOTH of them are claiming absurd things. And that Apple are being hypocrites. That does not mean I think Samsung is "right". They are probably doing fraudulent stuff (IANAL).
Why do people like you always have to simplify things to Android vs iPhone? I would prefer reasonable vs unreasonable. And that might include both Samsung AND Apple on the unreasonable side.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
If that's not blatant copying*, I don't know what is.
My opinion:
(1) is just a joke comparing photoshopped pictures of something that looks like 2004 rugged laptops with windows 7 desktops attached on them, against the 2010 iPad. A more serious comparison would have included something like the 2008 Archos tablets [ example [anythingbutipod.com]], as that would reveal that indeed tablets existed years before the iPad.
(2) is a power adapter; it's found in lots of products besides the Apple ones. And even if Samsung copied it, I don't think people buy Apple gadgets because of their
Re: (Score:2)
I did not intend and do not really care about who is legally right or wrong. My point is that both of them are abusing the legal system and trying to block their biggest competition that way. No laws, just common sense.
Apple is being a hypocrite for crying out loud when someone tries to pull an unfair move like this one, but do the same to others. Also, they have repeatedly claimed that others should try to invent their own stuff while copying from others in exactly the same way others have copied them.
I re
Samsung == Rambus (Score:2, Informative)
"Apple says Samsung smuggled that technology into the 3G standards, disclosing its IP demands later."
Where have I heard that one before? [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
It's not the same, it's different.
Just because you own IP that's in a standard doesn't necessarily mean that you should have to give up your rights to use it defensively. In this case Apple brought this BS on themselves when they filed that questionable lawsuit that could best be reduced to Samsung's product having a similar shape to the one that Apple sells.
Also, Samsung is only targeting Apple at this time and there is no reason to believe that Samsung won't stop with Apple. Rambus OTOH, went way beyond u
Re: (Score:2)
Also, Samsung is only targeting Apple at this time and there is no reason to believe that Samsung won't stop with Apple.
What reason is there they will, altruism ? Best-case scenario you have the sword of Damocles hanging over all of their competitors, no way that isn't going to lead to back-room dealing at best and all out patent wars at worst.
Re: (Score:2)
I guess they just want a cross-licensing deal so they can start selling the galaxy range again.
Re: (Score:2)
What reason is there they will, altruism ?
Mutually assured destruction, obviously. If you sue someone, they sue you back, you both spend millions on litigation and end up worse off than if you had just negotiated a cross-license or reasonable royalties in the first place.
By contrast, Apple asked for this by firing the first shot.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Actually it means precisely that. Apple is paying to license 3G through Intel. Samsung can not then turn around and say that does not cover their part of the Standard.
Defensive use of patent and copyright (Score:2)
The very idea of "using patents defensively" is one of the greatest illustations of how evil the current patent regime has become.
Likewise, the GNU project developed copyleft as a way of using copyrights defensively because RMS considered copyrights in computer programs evil. It's just a lot easier to avoid infringing a copyright than a patent because unlike patent infringement, copyright infringement requires having had access to the plaintiff's work.
What do they hope to gain from all this? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Sources: http://www.bgr.com/2011/01/28/samsung-reports-q4-earnings-revenue-and-i [bgr.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Apple makes more than twice their profit and has about 4 times their cash. Or are you asserting that Samsung will stop paying their bills and fight Apple with money from the top line.
(F)RAND in the Real World (Score:5, Insightful)
There is something that many people seem to be missing about FRAND patents. While the terms of FRAND licensing agreements are rarely released, it is widely believed that companies that license their patents through FRAND usually require a cross-licensing agreement with the licensee. This makes sense: why should you be forced to allow other companies to license your hard-earned technologies for a relatively low price only to allow those companies to come back and sue the dick off of you? Requiring a cross-license agreement from all licensees sounds extremely Fair, Reasonable, and Non-Discriminatory to me.
However, it is also widely believed that Apple wants to license the FRAND patents WITHOUT allowing other companies to cross-license Apple's patents. This belief was bolstered by the fact that the only term of Apple's settlement agreement with Nokia over FRAND patents that was released to the public was the fact that Nokia relented and allowed Apple to license their FRAND patents without a cross-licensing agreement. This made sense in that particular case because most of Apple's patents in the mobile arena are software patents related to elements of iOS. Since Nokia is moving towards WP7 and Microsoft already has a cross-licensing agreement with Apple and indemnifies all hardware manufacturers of WP7, it didn't make sense for Nokia to continue an expensive protracted legal battle with Apple over something that was quickly becoming irrelevant. However, Samsung is in a completely different position from Nokia and they aren't going to give in nearly as easily. Game on!
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
In the Nokia case Apple felt their IP was being undervalued and Nokia's overvalued. Cross-licensing is not automatically fair. Saying you hav to let us copy all your products if you want to use the 3G standard, also not fair.
Re: (Score:3)
In the Nokia case Apple felt their IP was being undervalued and Nokia's overvalued. Cross-licensing is not automatically fair. Saying you hav to let us copy all your products if you want to use the 3G standard, also not fair.
But saying that you have to let us copy all your technologies if you want to use rounded corners or a touch screen is fair?
If Apple thinks the exchange is unfair then they're free to make products with rounded corners and no 3G and require Samsung to make products with 3G and no rounded corners and see which one succeeds in the marketplace, but you don't get to be a hypocrite and say that competitors have to license their stuff to us but we won't reciprocate.
Re: (Score:2)
Well keep in mind that Apple now owns a massive piece of the LTE IP...
Re:(F)RAND in the Real World (Score:4, Insightful)
My biggest problem with Apple is that they are so very deceptive in everything they do. Their ads 'infer' things that are untrue, insult competitors using false statements, and rely upon the ignorance of the general public to peddle their platform.
General public: Yes you can connect your non-iPhone to a TV. You can do it without a proprietary "Apple box" and most of the time over the air using open standards supports by many new TVs. Apple would have you believe you need to buy hundreds of dollars of proprietary hardware to do this, and the stupidest part is that Apple could do it without requiring the proprietary hardware, they just want to shaft you at every opportunity.
Apple users: Grab your socks.
This is outrageously stupid (Score:2, Insightful)
FRAND exists to enable industry standards. Companies agree to subject a subset of their intellectual property to FRAND in order to make that technology part of a standard--those companies get money from licensing fees for those technologies from other manufacturers (who *must* use that technology in order to implement the standard). Some of the licensees might choose to sign cross-licensing agreements in lieu of some of that money, just like they might choose to pay in frequent flyer miles or beer.
Having so
Re:This is outrageously stupid (Score:5, Insightful)
Perhaps not. But do you honestly think it's Fair or Reasonable for Samsung to license the technologies that allow an iPhone to perform its basic functions for a relatively low price while Apple is able to block sales of Samsung's devices over the look of the plastic casing?
Apple is free to license their technologies however they please. If they choose not to require cross-license agreements, then that is their choice. And it is Samsung's choice on how they license their technologies. The question you should be asking is this: if other companies have agreed to cross-license their patents to Samsung then how would it be Fair if Apple didn't?
Re: (Score:3)
In theory, Samsung has created (part of) a standard, so they make a little bit of money off of a lot of people... because it is a standard. Apple in this case has not tried to create a standard; they have actually tried to prevent their way of doing things from becoming a standard. They want to reap a lot of money on fewer units than they might if they made it a standard.
They learned a lesson a couple years back licensing their OS...
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Perhaps not. But do you honestly think it's Fair or Reasonable for Samsung to license the technologies that allow an iPhone to perform its basic functions for a relatively low price while Apple is able to block sales of Samsung's devices over the look of the plastic casing?
But that is why it is part of a "standard". If there was no promise that it would be offered on FRAND terms, it simply would not be part of the standard and Apple would not be using it.
The entire reason the standard exists in the form it is in, is because it was agreed that all the underlying technologies would be available under FRAND terms. If there was no such agreement before, either the "standard" would not exist (and so very few/nobody would be using those technologies) or the standard would exist b
Re: (Score:2)
Some of the licensees might choose to sign cross-licensing agreements in lieu of some of that money, just like they might choose to pay in frequent flyer miles or beer.
True. But if everyone has chosen cross-licensing agreements except Apple, how much are those cross-licensing agreements worth to Samsung? Shouldn't they be able to extract the equivalent value of those cross-licensing agreements?
For example, if you're selling your old car for $2000, isn't it fair and reasonable to at least expect $2000 worth of beer?
Re: (Score:2)
Keep in mind, you can have patents and not choose to license them.
The issue with Samsung and Nokia, is that they have patents that were included in a "Standard". Usually, when you do this you have to adhere to FRAND terms. If not, this basically would give a company a monopoly on that technology. They could charge whatever they wanted and use the patents to prevent rivals or competition from being "standards-compliant".
So here you have a company that has patents, that are not part of any standard, and are r
Re: (Score:2)
No, what we have here is the same as in Apple vs. Nokia: Apple trying to buy into the FRAND terms by offering their patents for crosslicensing, and then going home and taking their ball with them when the members of the consortium correctly point out that rounded corners and questionable multitouch patents are not a fair price for actual innovations in hardware.
Mart
Slashdot: news for patent attorneys! (Score:2)
RAND (Score:2)
Samsung is being treating everyone who ISN'T suing them in the same non-discriminatory manner.
d
Does innovation have to end this way? (Score:2, Insightful)
Except that is quite wrong (Score:3)
No the opposite is not true (Score:2)
i think what this really comes down to (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
This is not a tv drama. This is not a gotcha moment.
when can we expect them to sue everyone else? (Score:2)
> when can we expect them to sue everyone else?
This seems like FUD to me. Samsung and Apple are in a deathlock. It doesn't matter who started it. Samsung may well sue the hell outta everyone in existence, but until they go after, say, HTC, my money is that they're holding onto the patent for defensive purposes. In other words, there's no special reason to assume Samsung is going to go after other manufacturers until, well, they do. If I'm wrong, lawyers will get a little richer.
Re: (Score:2)
Using a FRAND patent defensively is discrimination and I believe a fraud against the standards body.
Re:Curious (Score:4, Interesting)
Do you believe it would be better if Apple won?
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Explain exactly how Samsung using its patent portfolio as defense against Apple's frivolous "rounded rectangle" patents is strongarming more money out of Apple. Apple is the one using the courts to block sales of its competitors products. They had the option of competing with a better product (like everyone else does), instead they are choosing to compete in the courts.
F/RAND stands for Fair, Reasonable and Non-Discriminatory. In this case, it seems pretty fair and reasonable to use an essential technolo
Re: (Score:2)
It is not their patent portfolio. They are abusing the entire international standards system. Using a FRAND patent only against one other company is by definition discriminatory...
Re: (Score:2)
To me, the ideal resolution at this point would be both sides dropping their suits and calling it even. Even better would have been Apple dropping their suite last week before it escalated, but the odds of that were zero without a counterattack.
Best of all would have been for Apple to have kept it in their pants in the first place.
Re: (Score:2)
What would happen is Apple writes a cheque to Samsung for those 3G patents, like Apple did for Nokia.
The reason for this is well, anyone who wants to use 3G may not have anything to contribute - if I stick a 3G module on my board for my product, there may be nothing of use to those who own the 3G patents I need to license. So being able to license it straight up is a bonus. (And yes, things are very fuzzy - Apple doesn't design 3G stuff - they stick a 3G chip and circuits to the board, which isn't much diff
Re: (Score:2)
Because Apple is already paying for these patents through intel in all current and future devices. Samsung even admits this. They are trying to block future sales based on past POSSIBLE infringement. Samsung contends they dont know if Apple used licensed chips in the past or not. This is the weakest patent case ever filed.
Re: (Score:2)
If Samsung successfully strongarms more money out of Apple for F/RAND patents
"More"? I wasn't aware that Apple had licensed those patents at all. If they had, I don't think this suit would be possible.
So what you're saying is that you want Apple to be able to use Samsung's technology without paying them.
Re: (Score:2)
> I'll be very curious to see how the hordes of Apple haters/Samsung cheerleaders spin this as anything even vaguely good.
Those of us who want to see both companies dead, their women wailing, their houses burned to the ground, and their fields sewn with salt... where was I? Oh yeah... How are we who don't particularly like either company supposed to spin this? Just wonderin'.
Re: (Score:2)
And at the end of the Conga Line of Fools would think that's really an acceptible reason. You, Mr. Consumer, still lose.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Small players... Samsung.... small players... I'm trying to make that work in my head...
Re: (Score:2)
It was a registered design that Apple filed in 1994 and has a little more to it than a shape. Not saying it is a good idea.