Linked by Thom Holwerda on Thu 1st Sep 2011 21:48 UTC, submitted by glarepate
Legal "In a scene straight out of Bizarro World, Apple's lawyers are crying foul about Samsung and recent Google acquisitions Motorola's allegedly 'anticompetitive' use of patents. Yes, this is the same Apple that has initiated a patent war with these smartphone rivals. And it's the same rival that has tried to remove competing products from the market, rather than agree to negotiate a licensing fee. And it's the same company that patented multi-touch gestures 26 years after they were invented at a research university. And it's the same company that allegedly doctored evidence in European courts to support its lawsuits against Android. Yet in Apple's rose-colored glasses it is Samsung and Motorola who are bullies. Apparently Apple is irate about these companies' countersuits, which rely largely on patents covering wireless communications."
Order by: Score:
You clearly don't get it ...
by kristoph on Thu 1st Sep 2011 22:52 UTC
kristoph
Member since:
2006-01-01

Apple is complaining that Samsung and Motorola are attempting to leverage patents that are required to implement open standards defined by SSO's in which they participated. Their obligation of that participation is to make those patents available to anyone that asks under FRAND provisions.

It's totally different then asserting patents on some random shit you came up with that is not required for inter-operatability.

It totally blows my mind that your cool that Samsung and Motorola would pull a stunt like this - essentially hold open standards like WiFi and 3G hostage.

Do you not get how damaging it would be if companies could assert patents against open standards that they actually helped create?

That said, I'd wager that the reason Apple is raising the red flag on this is that the US government needs to approve the Moto / Google deal and they want a condition of that approval for Googorola to abide by their FRAND obligations.

Reply Score: 1

The mythical FRAND...
by zima on Thu 1st Sep 2011 23:15 UTC in reply to "You clearly don't get it ..."
zima Member since:
2005-07-06

Those "fair and..." provisions mean that anybody willing to play but not having patents of similar worth (similar R&D effort and expenses) to contribute to the pool, absolutely won't be denied usage... but must provide different compensation.

Like the, what, on the order of a billion which went from Apple to Nokia recently? (after you no doubt repeatedly invoked, what else, the mythical FRAND) And/or keeping the tone down a bit instead of screaming bloody murder about own "IP"...

Edited 2011-09-01 23:18 UTC

Reply Score: 4

RE: The mythical FRAND...
by kristoph on Fri 2nd Sep 2011 01:51 UTC in reply to "The mythical FRAND..."
kristoph Member since:
2006-01-01

In fact, in the Nokia/Apple case Nokia and Apple made a point of negotiating FRAND patents separately.

That's the way this has to be done. There are patents on virtually every technology put out by every SSO. If FRAND's are not respected it would be a huge mess.

Reply Score: 3

RE[2]: The mythical FRAND...
by Soulbender on Fri 2nd Sep 2011 02:31 UTC in reply to "RE: The mythical FRAND..."
Soulbender Member since:
2005-08-18

If FRAND's are not respected


Like using them without paying the (reasonable) license fee?

Edited 2011-09-02 02:32 UTC

Reply Score: 7

RE[2]: The mythical FRAND...
by JAlexoid on Sat 3rd Sep 2011 08:21 UTC in reply to "RE: The mythical FRAND..."
JAlexoid Member since:
2009-05-19

FRAND doesn't mean that they have to license them out under ANY conditions. It means that if you set a precedent of licensing them out for $1, then someone else may complain that you are discriminating by licensing them for a billion.
The beauty of those agreements, is that if you never had any licensing agreements without patent cross-licensing deals you can ask whatever amount you wish... or require a patent cross-licensing deal.

Now, if Apple didn't have any patents to cross-license then their comment would be appropriate. But as we stand today, Apple can and probably will be forced to cross-license(same as with Nokia).

Reply Score: 2

RE: You clearly don't get it ...
by Beta on Thu 1st Sep 2011 23:37 UTC in reply to "You clearly don't get it ..."
Beta Member since:
2005-07-06

Apple assembled a phone, using hardware and software technology that Nokia and Motorola (and others) researched to allow us all to have mobile phones. Nokia and Motorola would suitably like a fair amount of tarrif on these inventions

Motorola assembled a tablet, using hardware they built and software Linux, Google, others wrote. Apple thinks a few lines of code covering scrolling should block imports of devices to whole bloody continents.

This is why people laugh at Apple. If they obtained a fair and reasonable deal before the iPhone launched, no doubt they would not be in this pickle now… Apple tried to pay less than fair ‐ see Nokia’s court case with them. And now they cite monopoly influence! Mental.

*I hate FRAND licensing, patents and companies even less. These companies are all pissing around with rights they shouldn’t have been granted, but thats the current situation and we have to balance it.

Reply Score: 26

dsmogor Member since:
2005-09-01

How is this different from AVC patents. Isn't MPEG pool offering everyone reasonable terms?

Reply Score: 2

Beta Member since:
2005-07-06

How is this different from AVC patents. Isn't MPEG pool offering everyone reasonable terms?

Off Topic? I’ll bite.

Firstly, it shouldn’t be patented so there should not be a pool: The alleged patents covering AVC are based on simple mathematics. It is trivial to reimplement software to decode & encode, if you are in the field of video encoding.

Secondly, in the realm of FOSS, ‘fair and reasonable’ is not reasonable, Free Software cannot be shared with a RAND licence on top because it then cannot be conveyed to all parties. See http://blogs.computerworlduk.com/simon-says/2010/11/rand-not-so-rea...

Reply Score: 3

glarepate Member since:
2006-01-04

Apple is complaining that Samsung and Motorola are attempting to leverage patents that are required to implement open standards defined by SSO's in which they participated.


From the article.

"Apple takes issue with the fact that Motorola in its countersuit declines to differentiate the 7 F/RAND patents in its 18 patent collection."

Not quite the same thing, is it? Those F/RAND thingies are only 7 out of the 18 patents in the suit. Less than half ...

And also FTA:

"But given Apple's legal belligerence, the carriers have made a special exception when it comes to Apple. And Apple, struggling in court, is growing increasingly frustrated.

The company's lawyers stated in a recent Motorola hearing, "By making false commitments that led to the establishment of worldwide standards incorporating its own patents and eliminating competing alternative technologies. Motorola [Mobility] has become a gatekeeper, accruing the power to harm or eliminate competition in the relevant markets if it so desires."

See the difference? Motorola and Nokia only want an injunction in one country. And it's not over meaningless, bogus patents either. It's about real device functionality that is fundamental to the operation of the iPhone/Pad/Touch. And it's stuff that Apple haven't licensed. Neither for free, nor for a reasonable and non-discriminatory fee. They just felt entitled to take what wasn't theirs.

So, it's not like Samsung and Motorola Mobility are trying to block sales in 27 different countries over a, pretty bogus, look-and-feel issue based on ten year old drawings of a product that is only 3 or 4 years old (with specious picture-evidence.) They have a real case. Not that it's likely to get them everything they are asking for. But it gives them leverage. You understand that patent countersuits usually go this way?

You really seem to be missing the point here ...

<(^B)<

Edited 2011-09-01 23:50 UTC

Reply Score: 14

kristoph Member since:
2006-01-01

Apple is only complaining about the FRAND patents not about all the patents, please read the relevant complaint (Apple makes this very clear); if a court finds that a company can assert FRAND patents the fallout would be catastrophic.

Forget Apple, their the richest company on the planet and can afford to pay or fight (whichever is cheaper).

The issue is that if company A can prohibit company B from using an OPEN STANDARD by asserting an FRAND patent offensively that standard may be commercially unviable.

Imagine if all the companies who hold FRAND patents on WiFi formed WiFI LA or whatever and wanted $100+ per device; that would kill Wifi as a consumer product, right? (This is a contrived example, I know this won't happen but if a precedent is made in court it would be much more legally feasible.)

This is much more serious then some stupid design patents on tablets.

Edited 2011-09-02 01:47 UTC

Reply Score: 3

TechGeek Member since:
2006-01-14

You might have a point there. Except Apple hasn't actually paid for those FRAND licenses yet. Maybe they should have done that before they started selling the product. Now its just one more brick to hit Apple with. I don't have much sympathy for Apple on this.

Reply Score: 9

smashIt Member since:
2005-07-06

You might have a point there. Except Apple hasn't actually paid for those FRAND licenses yet. Maybe they should have done that before they started selling the product.


apple didn't even have the rights to the iPhone trademark and they still went on sale with it.
they just don't give a shit about other peoples IP

Reply Score: 7

lemur2 Member since:
2007-02-17

You might have a point there. Except Apple hasn't actually paid for those FRAND licenses yet. Maybe they should have done that before they started selling the product. Now its just one more brick to hit Apple with. I don't have much sympathy for Apple on this.


Not only that, but also consider that Apple are attacking other companies, and trying to get competing products banned, based on simple elementary concepts such as the fact that tablets and phones are rectangles, and that one needs to scroll when the text to be displayed is longer than the screen.

In what way are Apple's alleged GUI patent complaints any less required for interoperability (with people) than any that Apple are complaining about as required for interoperability with wireless networks?

Reply Score: 8

lemur2 Member since:
2007-02-17

You might have a point there. Except Apple hasn't actually paid for those FRAND licenses yet. Maybe they should have done that before they started selling the product. Now its just one more brick to hit Apple with. I don't have much sympathy for Apple on this.


One would think that it is perfectly Fair, Reasonable, And entirely Non-Discriminatory, to sue parties who have not paid for a FRAND license, when other parties have paid.

Edited 2011-09-02 04:02 UTC

Reply Score: 10

BallmerKnowsBest Member since:
2008-06-02

"You might have a point there. Except Apple hasn't actually paid for those FRAND licenses yet. Maybe they should have done that before they started selling the product. Now its just one more brick to hit Apple with. I don't have much sympathy for Apple on this.


One would think that it is perfectly Fair, Reasonable, And entirely Non-Discriminatory, to sue parties who have not paid for a FRAND license, when other parties have paid.
"

When it comes to Apple, the iFanboys have a completely warped notion of "fairness". They don't really want fairness for Apple, they want special treatment - and "unfair" is when Apple isn't given ENOUGH special treatment.

It's like a collective form of narcissistic personality disorder. Apple's complaint amounts to "but we're special, how DARE you expect us play by the same rules as everyone else?!?!?!?"

Reply Score: 6

cfgr Member since:
2009-07-18

The issue is that if company A can prohibit company B from using an OPEN STANDARD by asserting an FRAND patent offensively that standard may be commercially unviable.


The issue is that if company A can prohibit company B from using a STANDARD SHAPE by asserting a design patent offensively, that standard may be commercially unviable.

What, you want oval tablets now?

Also, the FRAND patents are used defensively, in case you hadn't noticed.

Edited 2011-09-02 02:38 UTC

Reply Score: 6

glarepate Member since:
2006-01-04

Also, the FRAND patents are used defensively, in case you hadn't noticed.


If he has noticed he has carefully avoided any mention of it. His focus has been entirely on how Apple complained about the counterclaims being untenable/intolerable with absolutely no acknowledgement whatsoever of how they came to be in such a bind.

All effect and no cause ...

Reply Score: 4

glarepate Member since:
2006-01-04

Apple is only complaining about the FRAND patents not about all the patents, ...


And you are still failing to address why they are facing a countersuit with those patents being asserted against them.

What did they do that got their adversaries to counter-attack them this way? And once you address that, then try explaining why it was OK for them to do it, but not fair to be hit back in a similar way after they did it.

GLWT

Reply Score: 6

JAlexoid Member since:
2009-05-19

Forget Apple, their the richest company on the planet and can afford to pay or fight (whichever is cheaper).

The issue is that if company A can prohibit company B from using an OPEN STANDARD by asserting an FRAND patent offensively that standard may be commercially unviable.


It's most definitely all about Apple. FRAND does not imply that everyone is treated equally. There is no "equal" in FRAND. There are no requirements for a company to openly state what are the terms of essential patent licensing.
If you think that the terms that MPEG-LA and Thompson Multimedia MP3 publish are FRAND, then you are mistaken. H.264 and MP3 licensing is FRAND+1.

Reply Score: 2

smashIt Member since:
2005-07-06

FRAND does not imply that everyone is treated equally.


the ND stands for non-discriminatory
in my book thats the same as equal in this context

Edited 2011-09-03 23:46 UTC

Reply Score: 2

JAlexoid Member since:
2009-05-19

Non-discriminatory means that you can't say no just because you want to say no. Fair and reasonable is the part that governs compensation.
See the result of Nokia vs Apple - it's definitely not equal to everyone else*, yet non-discriminatory.


* - the biggest indicator that it's not equal to everyone else is the fact that the terms are not public.

Reply Score: 2

RE: You clearly don't get it ...
by Neolander on Fri 2nd Sep 2011 19:16 UTC in reply to "You clearly don't get it ..."
Neolander Member since:
2010-03-08

If I'm not misunderstood, what you are saying is that it is right to patent stupid stuff and sue people about it, but that patenting actually useful inventions, like Wi-Fi and 3G connections, is not okay, right ?

In that case, what's the point of having patents at all ? Are they only there for money extorsion and other legal bullying tactics in your view ?

(This is a serious question. In my view, the fact that random things like round rects can be patented is a problem with the current patent system, and the fact that patents on important inventions can be used to legally bully a competitor and push it out of the market is another problem with it)

Edited 2011-09-02 19:24 UTC

Reply Score: 3

Now take the beat
by CapEnt on Fri 2nd Sep 2011 00:35 UTC
CapEnt
Member since:
2005-12-18

The bad side of being a bully is that someday, somewhere, someone will beat you hard, and you will cry.

See the difference between a faux patent claim and real patent violation? A small and succinct text of a Samsung lawyer was enough for Apple to became pale in fear.

Reply Score: 16

Repeat after me....
by obsidian on Fri 2nd Sep 2011 02:59 UTC
obsidian
Member since:
2007-05-12

"If you don't like the heat, get out of the kitchen."

How do you get a *counter*-suit filed against you?
By your filing a suit in the first place.

Apple files suits against various companies, then it whines when said companies play the same game against them!

Harden up, Apple - I have no sympathy whatsoever for you.

Reply Score: 11

The Holy Grail
by mksoft on Fri 2nd Sep 2011 07:37 UTC
mksoft
Member since:
2006-02-25

Apple: Come and see the violence inherent in the system. Help! Help! I'm being repressed!


That's Apple for you: Don't play with the other kids, bully them and prevent them from playing. Yet you complain when they rough you up ?

Reply Score: 3

:)
by OSGuy on Fri 2nd Sep 2011 08:47 UTC
OSGuy
Member since:
2006-01-01

When I first read the intro of this article, it sounded 100% like it was written by Thom lol

Anyway, to me with this move, it sounds like Apple is promoting irony and hypocrisy.

Reply Score: 3

RE: :)
by Thom_Holwerda on Fri 2nd Sep 2011 09:35 UTC in reply to ":)"
Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

Yeah I'm suing them for copyright infringement and blatant copying of my style.

Reply Score: 6

RE[2]: :)
by OSGuy on Fri 2nd Sep 2011 10:57 UTC in reply to "RE: :)"
OSGuy Member since:
2006-01-01

:) haha

I honestly say, that excerpt describes exactly who and what Apple is "competition by litigation" (in my own opinion of course). That's it, we don't even have to read the rest, that portion says it all and for people that have been following will know this.

Edited 2011-09-02 10:58 UTC

Reply Score: 2

Comment by TusharG
by TusharG on Fri 2nd Sep 2011 09:45 UTC
TusharG
Member since:
2005-07-06

It's a pay back time ;) ... keep your cash ready ;)

Reply Score: 1

Uhh, what?
by Drunkula on Fri 2nd Sep 2011 12:34 UTC
Drunkula
Member since:
2009-09-03

It's not Apple's responsibility to tell the federal government to do what they will do anyhow.

Reply Score: 1

...
by Hiev on Fri 2nd Sep 2011 14:12 UTC
Hiev
Member since:
2005-09-27

The words "Cry me a river" comes to my mind.

Reply Score: 4

RE: ...
by BallmerKnowsBest on Fri 2nd Sep 2011 14:43 UTC in reply to "..."
BallmerKnowsBest Member since:
2008-06-02

The words "Cry me a river" comes to my mind.


I can think of a few others.

"See that red spot on my shirt? It may look like a ketchup stain, but it's actually my heart bleeding for you."

"Shh... hear that? It's me playing the world's saddest song on the world's smallest violin."

"Oh no, the baby needs his bottle, someone call the waaaaaahhhhmbulance!"

Reply Score: 3

Sigh...
by J.R. on Fri 2nd Sep 2011 15:18 UTC
J.R.
Member since:
2007-07-25

Funny how not a single day go by these days without me facepalm over Apple....

Reply Score: 3

Comment by SaschaW
by SaschaW on Fri 2nd Sep 2011 18:46 UTC
SaschaW
Member since:
2007-07-19

you reap what you sow :-) I can't help but feeling schadenfreude for Apple at this point.

Reply Score: 2

oiaohm
Member since:
2009-05-30

FRAND From Motorolla and Samsung is very reasonable.

Its free as long as you don't attack them with Patents aggressively.

Apple should have read the requirements on the patents they required before trying to baseball bat competition.

Yes aggressively is calling for products from being banned from shipping before the patent case has been through the courts.

Their FRAND does not block you from going after either with a valid patent and asking for payment or forcing you way through the courts for payments.

Bring injections and other items before the patent is proven valid in a court is not allowed by either FRAND.

Result of apple mistake is they are toast. Being a prick risks the others being a prick. So now Apple needs anti-trust to save their ass. Really USA let Apple burn because this might stop a lot of stupid usage of patents.

Reply Score: 5

Gone fishing Member since:
2006-02-22

Really USA let Apple burn because this might stop a lot of stupid usage of patents.


I would love to see Apple being banded from selling the iphone in the US. Maybe then we would see this madness stop. I would also derive immense pleasure from seeing the most hypocritical and litigious company hoisted on it's own petard

However, I see no reason why companies are investing Billions in take overs and mergers to get often spurious IP. That cost is passed on to you and me, when we buy products and it purpose is simply to stifle innovation and protect the greedy by forming anti-competitive cartels.

Reply Score: 4