DoJ Investigating Samsung For Patent Abuse 146
sl4shd0rk writes "Good news for Apple, bad news for Samsung. Yesterday, Apple filed legal papers with the International Trade Commission citing a Department of Justice investigation into whether Samsung is misusing its 'Standards essential' patents in ways which violate antitrust law. Apple claims Samsung has violated commitments to license its essential patents to competitors on fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory terms. Or, more specifically, Samsung is 'using certain patents as a basis for improper legal actions that seek to block the sale of competitors' products.' The article says Google (because of its recent acquisition, Motorola Mobility) is under the same scrutiny."
Says Apple? (Score:5, Insightful)
not even (Score:5, Insightful)
This is almost comedy - apple is going to try to claim what samsung proved *apple* did in the lawsuit against samsung which it has now basically lost? Talk about trying for a third attempt to stop your competition through abusing the legal system. Outlined here: http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20121022054044954 [groklaw.net]
summary is that Apple:
sued samsung, claiming samsung abused patents ("charging too much!") while simultaneously abusing patents and encouraging people to use windows phones (hello antitrust!) and anyone other than google. This should set the DOJ off onto investigating *apple/ms/oracle*.
Not only is that hilariously pot -> kettle, but also it doesn't mean the DOJ is investigating anything.
Re:not even (Score:5, Insightful)
Not even sound jurisprudence will get in the way of crony capitalism, the higher you get in the appeals process the more it appears to be a kangaroo court.
Re: (Score:3)
Interesting read, I think ultimately this patent war will hurt Apple a lot more through PR than anything. Probably won't matter in a few years, their PR is going to shit now anyways (a smartphone w/o working maps anyone?), so... when Apple goes out of business, are those patents then invalidated?
Re:not even (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Intellectual property is like real property. You can sell it when you need money. In bankruptcy it's an asset that goes to creditors. I don't see any real chance that Apple will go out of business, but if they did the most likely end would be purchase by Google or Oracle. Maybe even Microsoft. The patents would go to the purchaser.
That's why Google bought Motorola Mobility. Not because the company had a product or production capacity they wanted, or they thought they could transition Motorola custome
Re: (Score:2)
Intellectual property is like real property.
But it isn't private property. If I write a book, it's not like striking oil on my own property, it's like leasing Federal property to drill for oil. Like the leased oil, I can sell my copyright, but the work itself isn't what's being sold, it's the LIMITED TIME monopoly that's being sold.
Like the oil field on federal land, all I own is a lease. I no more own the book I wrote than I do the house I rent. In both cases, I have a monopoly on the property, but I do no
Re:not even (Score:5, Funny)
Now turn your iphone 5 on. See if the maps still works.
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
It works fine as long as you're in a big US city. The rest of the world doesn't work fine, if at all.
Re: (Score:1)
The guy has no idea what he's talking about. Fancy having him as a CEO - telling people to use other map apps when there's nothing wrong with theirs!
Re: (Score:2)
An adminstration that is "socialist" is investingating corporate abuse as much as the last corporate crony administration.
That is not at all.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Actually, the Bush administration was far more active in prosecuting corporate malfeasance. When Enron collapsed the principals were prosecuted pretty vigorously. Hell, they put Martha Stewart in jail.
On the other hand, when MF Global collapsed (one of the top ten bankruptcies in US history), a collapse that involved misappropriation of customer funds, the Obama administration did... well, nothing. How is it Jon Corzine is still a free man?
Re: (Score:2)
Stewart didn't go to jail for financial crimes. They couldn't get her for those.
She went to jail for lying to investigators under oath. Quite dumb of her frankly.
Re: (Score:1)
Actually, no, she wasn't under oath at the time. She ran afoul of Title 18, United States Code, Section 1001 [findlaw.com]. And while you're right they didn't actually convict her for insider trading, the reason she went to jail, ultimately, was because they believed she was engaging in insider trading.
Anyway, my point stands. The Bush administration was much harder on white collar criminals than the Obama administration.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Anyway, my point stands
No it doesn't. The Obama administration just sued Wells Fargo and Bank of America. My 2 examples cancel out your 2 examples.
You don't have a point until you have data to back your point, and 2 examples don't count as data.
--Jeremy
Re: (Score:1)
No it doesn't. The Obama administration just sued Wells Fargo and Bank of America. My 2 examples cancel out your 2 examples.
Hardly. Name one significant corporate executive the Obama administration has sent to jail.
Re: (Score:2)
What determines a patent on a standard requiring RAND licensing? It would seem that 'pinch to zoom' and 'slide to unlock' have become de-facto standards for touch-screen devices. How is it that trivial patents like those can be used to block sales of a device when a patent that controls the basic functioning of a device must be licensed to precisely those competitors that are abusing the trivial ones? And you can't even block sales of the devices when the infringer refuses to strike a RAND deal...
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
It's determined by their inclusion into a published standard which has rules about FRAND licensing of all included patented works. Apple's patents aren't part of such a standard and not subject to FRAND rules. What was hard about that?
Re: (Score:1, Insightful)
Whats so hard to understand that FRAND requires apple to negotiate, and they decide not to then they can still be held for not having a license for that tech.
Re:not even (Score:5, Informative)
Re:not even (Score:5, Insightful)
Easy.
A standards body, like IEEE, 3GPP, etc., decide they want a new standard. Ethernet (yes, there are patents on all parts). WiFi (plenty to go around). 5G, Codec. whatever. They get together industry to help them produce the new standard. Industry presents their technology, and they hash out what will make it and what doesn't. As a condition for having the technology included in the new standard, all related patents to use that technology must be FRAND licensed. Otherwise you get a really broken spec where competitors cannot implement the standard because the companies refuse to license.
It's also a big game of political football - technologies that are great may be shunned and inferior ones used because the company with the inferior technology greased more palms. It's pretty lucrative.
Basically a patent is FRAND licensed if it's used in a standard for that standard only, because you can't implement the standard without that patent.
Apple needs ot license Samsung patents in order to produce a phone because Samsung put their technology into the celluar spec, probably LTE or 3G, and you cannot build a phone without those patents (implementing the standard automatically violates the patent).
However, the other things like pinch-to-zoom and slide-to-unlock (if valid), are not part of a standard (there's no standard for "smartphone" that everyone has to follow). You could tap a sequence of numbers to unlock (say, entering a PIN code). You could require the user press the power button three times to unlock, etc.
An de-facto standards aren't standards - Microsoft doesn't have to license you the Office patents to implement something that reads Office documents (which they provide), even though Office is a defacto standard in business. Well, they do for their XML standard (because they submitted it as a standard), but not for say, the .doc format.
TiVo's got the same thing - they have a bunch of core DVR patents that if you implement one, you pretty much have to license it, but they don't have to.
As an aside, a lot of standards also have licensing bodies where you can acquire a license to every patent for one fee without having to talk to any of the participants - MPEG has MPEG-LA to license you all the patents used for a video codec, I think the IEEE has one as well for Ethernet and WiFi. 3GPP doesn't (which means if you want to build a phone, you have to talk to everyone).
Re: (Score:3)
OkaY,
Any Slashdotters want to form a standards association with me. We will evaluate and release a standard for intuitive network connected device (INCD) interactions, recommended design layouts, and features.
> an INCD should have a rectangular shape. It is preferably that a 16:9 ratio is utilized but not required.
> an INCD should have slightly rounded faces to reduce user injury.
> an INCD should have a flat screen, preferably with touch sensitivity.
> an INCD should adopt a number of gestures:
-
Re: (Score:2)
IIRC LTE is not a standard and thus not subject to FRAND licensing terms.
IIRC the Apple v. world lawsuits caused the cell phone manufactures to decide to implement LTE in an adhoc basis.
Re: (Score:1)
And the small thing that gets left out by Apple fanbois:
FRAND patent pools are there for organizations that contribute to the pools. Everybody contributes, everybody gets a cheap/reasonable price to license the entire pool.
Apple doesn't want to contribute, yet they still think they're entitled to the cheap price that contributors get.
--Jeremy
Re:not even (Score:4, Informative)
This is almost comedy
No, it is comedy, a farce to be exact.
Re: (Score:3)
That was my first reaction - if apple hadn't started this shit it wouldn't be a problem
The mobile phone industry was getting along quite happily before apple came along, minor squibbles and scuffles but for the most part it was a quiet industry.... apple comes along and starts suing everyone...
Besides... how many small countries does apple want to buy?
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
And you don't suppose it was Samsung et al the existing phone makers who tried to keep Apple out?
Which is more likely? The old guard with everything to lose, no need to innovate and a complacent consumer base - does everything in its power to keep out competition. Or. A new competitor with everything to gain, innovation oozing out of every pore, sues and fights at every turn to stay in the game.
Re:not even (Score:5, Insightful)
"innovation oozing out of every pore"
what innovation? outside of the RDF, Apple's devices contained nothing but existing technology, much of which in fact was invented by the very companies they are now abusing the legal system to harm.
Re:Says Apple? (Score:5, Insightful)
Just another move in the on-going patent wars. Apple must ultimately lose, or we are all screwed.
Re: (Score:2)
Broader than that... people that want the idea of "Intelectual Property" to prevail need to fail.
Anyone here say they are a "strict consitutionalist"??? You should be on my side.
Re: (Score:3)
I feel like there should be a smoking robot somewhere repeating "DOES NOT COMPUTE! DOES NOT COMPUTE!"
Re:Says Apple? (Score:5, Funny)
I feel like there should be a drinking and smoking robot somewhere repeating "Bite My Shiny Metal Ass"
Re: (Score:1)
Pot and Kettle in a steel cage match. What could be better entertainment? There sure are a lot of complaints from people who will vote for more of the same in less than two weeks. I say make the best of it. All this bellyaching isn't going to change a damn thing.
Re: (Score:1, Flamebait)
I think you guys don't understand what “standards essential” patents are and how they came to become STANDARDS essential. You seem to think common patents = standards essential patents, and that just isn’t the case.
So for the record, Apple really isn't abusing standards essential patents like Samsung/Motorola. When a standard is being debated, and before it's agreed on by a standard body, the patent owner is consultant and (in virtually all cases where it becomes a standard) the owner
Re:Says Apple? (Score:5, Insightful)
So for the record, Apple really isn't abusing standards essential patents like Samsung/Motorola.
I wasn't aware that Samsung were abusing standards essential patents at all.
My understanding is they're willing to licence them on fair and reasonable terms. Apple on the other hand insist on using them without licencing them.
charging absurd rates
So Samsung want $6 (per phone) for patents essential to the very nature of a device, while Apple want $30 (per phone) for patents that should never have been fucking granted in the first place.
While you're right about absurd rates, I'm not sure you realise just who is trying to charge them.
Re: (Score:2)
Is $6 fair and reasonable? Is it the same fair and reasonable that other licensees get?
The other thing is irrelevant.
Re:Says Apple? (Score:5, Informative)
Apple wants the lower rates without offering any other patents in return.
Re:Says Apple? (Score:5, Insightful)
Samsung however did agree to license certain patents at a fair price
I'd say 2.4% is a very fair price, especially when being asked to pay up to 40% for far less valuable patents.
I'm not emotionally attached, beyond being fucked off with Apple's bullshit behaviour. I just happen to swear all the fucking time.
Re: (Score:1)
far less valuable patents.
As much as I'm anti-Apple, I don't know. Since every device is dependent on SEP to exist, while the design patents are focused on brand awareness, uniqueness and finish and directly influences brand image and marketability, which is more valuable? Car analogy? Fine: Apple Cars makes cars with standard hybrid engine (SEP, license paid by manufacturer, covered at purchase) with a glass roof, self-cleaning finish and ultra safe glass. Since except the design and facilities nothing differs that drives the deman
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Again, YOU miss the point. There was no abuse. No one was denied those patents. Apple wasn't denied those patents. They just thought $6 for actually useful and complex patents are way too high. Then they turn around and say that their obvious application of plugins to search and ease-in animations to scroll is worth $30. Hypocrisy much?
Re:Says Apple? (Score:5, Insightful)
Samsung however did agree to license certain patents at a fair price, and they are trying to charge some vendors (who compete more aggressively and charge them a lot for patents, e.g. Apple) significantly different terms than others
I was under the impression that the vendors that got lower prices did so because of cross-licensing agreements.
Samsung: "Oh, you want this FRAND patent but don't want to pay $6? Okay, well how about you license us the technology for your patent xxxxx, and we'll lower the rate to $1"
Normal Vendor: "That sounds reasonable. Patent xxxxx is trivial compared to your standards essential patents. Deal."
Apple: "NO WAY! We don't want to pay a dime!"
Re: (Score:2)
Samsung however did agree to license certain patents at a fair price, and they are trying to charge some vendors (who compete more aggressively and charge them a lot for patents, e.g. Apple) significantly different terms than others
I was under the impression that the vendors that got lower prices did so because of cross-licensing agreements. Samsung: "Oh, you want this FRAND patent but don't want to pay $6? Okay, well how about you license us the technology for your patent xxxxx, and we'll lower the rate to $1" Normal Vendor: "That sounds reasonable. Patent xxxxx is trivial compared to your standards essential patents. Deal." Apple: "NO WAY! We don't want to pay a dime!"
DOJ: "Hey, Samsung, how did you come up with that $6 figure, six times what you charge others for a license? We notice that you never have actually charged anyone $6 for a license. Do you have substantive evidence that all of those cross-licenses were worth $5, or are you pulling this $6 number out of your ass?"
Samsung: "... Uh... Rounded corners! Slide to unlock! Rectangles! Court of public opinion! Help?"
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Samsung: That's our standard rate for those that don't want to cross-license.
DOJ: "[Citation needed]. As noted, you've never charged anyone the standard rate before. We'll do our own investigation and determine that the fair non cross-license rate should be... $3. That okay with you? The alternative is that it's still $3, but we also fine you $3 billion for antitrust violations."
Re: (Score:2)
Just because the system is thoroughly broken legally does NOT give you a moral right to abuse that breakage. If you think the legal process the final word on whether you should be able to do something or not, well, I have a German dictator to introduce you to.
Re: (Score:2)
It fits, because the German dictator wrote the law his way, not unlike how Apple's lobbyists did.
Re: (Score:2)
As I said before and I'll say again.
Don't give me this "Apple is only following the rules" when their lobbyists help WRITE them.
Re: (Score:2)
Flat screen, slightly rounded edges....essential.
Maybe we need to dig up Steve Jobs and put a bullet through his head?
Re: (Score:2)
Samsung agreed to license its patents under FRAND so that they would be part of the standard. When did Apple agree to license its patents to anyone to become part of a standard?
Re:Says Apple? (Score:4, Insightful)
So, Apple just has to pay Samsung the FRAND licensing fee, which they are refusing to do. I hear it is just a couple of bucks per phone. Everybody else pays that to Samsung, or an equivalent value in cross-licensing other patents.
Re: (Score:3)
And Apple gets no scrutiny, the US should go to a little third world country to find out how to be less corrupt, justice, what a joke.
Re: (Score:2)
Nothing like the pot calling the kettle black!
Or the alligator calling the crocodile cruel.
... what? (Score:5, Funny)
Can Apple sue Samsung for using Apples business plan?
a little like the pot calling the kettle black (Score:3)
Seriously? you mean thin tablets with rounded corners, is any less worse of an abuse than what samsung has done?
Where's the same scrutiny for Apple? (Score:5, Interesting)
Apple's Licensing Offer To Samsung Raises Questions About FRAND Rates and What's Behind the Attacks on Google [groklaw.net]
Re: (Score:1)
Where's the same scrutiny for Apple? In the same universe where Samsung is also an American company.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:3)
If using Foxconn makes a company "not American" then there aren't very many American tech companies.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Is there a standards organization that determines visual and behavioral GUI standards for the entire phone and tablet industry? If not, then why would the Apple GUI patents be covered by FRAND?
Dirty scandalous sons of bitches (Score:1)
Apple is the one company I absolutely despise most. I think I'm going to put some krylon tape on the breather hole of my 1tb seagate hard drive and make them replace it for free under applecare.
That'll teach em!
Oh for fsck's sake (Score:2, Funny)
Put the CEO of Apple and the CEO of Samsung in a room (rounded corners optional). The last one alive is the winner of EVERYTHING.
Re: (Score:2)
Put the CEO of Apple and the CEO of Samsung in a room (rounded corners optional). The last one alive is the winner of EVERYTHING.
The problem there is that Apple's CEO would cheat and use dirty tricks to win.
Re: (Score:3)
This is true even if Apple sent an ex-CEO as they'd argue about the meaning of "alive" citing "Weekend at Bernie's" (an Apple film, remember? No? Have a lawsuit to jog the memory) as prima facie evidence.
Re: (Score:2)
There is no cheating. The rules are simple, two men enter, one man leaves.
Re: (Score:2)
Don't blame Samsung (Score:3)
This is 100% Apple's fault. Apple started all of this. Samsung, Google, everybody else, is trying to protect themselves against Apple.
That's Funny, the ITC Sees it Completely Different (Score:5, Informative)
According to the ITC [groklaw.net] judge reviewing Apple's complaints about Samsung's standards essential patents, Apple didn't avail themselves to any of the existing remedies when they felt Samsung wasn't offering them a fair licensing deal. They essentially said "You're asking for too much, so we're not paying anything."
If Apple really felt the prices were too high, there are processes in place to force Samsung to the negotiating table. They didn't use any of them. There's no evidence they even made a counter-offer.
Seems more like Apple just doesn't care about other people's patents than Samsung is offering an unfair deal.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:That's Funny, the ITC Sees it Completely Differ (Score:5, Informative)
Oh but it's completely different.
Apple wants the product banned because it has rounded corners and lets you search for stuff.
Samsung wants the product banned because it uses an international communication standard that cannot be implemented without a technology that Samsung invented.
I mean, c'mon, can't you see how much better Apple's case is? ;)
Re:That's Funny, the ITC Sees it Completely Differ (Score:5, Insightful)
Samsung wants the product banned because it uses an international communication standard that cannot be implemented without a technology that Samsung invented that everyone else is paying royalties for but Apple refuses to do so, claiming the price is too high and not even attempting to negotiate.
FTFY.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Then surely they've missed their chance? They had the opportunity, didn't take it, tough luck.
Re: (Score:2)
Nice. (Score:2)
Slashdot community, is this the best you can do for moderation? If you mod down everything you disagree with, all you're really doing is shielding yourself from opposing viewpoints. You're basically working to make yourself stupider and your website less useful. I will never understand the circle-jerk mentality that seems so common on the internet (and everywhere else).
Re: (Score:3)
Except, of course, the ITC judge...
Re: (Score:2)
War never changes... (Score:2)
War. War never changes.
The Romans waged war to gather slaves and wealth. Spain built an empire from its lust for gold and territory. Hitler shaped a battered Germany into an economic superpower.
But war never changes.
In the 21st century, war was still waged over the resources that could be acquired. Only this time, the spoils of war were also its weapons: patents and licensing agreements. For these resources, Apple would invade Alaska, Microsoft would annex Canada, and Samsung would dissolve into quarreling,
DOJ: Without a clue (Score:2)
Samsung is 'using certain patents as a basis for improper legal actions that seek to block the sale of competitors' products.'
Uh, dude. That's what patents are for. They grant the holder exclusive rights to the invention. I don't see any exceptions for monopolization, anti trust or whatever in the relevant Constitutional clause or subsequent enacting legislation.
Ahhh now I Get It (Score:2)
Apple Flavored Kool Aid anyone (Score:1)
hmmm (Score:2)
I think it's called projecting (Score:2)
Fair Share Act? (Score:1)
Why does this story sound like something out of Atlas Shrugged 2?
Re:Samsung's no angel. (Score:5, Interesting)
These aren't submarine patents, like what Rambus did.
This is Apple pulling double standards. Lots of companies have licensed Samsung's standards-essential patents, but Apple refused to. Just because it's FRAND, doesn't mean that Apple can ignore the need to license them. There is some question of patent exhaustion (I think that's the right term), but the courts seem to be inconsistent in dealing with it (see CSIRO vs Buffalo Technology).
Apple has a long history of ignoring other people's/companies' IP, but crying foul over their IP, which is largely questionable.
Re: (Score:2)
First mention of patent exhaustion I've seen in this thread at my threshold.
I believe what happened was Apple bought Qualcomm's chipset to implement wireless and Samsung had an agreement with Qualcomm regarding the licensing of those chips. Samsung basically changed the agreement [zdnet.com] so that Apple was not properly licensed like every other company which used those chips.
Re: (Score:1)
You might want to read the current ITC ruling [groklaw.net] (you might want to skip opinion parts though, too nutty even for Apple-hating me) - information in summary is outdated/incorrect.
Part VII talks about patent exhaustion issues at length, in short - Apple failed to show the evidence for patent exhaustion defense both for Intel and Qualcomm chips, Samsung seems to argue that the license transfer was revoked due to ongoing lawsuits brought by Apple, or that's as far as I can deduce from that {[redacted]} ruling, {[r
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Because if we looked at patents, we would shortly thereafter look at copywrite. And that would offend the Mouse.
Re: (Score:2)
Xerox parc (Score:2, Informative)
Actually what you know as a computer was invented by Xerox Parc and copied by Apple, from mouse to Gui to Windows, all copied. When Apple sued Microsoft for 'look and feel' they lost.
As to the Creative Patent problem, that's a patent office problem. Just because one troll company was granted a vague broad patent, doesn't mean the fix is to grant all companies vague broad patents. The problem here is the patent system is a complete joke, not that the 'wrong' companies are abusing it.
Re: (Score:3)
I love this quote from a former Apple executive:
He explained features like “slide to unlock” took years to perfect, and “other companies shouldn’t be able to steal that.”
I think they need some better software engineers.
Re: (Score:2)