Linked by Thom Holwerda on Sat 2nd Nov 2013 17:24 UTC
Legal

Apple, Microsoft, and others, a little over a month ago in a letter to the EU, warning that the EU's new proposed unified patent law could lead to more patent trolling:

To mitigate the potential for abuses of such power, courts should be guided by principles set forth in the rules of procedure to assess proportionality prior to granting injunctions. And PAEs should not be allowed to use injunctions for the sole purpose of extracting excessive royalties from operating companies that fear business disruption.

Yesterday:

A new front opened today in the patent wars between large technology companies, as a consortium that owns thousands of patents from the Nortel bankruptcy auction filed suit against Google and other manufacturers alleging infringement. Rockstar, which is owned jointly by Apple, Blackberry, Ericsson, Microsoft, and Sony, filed suit in US District Court in Texas. In addition to Google, the consortium has alleged infringement by Asus, HTC, Huawei, LG, Pantech, Samsung, and ZTE.

They're not just scumbags - they are lying scumbags.

Permalink for comment 576119
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[7]: You forgot Google
by majipoor on Mon 4th Nov 2013 11:55 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: You forgot Google"
majipoor
Member since:
2009-01-22

Lets face it, Apple has a history of not paying for patents until they get dragged to court. Nokia, Samsung, Motorola (and I don't mean the chip ones, there are others Apple has not paid for yet).


Let's face it: in order to be able to make Apple the bad guy, you see only what you want to see.

There are thousands of SEP patents concerning the 3G, 4G, Wi-Fi, Bluetooth etc. belonging to dozens of companies. Did you ever hear about Apple not paying for a licence for all these patents except for Nokia, Motorola and Samsung?

And considering that Nokia, Motorola and Samsung are all smartphone manufacturers, is it so difficult to understand that all of them were very interested in getting a licence for non-SEP Apple patents? And that they actually did try to force Apple to licence their non-SEP patents as part of the "FRAND" licence they proposed? And that Apple did actually refuse to accept these terms because they are actually not FRAND?

In the Apple vs Nokia case, Nokia never asked for an injunction however which is the right way to proceed. The final judgment did actually tell Apple to pay a fair licence fee, which they did, but Apple didn't have to cross-licence non-SEP patents which was what make the proposed terms un-acceptables.

In the Motorola and Samsung vs Apple cases, we also know that they both asked about 2.5% fee of the whole iPhone price which has been considered as ridiculously high by several EU and US judges.

And I don't know any "other" patents Apple has not paid for yet, but I am sure you know that it is the common practice for ALL manufacturers to sell products without having paid all patents fees (because it is impossible to know which patents are actually involved) and then wait for patent holders to come ask for money.

Edited 2013-11-04 11:59 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 2