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."
Thread beginning with comment 487991
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
You clearly don't get it ...
by kristoph on Thu 1st Sep 2011 22:52 UTC
Member since:

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 in reply to "You clearly don't get it ..."
zima Member since:

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 Parent Score: 4

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

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 Parent Score: 3

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

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 Parent Score: 26

dsmogor Member since:

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

Reply Parent Score: 2

glarepate Member since:

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 ...


Edited 2011-09-01 23:50 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 14

kristoph Member since:

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 Parent Score: 3

Neolander Member since:

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 Parent Score: 3