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 488001
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
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 Parent 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 Parent 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 Parent Score: 9

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 Parent Score: 6

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 Parent 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 Parent Score: 2