Linked by Thom Holwerda on Mon 27th Jan 2014 00:02 UTC
Legal

Ingrid Lunden explains the significance of the deal (I dislike her headline though, since it falsely implies Google and Samsung were at legal odds):

First, the deal will bolster both Samsung and Google's patent positions against patent infringement allegations and subsequent litigation from competitors, and specifically Apple, which has been involved in acrimonious, multinational patent battles worth billions of dollars against Samsung for years now, over Samsung's Android-powered range of Galaxy smartphones and tablets.

Second, it is a sign of how Google continues to put the patents it gained from its $12.5 billion Motorola acquisition to good use across the Android ecosystem. The ecosystem part is key here. I personally wouldn’t be surprised to see deals like this one appear with other OEMs.

Order by: Score:
They are gonna need to sign more
by Windows Sucks on Mon 27th Jan 2014 01:47 UTC
Windows Sucks
Member since:
2005-11-10

Motos patents have been worthless in their fight against suits. And Samsungs patents have barely helped them even in their home country.

This patent deal would only matter if Sammy stops using Android.

Not gonna save ether from:

Apple
Microsoft
Interdigital
Nokia
Rockstar

The list goes on.

Reply Score: 2

Nelson Member since:
2005-11-29

Yeah, this isn't really a validation of Moto's patents. This is two people on the same team patting each other on the back.

Both companies have suffered set back after set back when it comes to patents.

Reply Score: 3

unclefester Member since:
2007-01-13

Yeah, this isn't really a validation of Moto's patents. This is two people on the same team patting each other on the back.

Both companies have suffered set back after set back when it comes to patents.



Samsung rarely loses an IP case except in the massively biased American courts. In the rest of the world Apples lawsuits are routinely thrown out for lacking merit.

Reply Score: 3

Nelson Member since:
2005-11-29

Samsung very recently had SEPs thrown out in Germany and SK. They've also drawn the ire of the EU for their anticompetitive abuse of SEPs.

Reply Score: 4

Soulbender Member since:
2005-08-18

So they're just like Apple: win some, lose some.

Reply Score: 3

Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

In fact, Apple lost most of its non-American lawsuits. Even "victories" were hollow; e.g., a small patch from Samsung to circumvent it all. Apple could have earned a lot more money and goodwill had they simply licensed.

Reply Score: 2

Nelson Member since:
2005-11-29

Well when you redefine victory to mean "all court cases EXCEPT an arbitrary country" then you can possibly almost make that statement believable.

Reply Score: 4

Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

The US is clearly a special case - the only country stupid enough to allow complex patent cases to be handled by a random group of idiots (i.e., people like us) instead of proper judges and specialists. No surprise it's the only country where Apple has scored a decisive victory.

Reply Score: 2

Nelson Member since:
2005-11-29

Where has Samsung won some? They're at best, being generous a very good defensive player, in that they've been able to have some motions dismissed or some have been able to work around some infringements. Overall though a vast majority of their offensive patent attacks have been unsuccessful.

Reply Score: 4

Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

Samsung has not engaged in any offensive patent attacks. All their moves have been defensive against repeated attacks from software and design patent abuser Apple.

Reply Score: 1

Nelson Member since:
2005-11-29

I'm not sure where you got that idea from, but Samsung has initiated patent action in Germany for example.

Reply Score: 4

Soulbender Member since:
2005-08-18

Well, that escalated quickly.

Reply Score: 3

Bill Shooter of Bul Member since:
2006-07-14

But, this is how patents disputes should be resolved, with mutual agreements between the two companies.

AMD and Intel always did this after some posturing and some prelim court appearances.

I understand it doesn't mean a ton in terms of defense against others, but I hope more companies resolve their disputes in this manner.

Reply Score: 5

Comment by some1
by some1 on Mon 27th Jan 2014 03:22 UTC
some1
Member since:
2010-10-05

I dislike her headline though, since it falsely implies Google and Samsung were at legal odds

It actually says "burry The Apple hatchet", so it falsely implies that this move will help against Apple litigation.

Reply Score: 3

RE: Comment by some1
by Thom_Holwerda on Mon 27th Jan 2014 09:43 UTC in reply to "Comment by some1"
Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

Headline changed. It used to say "bury the Android hatchet". You can see it in the link still.

Edited 2014-01-27 09:45 UTC

Reply Score: 3

RE[2]: Comment by some1
by some1 on Mon 27th Jan 2014 13:01 UTC in reply to "RE: Comment by some1"
some1 Member since:
2010-10-05

Oh, I see.

Reply Score: 2

Complement
by acobar on Mon 27th Jan 2014 11:55 UTC
acobar
Member since:
2005-11-15

Samsung has lots of hardware patents (software too) and Google is accelerating their filling for software patents. It makes perfect sense to them to sign cross-licensing.

Reply Score: 3

Comment by Nelson
by Nelson on Mon 27th Jan 2014 12:12 UTC
Nelson
Member since:
2005-11-29

Waiting for the faux outrage at the licensing of IP. Google/Samsung just did exactly what Microsoft/Samsung or Microsoft/Facebook did.

http://www.osnews.com/story/25193/Microsoft_Samsung_Sign_Patent_Lic...

http://www.osnews.com/story/25862/Microsoft_Facebook_announce_paten...

Yet strangely this article lacks the usual inflammatory rhetoric.

Reply Score: 1

RE: Comment by Nelson
by Thom_Holwerda on Mon 27th Jan 2014 12:20 UTC in reply to "Comment by Nelson"
Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

Microsoft has been threatening other companies and the Linux world for years with software patents, and threatens companies into paying them for Android use, even though Microsoft has contributed not a single line of code.

Google and Samsung have not threatened each other or other players in any way, and sign a patent sharing agreement anyway. I know you don't see the difference because said difference is inconvenient to you, but the rest of us will.

Reply Score: 3

RE[2]: Comment by Nelson
by Nelson on Mon 27th Jan 2014 12:35 UTC in reply to "RE: Comment by Nelson"
Nelson Member since:
2005-11-29

So I can expect there will be no faux outrage?
Because cross licensing agreements benefit both parties last I checked.

Microsoft helped Samsung in that instance. Its a mutually beneficial exchange.

Reply Score: 3

RE[3]: Comment by Nelson
by acobar on Mon 27th Jan 2014 13:16 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Comment by Nelson"
acobar Member since:
2005-11-15

It should be not a surprise to you that many osnews visitors are against software patents (at least on its current permissive form) and, specially, against those that try to enforce them against others just with the intuit to gain what looks like an unfair advantage. On Apple case, those debatable design patents. On MS case, granted, the things are different, but it should be argued that as they were the dominant player and interoperability is needed, software patents should not be enforced specifically on such cases where the intent is to achieve this, i.e. a working interoperability. It gives no sympathy to Apple and MS among most of us.

What Thom said on the post you are replying to finds echo on most of us on this particular case.

Edited 2014-01-27 13:16 UTC

Reply Score: 6

RE: Comment by Nelson
by Bill Shooter of Bul on Mon 27th Jan 2014 20:06 UTC in reply to "Comment by Nelson"
Bill Shooter of Bul Member since:
2006-07-14

It sounds like this is a mutual agreement, meaning Google can use Samsung patents and Samsung can use Google Patents.

Those other ones you linked to, look one sided as in "I'll let you use my patents for $$$".

It doesn't look like the samsung microsoft agreement has stopped the law suites. So it may have settled some issues, but not all.

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: Comment by Nelson
by Nelson on Mon 27th Jan 2014 21:57 UTC in reply to "RE: Comment by Nelson"
Nelson Member since:
2005-11-29

Both agreements I linked to are cross licensing agreements. Thom's rhetoric would just have you think otherwise.

Reply Score: 3

RE: Comment by Nelson
by andydread on Tue 28th Jan 2014 12:16 UTC in reply to "Comment by Nelson"
andydread Member since:
2009-02-02

Waiting for the faux outrage at the licensing of IP. Google/Samsung just did exactly what Microsoft/Samsung or Microsoft/Facebook did.

http://www.osnews.com/story/25193/Microsoft_Samsung_Sign_Patent_Lic...

http://www.osnews.com/story/25862/Microsoft_Facebook_announce_paten...

Yet strangely this article lacks the usual inflammatory rhetoric.


Hey clown. Microsoft is taxing people on code MS has nothing to do with. How about you sit down at your computer and write some code and I come along and claim ownership of your code due to dubious and shaky abstract software-patents that you have to spend millions to defend yourself against? I'm sure your head hasn't been that far up your gluteus maximus that you are unaware of this very important fact because you read OSnews so you must be a troll and a very poor one to boot.

Reply Score: 3

RE[2]: Comment by Nelson
by Nelson on Tue 28th Jan 2014 13:52 UTC in reply to "RE: Comment by Nelson"
Nelson Member since:
2005-11-29

Samsung likely didn't write any code for the software patents they just licensed to Google. Want to try that again?

Reply Score: 2