Linked by Thom Holwerda on Fri 23rd Sep 2011 22:27 UTC
Legal "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.
Order by: Score:
this will not go over well in the EU
by kristoph on Sat 24th Sep 2011 00:19 UTC
kristoph
Member since:
2006-01-01

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.

Reply Score: 1

yanik Member since:
2005-07-13

As desperate as what Apple has been doing to Samsung and other Android manufacturer lately, right?

Reply Score: 7

kristoph Member since:
2006-01-01

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.

]{

Reply Score: 0

skandalfo Member since:
2010-04-07

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...

Reply Score: 6

RE: You have an agenda to push
by kristoph on Sat 24th Sep 2011 16:51 UTC in reply to "You have an agenda to push"
kristoph Member since:
2006-01-01

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.

]{

Reply Score: 2

Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

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').


Nonsense. I guess you believe hitting someone who's attacking you is also offensive use of force?

Reply Score: 2

kristoph Member since:
2006-01-01

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

Reply Score: 1

RE[4]: You have an agenda to push
by Morty on Sat 24th Sep 2011 19:45 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: You have an agenda to push"
Morty Member since:
2005-07-06

Samsung the company is suing Apple the company using an FRAND patent.

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.

Reply Score: 6

RE[4]: Casus belli
by allanregistos on Mon 26th Sep 2011 00:19 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: You have an agenda to push"
allanregistos Member since:
2011-02-10

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?


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

Reply Score: 1

RE[4]: You have an agenda to push
by Fergy on Mon 26th Sep 2011 06:40 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: You have an agenda to push"
Fergy Member since:
2006-04-10

You still believe in the law right? Or did you give that up to push your agenda?

A lot of people think the law is wrong when it comes to software patents.

Reply Score: 2

JAlexoid Member since:
2009-05-19

heir 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.


Depends on what their actual complaint is. But hey! Everybody loves sweeping statements...

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: You have an agenda to push
by JAlexoid on Mon 26th Sep 2011 08:28 UTC in reply to "RE: You have an agenda to push"
JAlexoid Member since:
2009-05-19

Remember that a court does not care if you are being sued by the same party.

Question is, is it the case in Netherlands... The legal system there might care about the litigation in general.

Reply Score: 2

Beta Member since:
2005-07-06

I am just saying that trying to use FRAND patents in an offensive manner suggests that this is Samsung's only option.


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:‐

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

Reply Score: 2

glarepate Member since:
2006-01-04

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.

Verizon Wireless respectfully requests leave to file this brief to inform the Court of public interest considerations implicated by Apple’s preliminary injunction motion on its utility patent.[2]
The requested injunction of certain Samsung products will harm Verizon Wireless and U.S. consumers. It also has the possibility of slowing the deployment of next-generation networks – such as Verizon Wireless’s – contrary to the stated goals of the U.S. government. [3]

Reply Score: 3

Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

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).

Reply Score: 1

glarepate Member since:
2006-01-04

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;)

Reply Score: 2

shmerl Member since:
2010-06-08

Samsung is its right to punch Apple in the face after what they did.

Reply Score: 3

Comment by andih
by andih on Sat 24th Sep 2011 00:23 UTC
andih
Member since:
2010-03-27

good luck to samsung. apple deserves a beating

Reply Score: 7

RE: Comment by andih
by Hiev on Sat 24th Sep 2011 00:56 UTC in reply to "Comment by andih"
Hiev Member since:
2005-09-27

And dutch people deserves the right to buy apple products.

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Comment by andih
by linux-it on Sat 24th Sep 2011 10:51 UTC in reply to "RE: Comment by andih"
linux-it Member since:
2006-07-13

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).

Reply Score: 6

RE[2]: Comment by andih
by shmerl on Sun 25th Sep 2011 05:19 UTC in reply to "RE: Comment by andih"
shmerl Member since:
2010-06-08

No Apples, better get some pop corn and enjoy the show ;)

Edited 2011-09-25 05:19 UTC

Reply Score: 2

RE: Comment by andih
by metalf8801 on Sat 24th Sep 2011 01:03 UTC in reply to "Comment by andih"
metalf8801 Member since:
2010-03-22

As much as I hate a lot of Apples business practices their products should not be banned because of patents ether. No ones should!

Reply Score: 1

RE: Comment by andih
by Luminair on Sat 24th Sep 2011 02:34 UTC in reply to "Comment by andih"
Luminair Member since:
2007-03-30

rofl. it is true. this is a dick move, but because apple did it first, it is vengeance. or justice. I forget the difference

Reply Score: 5

Go Sammy!
by OSGuy on Sat 24th Sep 2011 11:04 UTC
OSGuy
Member since:
2006-01-01

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

Reply Score: 7

RE: Go Sammy!
by ephracis on Sat 24th Sep 2011 13:26 UTC in reply to "Go Sammy!"
ephracis Member since:
2007-09-23

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..."

Reply Score: 7

RE[2]: Go Sammy!
by OSGuy on Sat 24th Sep 2011 22:59 UTC in reply to "RE: Go Sammy!"
OSGuy Member since:
2006-01-01

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.

Reply Score: 4

RE: Go Sammy!
by kristoph on Sat 24th Sep 2011 16:53 UTC in reply to "Go Sammy!"
kristoph Member since:
2006-01-01

All these things wind up as patent licensing deals ultimately. It's a question of who pays what.

Reply Score: 2

AWR
by orfanum on Sat 24th Sep 2011 14:24 UTC
orfanum
Member since:
2006-06-02

Apple. Whirlwind. Reap.

Reply Score: 1

There is a myth here.
by oiaohm on Sun 25th Sep 2011 02:38 UTC
oiaohm
Member since:
2009-05-30

"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.

Reply Score: 5

RE: There is a myth here.
by kristoph on Sun 25th Sep 2011 17:59 UTC in reply to "There is a myth here."
kristoph Member since:
2006-01-01

Wow, dude, you've just won the award for making the most factually incorrect statements in a post ...

"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.


The FRAND patent suit is totally unrelated to any other suit (both as a practical matter and because Samsung filed a separate suit).


Sorry the EU courts do take offence to someone straight up using a FRAND patent offensively.


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?

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.


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).


You were required to obey particular terms of FRAND contract failing todo so you don't have FRAND protection.


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)/


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.


Apple wants the patents under FRAND terms. Apple is saying Samsung won't give Apple the patents under FRAND terms.

FRAND terms must not be to create an anti-trust case.


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.

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.


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.


Even provide limits on how you legal attack the Frand holder or Frand user.


No it does not. Your confusing FRAND patent rules and patent pools (or something).


Asking for payments for used IP acceptable banning products from sale not acceptable. Is acceptable in most FRAND licensing.


Your totally mixing up lawsuits now. Apple's suits have nothing to do with FRAND.


Basically Apple might have blown there left and right feet off.


Yes because Apple's lawyers, world wide, are idiots and your a genius.

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.


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.


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.


Apple is saying is that Samsung is not playing by FRAND rules. This is entire basis of their response to the lawsuit.


Basically play by rules everyone else has to get a free patent usage or suffer the fall out.


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.


Microsoft has the same problem against Motorola. Microsoft has triggers Frand protective land mines. Just like Apple has with Samsung.


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.

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: There is a myth here.
by Thom_Holwerda on Sun 25th Sep 2011 18:18 UTC in reply to "RE: There is a myth here."
Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

It's pretty hard to be 'fair and reasonable' while trying to go on the offensive against a specific party, don't you think?


I stopped reading there. As long as you keep lying like that, nobody is going to take you seriously, kid.

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: There is a myth here.
by kristoph on Sun 25th Sep 2011 22:55 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: There is a myth here."
kristoph Member since:
2006-01-01

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.

Reply Score: 2

RE[4]: There is a myth here.
by Thom_Holwerda on Sun 25th Sep 2011 23:30 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: There is a myth here."
Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

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.

Reply Score: 1

RE[5]: There is a myth here.
by kristoph on Sun 25th Sep 2011 23:52 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: There is a myth here."
kristoph Member since:
2006-01-01

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

Reply Score: 2

RE[6]: There is a myth here.
by Thom_Holwerda on Mon 26th Sep 2011 00:13 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: There is a myth here."
Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

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?


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.

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: There is a myth here.
by JAlexoid on Mon 26th Sep 2011 08:48 UTC in reply to "RE: There is a myth here."
JAlexoid Member since:
2009-05-19

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?

"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.

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.

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.

Reply Score: 2