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 488039
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
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

smashIt Member since:
2005-07-06

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.


apple didn't even have the rights to the iPhone trademark and they still went on sale with it.
they just don't give a shit about other peoples IP

Reply Parent Score: 7

lemur2 Member since:
2007-02-17

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.


Not only that, but also consider that Apple are attacking other companies, and trying to get competing products banned, based on simple elementary concepts such as the fact that tablets and phones are rectangles, and that one needs to scroll when the text to be displayed is longer than the screen.

In what way are Apple's alleged GUI patent complaints any less required for interoperability (with people) than any that Apple are complaining about as required for interoperability with wireless networks?

Reply Parent Score: 8

lemur2 Member since:
2007-02-17

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.


One would think that it is perfectly Fair, Reasonable, And entirely Non-Discriminatory, to sue parties who have not paid for a FRAND license, when other parties have paid.

Edited 2011-09-02 04:02 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 10

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

Also, the FRAND patents are used defensively, in case you hadn't noticed.


If he has noticed he has carefully avoided any mention of it. His focus has been entirely on how Apple complained about the counterclaims being untenable/intolerable with absolutely no acknowledgement whatsoever of how they came to be in such a bind.

All effect and no cause ...

Reply Parent Score: 4

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

smashIt Member since:
2005-07-06

FRAND does not imply that everyone is treated equally.


the ND stands for non-discriminatory
in my book thats the same as equal in this context

Edited 2011-09-03 23:46 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 2