“Samsung made comments early Friday about going on the offensive with its ongoing patent dispute with Apple, and it appears to be putting its money (and its lawyers) where its mouth is. The Korean company just filed a complaint with The Hague, seeking a ban on all sales of Apple’s smartphones and tablets due to alleged infringement of four of its wireless mobile technology patents. Dutch site Webwereld.nl has the details of the new complaint filed with The Hague, which relates specifically to 3G mobile networking technologies, as well as technologies governing the transfer rate of data to mobile devices over a cellular network. Samsung’s complaint covers Apple itself, as well as five other private companies that manage Apple’s sales and distribution channels in the Netherlands.” I’ll be following the Twitter feeds from The Hague closely coming Monday when the meeting about possible FRAND licensing takes place. Let’s hope Samsung manages to pull an injunction out of all this.
The EU takes a dim view of FRAND related litigation. It’s arguably an anti-trust violation.
Samsung seems pretty desperate to get some leverage on Apple. It might wind up backfiring on them if the Dutch court – which is reasonably sensible – rebukes them.
On the upside if they do manage to ban iThings it would hopefully stop the patent madness.
As desperate as what Apple has been doing to Samsung and other Android manufacturer lately, right?
It’s certainly lame all around.
I am just saying that trying to use FRAND patents in an offensive manner suggests that this is Samsung’s only option.
]{
Since when fighting back after a previous aggression is offensive?
Your assessment of this seems to be way slanted, sir…
Well, if you sue someone using a patent that’s an offensive use of that patent (offensive as opposed to defensive, not as in ‘I am offended’).
Remember that a court does not care if you are being sued by the same party. It only cares about the issue at hand. The law is the law, you don’t get a free pass because you want vengeance or whatever.
]{
Nonsense. I guess you believe hitting someone who’s attacking you is also offensive use of force?
OMG! Yes, ok, in your utopian, everything is about fairness, f–k the corporations world, yes, Samsung (the biggest conglomerate in APAC) is the little guy valiantly fighting Apple, the American imperialist pig.
In an EU court, Samsung the company is suing Apple the company using an FRAND patent. That court won’t care that Apple is suing Samsung over some other patent. Their going to look at the merits of the case and in the EU (and US for that matter) courts take a very dim view of companies attempting to sue using FRAND patents.
You still believe in the law right? Or did you give that up to push your agenda?
Edited 2011-09-24 17:06 UTC
And the FRAND bit does not actually matter, in fact IMHO it should actually count in Samsungs favor. It’s rather simple since Samsung is suing over those patents, Apple does not have a valid license. The FRAND status of those patents makes them rather well known, making Apples lack of license a rater deliberate act. And the FRAND terms, makes them simple cheap bastards not bothering getting a license(It’s fair, reasonable not free). Neither should be putting Apple in a good light for the court.
You don’t actually know anything about this case, do you?
Samsung and Apple have already discussed the licensing of these patents. Apple wanted to negotiate licenses for these patents separately from other Apple/Samsung disputes. Samsung wanted a ‘grand bargain’ and refused to license the patents under typical FRAND terms.
So this court case will hinge largely upon what FRAND means and if Samsung is obligated to license FRAND patents under ‘fair and reasonable’ terms irrespective of their relationship with the licensor.
(If this goes Samsung’s way that would mean any random company that was part of a standards body and holds the patents required to implement that standard could prevent other companies from implementing that standard. That would be a mess.)
]{
Source? Not questioning you – I’d just like to know if these three patents have already seen negotitations. I haven’t heard anybody else say this, you see.
You have two options. You can go to Muller’s blog. He has quotations from the various filings. I know you don’t like him or whatever so just read the quotations and make up your own mind. Your other options is to request the filings as a member of the media (which, as you know, is a really abstract concept these days). It’s actually really easy to do if your cool with paying the fee.
The Australian one is easier to read. You can get that from Federal Court of Australia, New South Wales Registry.
The US one is WAY more colorful but really really long. Apple accusations in that filing are so over the top it’s funny.
I don’t know if you can get the one from The Hague but I am going to try that too (stupid question but would those be only in Dutch or would they have an english translation?).
Anyway, basically, Samsung says Apple refuses to license the patents but Apple accuses Samsung of withholding the FRAND patents in a non-discriminatory manner (specifically saying they want a deal on the trade dress patents).
Also worth noting is that they are apparently scheduled to meet this week about the licensing so these patent cases might get defused before they even see court.
]{
You sum it up nicely, but you look at it from the totally wrong end. The Apple ligation against Samsung is irrelevant for this case.
This case is simply about Apple shipping product for years without a valid license. A ban on those infringing Apple products is quite fair. They have had the chance for years to get the licensing in order. After-all if those patents had not been FRAND, common practice would also have Apple pay rather hefty damages for those already shipped devices.
Edited 2011-09-25 11:03 UTC
Sorry, this statement is just plain ridiculous. There are no typical FRAND terms in the tel.co market. Where there are no “typical” terms, there can be no easy settlement. And to my knowledge, FRAND does not force the patent holder to negotiate separately from other issues. (See Apple vs Nokia, for a very similar case)
I really hope that we might get to find out the terms offered under the FRAND to Apple. If Apple regarded them as UNFAIR then that might explain how we got to where we are now.
Until we know the real details of the terms offered (which might be redacted btw) all we can do is speculate on the outcome.
speculating about what might possibly have gone on,
If Samsung licensed the patents to another company for $0.50/unit but wanted Apple to pay $5.00 AND Apple found out about other deals done under REASONABLE terms, the might very well say nope, no deal. Put yourself in their shoes, what would be your reaction to that offer? Please try to put ‘I’m an Apple Fanboi’ or ‘I hate Apple’ to one side for a moment.
My guess is that because you know of the other deals you tell Samsung, ‘Sorry, no deal’.
There are probably cases where the roles are reversed but this case and only this case is what will be considered by the judge. Given that knowledge, how would you decided if you were the judge?
End speculation.
Until we know the real facts we are all just speculating.
Kristoph, you seem to have a distorted view of reality, you need to see and read events in context, lawyers needs to to this to understand the case they were handling. Man needs to look at the context of the events when it takes place, not just the 1:1 ratio. Yes, this case is Samsung vs. Apple and lawyers needs to address this case based solely on this case filed by Samsung as posted by the author. Samsung in this case, is on the defensive, and because it now goes on to the offensive, I believe when taken on context of nation vs. nation, this is another example of Casus belli, since Apple wanted to destroy all tablets and Smartphones made by Samsung.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casus_belli
Edited 2011-09-26 00:24 UTC
I am only talking about the law in question, not the broader moral justification.
However, there is no point in rehashing this again because, as Thom pointed out there is a court date on this tomorrow and we’ll have a great deal more information to discuss.
A lot of people think the law is wrong when it comes to software patents.
Depends on what their actual complaint is. But hey! Everybody loves sweeping statements…
Question is, is it the case in Netherlands… The legal system there might care about the litigation in general.
If a company isn’t paying to licence a patent, I don’t see how thats fair and reasonable either. If Apple wont enter an agreement to honour FRAND terms, then yes, litigation is Samsungs only option †it just is not offensive as you would claim. From the proceedings today:â€
Samsung: We want you to licence this from us, here are our terms.
Apple: We (a) don’t infringe (b) use some components from Intel and Infineon so we believe we are covered (c) do not wish to pay
Samsung: (a) you do (b) for some of many components you use (c) ha
In the US case Verizon has filed a motion for leave to file an amicus curiae brief:
http://www.groklaw.net/pdf3/ApplevSamsung-256.pdf
And here is the amicus brief itself:
http://www.groklaw.net/pdf3/ApplevSamsung-257.pdf
Verizon comes down on Samsung’s side of things as well as invoking the notion of harm to the phone buying and using members of the public.
Yep, I’m working at the moment (no weekend for me), but later today I’ll write about this (or possibly tomorrow if I’m too tired today).
At your convenience ; I’d like to assist more than dictate.
My agenda is probably fairly obvious (and if it isn’t, that’s maybe a little more polite than usual for me) but it should not be viewed as a policy guideline suggestion, neither for your site nor your metabolic behaviors and needs. If you did and thought what I did you’d be me and I wouldn’t need your site or see it as a valuable source of input.
(0;)
Samsung is its right to punch Apple in the face after what they did.
good luck to samsung. apple deserves a beating
And dutch people deserves the right to buy apple products.
in fact everyone should be ale to buy Apple products as well as Samsung’s products.
Don’t forget that Apple started this thing here and Samsung may counter.
Companies never seem to learn (especially when greed kicks in).
No Apples, better get some pop corn and enjoy the show
Edited 2011-09-25 05:19 UTC
As much as I hate a lot of Apples business practices their products should not be banned because of patents ether. No ones should!
rofl. it is true. this is a dick move, but because apple did it first, it is vengeance. or justice. I forget the difference
I hope Samsung manages to ban the iProducts in every country they (Samsung) file(s) a class action. Enough is a enough.
Oh by the way: http://www.zdnet.com/blog/mobile-news/via-patent-suit-may-give-appl…
Mobile chipmaker Via Technologies has sued Apple for violating three of its microprocessor-related patents. The folks in Cupertino may have problems with this one.
But check out the update at the end of the article. This is epic! LOL
Update: Eagle-eyed colleague Ed Bott just pointed me to one not very obvious fact. Via Chairman Cher Wang is also the Chairman of HTC, heavily involved in patent litigation with Apple. This is getting interesting, and may end up being a patent playing card exchange move after all. Thanks, Ed!
Edited 2011-09-24 11:08 UTC
Not only that but they (CEO of VIA and Chairwoman/co-founder of HTC) are actually husband and wife.
The main issue is the license between Apple and ARM here, though.
As far as this lawsuit goes I am sorry to say that I think Samsung is doing a big mistake in using FRAND patents.
I hope Samsung manages to ban all Apple products. And then I hope Apple bans all Samsung products. After which all other products ever made is banned by everyone else. Maybe then someone with power will think “Hey, something seems to be wrong here…”
I hope Samsung manages to ban all Apple products. And then I hope Apple bans all Samsung products. After which all other products ever made is banned by everyone else. Maybe then someone with power will think “Hey, something seems to be wrong here…”
Best comment I have ever read. Let’s hope the “Hey, something seems to be wrong here…” part comes a lot sooner if it ever comes.
All these things wind up as patent licensing deals ultimately. It’s a question of who pays what.
Apple. Whirlwind. Reap.
“The EU takes a dim view of FRAND related litigation. It’s arguably an anti-trust violation. ”
Apple has most likely broken the terms of the FRAND going to block Samsung product instead of asking for money.
Sorry the EU courts do take offence to someone straight up using a FRAND patent offensively.
Defensively is a completely different matter. Defensively is normally not a patent case but a contract law case and the infringement being breach of contract.
You were required to obey particular terms of FRAND contract failing todo so you don’t have FRAND protection.
If you where not happy with the Frand conditions you could have not used the IP or licensed those patents directly without those conditions or sue for anti-trust over the Frand. Apple has done none of this.
FRAND terms must not be to create an anti-trust case. Ie Frand cannot block you from releasing competing product. But a Frand can block you from blocking the Frand holder or user of the Frand patent from releasing a competing product. Even provide limits on how you legal attack the Frand holder or Frand user.
Asking for payments for used IP acceptable banning products from sale not acceptable. Is acceptable in most FRAND licensing.
Basically Apple might have blown there left and right feet off.
In fact most Frand’s contain clauses preventing attempting to block product before giving other side a chance to prove that you claim is valid or invalid and then a chance to pay the cost for the IP. Against anyone using the Frand.
Yes Frand provides universal protection to all users of the Frand so is not an anti-trust problem. Since everyone has to play by the same rules.
Basically play by rules everyone else has to get a free patent usage or suffer the fall out.
Microsoft has the same problem against Motorola. Microsoft has triggers Frand protective land mines. Just like Apple has with Samsung.
Yes since it contract court not a patent one with Frand all Apple actions to Samsung will be up for investigation looking for violations of the frand in conformance with attempted anti-trust actions on Apple part.
If it turns out Apple has volitated the FRAND then the patent usage cost of those patents and how bad from an anti-trust point of view of apple actions were kick in.
Results can be quite nasty. Apple attempted to ban Samsung so Samsung is right to ask for equal in mirror.
Even worse is Motorola’s that require payment of damages in patents and refunds of every cent you have ever been paid for those patents to everyone in the FRAND to get back approved to use the FRAND protected stuff.
Yes patents of yours becoming FRAND patents you had been charging people for.
Samsung and Motorola Patent Monopoly over wireless is true. But also true is all those patents are under FRAND. Neither will attack you if you don’t attack them. Also there FRAND’s clearly list what conditions will trigger defensive usage of those patents.
Apple biggest problem is after Samsung is done with there FRAND patents Motorola/Google is free to put another around of hurt on Apple.
So if Samsung wins there is every chance that Apple will not be able to sell Smartphones or Tablets in the Netherlands for quite a few years as everyone with FRAND patents that Apple has breached tag teams them.
Microsoft is also facing the same problem with Samsung after Motorola is done with them.
Both Microsoft and Apple have been completely stupid. Patents don’t get you market share all the time. They can bring you a world of hurt.
FRAND patents are about protecting your means to sell product to end users in a free and competitive market.
Wow, dude, you’ve just won the award for making the most factually incorrect statements in a post …
The FRAND patent suit is totally unrelated to any other suit (both as a practical matter and because Samsung filed a separate suit).
Yes, they do. By definition a licensor has to license an FRAND patent in a ‘fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory’ manner. It’s pretty hard to be ‘fair and reasonable’ while trying to go on the offensive against a specific party, don’t you think?
A defensive patent suit is a suit a company files in response to another parties offensive patent suit as way to force the other party to the negotiating table.
This is exactly what the HTC/Via/S3 suits are. Their HTC’s attempt to force Apple to negotiate.
This is what Samsung is ostensibly trying to do with these FRAND patent suits except that because these are FRAND patents they cannot withhold them and must license them under ‘non-discriminatory’ terms which means that, as a practical matter, they don’t work defensively unless you don’t follow FRAND term (which is exactly what Apple is saying their doing).
There is no ‘contract’ of any sort and there is no way for a patent to lose FRAND status.
Apple does have to license these patents. In both the Australian and the US filings they have said they have attempted to obtain a license from Samsung and Samsung is not willing to license the patents under ‘non-discriminatory’ terms.
(In the US filing Apple goes on to basically call Samsung all sorts of nasty things which they are – I am told by a colleague closer to the case – doing in case they need to file a DOJ complain/anti-trust suit against Samsung.)
Samsung, perhaps realizing this, has scheduled a meeting with Apple regarding licensing these patents (apparently next week even)/
Apple wants the patents under FRAND terms. Apple is saying Samsung won’t give Apple the patents under FRAND terms.
No idea what your trying to say here. The Samsung patents are required to implement part of the GSM standard. Is Samsung fails to license them that would allow them to be the GSM gatekeeper and totally control the market for ALL handsets made in Europe. That is a classic anti-trust case.
Sure. So what does that have to do with anything? Apple is not trying to use Samsung’s patents to block anyone. Their suit against Samsung is totally unrelated to anything in these FRAND patents.
No it does not. Your confusing FRAND patent rules and patent pools (or something).
Your totally mixing up lawsuits now. Apple’s suits have nothing to do with FRAND.
Yes because Apple’s lawyers, world wide, are idiots and your a genius.
Only in relation to the technology covered under FRAND. Apple is suing Samsung’s for patents and trade dress that are totally unrelated to any standard in which Apple participated.
Apple is saying is that Samsung is not playing by FRAND rules. This is entire basis of their response to the lawsuit.
No. First, nothing is free. You have to license the patents. Second, you don’t get usage of random patents if you have contributed your patents to a standards setting organization. You (or for that matter anyone) have a right to license other patents which are part of the standard under FRAND terms.
Nonsense. FRAND is just an umbrella terms definition for licensing. It does not force the patent holder to do anything except license their patents under FRAND terms.
I am ignoring the rest of this since it’s likewise nonsense.
I stopped reading there. As long as you keep lying like that, nobody is going to take you seriously, kid.
Please don’t call me ‘kid’. It’s a lame attempt to age discriminate and it’s not even accurate since I am almost twice your age.
Also, notice the statement where you claim I am lying is, in fact, a statement of opinion phrased as a question.
I am can’t be lying while stating an opining or asking a question. If you disagree with that opinion and have a substantive counter opinion that would be a more mature response then just lashing out.
You always make disparaging remarks against anyone who disagrees with you including people who know like 10x more about a topic then you do like Muller. It’s really immature to questions people’s analysis when you’ve done like 0 research on a topic. It’s fine to say ‘I disagree with this and here are the facts to back me up’. Only ‘kids’ say ‘I disagree with this’ even while they don’t understand the topic at hand.
A lot of words to cover up for the fact that you are lying when you say Samsung is using these patents offensively. This isn’t an opinion. It’s fact. Apple attacked first, Samsung is now striking back. That’s called defensive action. There’s no opinion involved.
You know that very well.
Also, don’t read too much into the ‘kid’ remark. I use Dutch equivalents like ‘kind’ and ‘knul’ all the time in real life.
Thom, I started to use the term ‘offensive’ because YOU WROTE IN THE FIRST LINE OF THE ARTICLE that Samsung said their ‘going on the offensive’.
How can I lie about Samsung’s intent if I am simply using the same terminology they have used for this action.
Of course, I recognize that Samsung is doing this in response to the Apple lawsuit. It’s fair to call it a defensive action but that’s not how you phrased it so I followed your lead.
However, irrespective of the broader (and sort of silly) question of whether this is an offensive or defensive action my point is that the courts are going to consider ONLY this case and in this case Samsung (according to Apple) is attempting to ban it’s products using an FRAND patent.
The court won’t consider the broader context, right? Or do you disagree that the courts will think it’s fine for Samsung to break FRAND rules (if, in fact, they have done so) given the fact that Apple is suiting for other patents/community design/trade dress?
PS. Ok, cool, I understand the lost in translation thing. English is my 5th language so I often say things that sound odd to others too (even my wife!)
Edited 2011-09-26 00:06 UTC
Look, this is the problem right here. Nobody knows if Samsung broke any rules. We don’t know if negotiations were already under way. We don’t know why these hypothetical negotiations broke down. We don’t know if Apple willfully infringed these patents despite Samsung offering them a FRAND license. Heck, we don’t even know if these are FRAND patents in the first place!
Let’s just wait until tomorrow, when the FRAND hearing will take place. The same guy who has been covering all these Dutch cases from within the courtroom via Twitter will be present again tomorrow, so we’ll get live updates.
“Fair and reasonable” is a very subjective matter here. Apple considers their UI patents to be worth much more than Nokia’s(R&D – EUR40bn) GSM related patents.
FRAND terms constitute a unilateral contract. So yeah, there is a contract to be broken. Patents do not loose FRAND status, but the owner of the patents is not under any obligation to license the patents under the terms of licensee.
This situation starts to look like Apple vs Nokia. Who won there? Yeah… the company that came to the table with FRAND patents.