Linked by Thom Holwerda on Sun 29th Jul 2012 10:48 UTC
Groklaw nails it: "In other words, [Apple and Microsoft] want to disarm the companies that got there first, built the standards, and created the field, while the come-later types clean up on patents on things like slide to unlock or a tablet shape with rounded corners. Then the money flows to Apple and Microsoft, and away from Android - and isn't that really the point of all this, to destroy Android by hook or by crook? The parties who were in the mobile phone business years before Apple or Microsoft even thought about doing it thus get nothing much for their earlier issued patents that have become standards. Apple and Microsoft can't compete on an even field, because the patent system rewards the first to invent (or now, after the recent patent reform, the first to file). Neither Apple nor Microsoft got there first. Samsung was there, since the '90s." To illustrate: Apple is demanding $24 (!) per Samsung device for design patents, while at the same time, Apple also demands that Samsung does not charge more than $0.0049 per standards essential patent per device. This is absolutely, utterly, and entirely indefensible. And then Apple and its supporters have the nerve to claim Samsung is ripping them off. Yes, this pisses me off, and no, that's not because it's Apple doing it (Microsoft is just as guilty). It's because this is plainly, utterly, clearly, and intrinsically unfair.
Thread beginning with comment 528834
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Member since:2006-01-11
In return for having their patents made part of the standard, Samsung agreed to FRAND royalties, and if that is no longer sufficient, then that's Samsung's own fault, and possibly they will think longer and harder before getting into a similar situation again.
Well, that's exactly the problem, isn't it? If chickenshit patents become more valuable and dangerous than hard patents, then the incentive to develop or FRAND the latter goes away, and everybody loses.
RE: Comment by El_Exigente
by lemur2 on Mon 30th Jul 2012 04:56
in reply to "Comment by El_Exigente"
Member since:2007-02-17
In return for having their patents made part of the standard, Samsung agreed to FRAND royalties, and if that is no longer sufficient, then that's Samsung's own fault, and possibly they will think longer and harder before getting into a similar situation again.
Is it really the case that the ideologists at Groklaw do not understand the purpose and economic rationale for there even being such a thing as a standard-essential patent? It's hard to believe.
As for Apple demanding $24 per device for its design patents: well, they can demand anything that they want. A jury will decide how much they should actually get. And if the jury decides that $24 is what the per device royalty should be, then that's what it should be.
Is it really the case that the ideologists at Groklaw do not understand the purpose and economic rationale for there even being such a thing as a standard-essential patent? It's hard to believe.
As for Apple demanding $24 per device for its design patents: well, they can demand anything that they want. A jury will decide how much they should actually get. And if the jury decides that $24 is what the per device royalty should be, then that's what it should be.
I think you just don't get it, or perhaps you don't want to get it.
Apple are being asked to pay the same royalty rate for Motorola & Samsung patents as everyone else already pays. Apple alone have NOT paid. The "ND" part of FRAND means "non-discriminatory" ... that means that Apple must pay the same as everyone else has paid.
http://www.muktware.com/4029/apple-stole-iphone-design-sony-patente...
Even as Apple has carried out a coordinated campaign of dragging Samsung‘s name through the mud in this lawsuit and in the media, it has used Samsung‘s patented technology while flatly refusing to pay for its use.
Also, Samsung have identified prior art for Apples supposedly "original" design patent for the iPhone. Apple stole this design from Sony. From the same page as linked above:
http://www.muktware.com/sites/default/files/images/applications/son...
So in effect, Apple are trying to say that they alone have to pay only half a cent per device for Motorola and Samsung's IP, but Motorola and Samsung apparently allegedly owe Apple $24 per device for a purely cosmetic "design" which Apple stole from Sony in the first place.
How is that Fair?
How is that Reasonable?
How is that Non-Discriminatory?
Answer ... it simply isn't. In any reasonable outcome, Apple will get squashed utterly in this lawsuit, a bit like Oracle before them and their Java lawsuit against Android.
Edited 2012-07-30 05:05 UTC
RE[2]: Comment by El_Exigente
by viton on Mon 30th Jul 2012 09:29
in reply to "RE: Comment by El_Exigente"
Member since:2005-08-09
Looks like the judge threw out the "Sony" evidence
by MollyC on Mon 30th Jul 2012 18:05
in reply to "RE: Comment by El_Exigente"
Member since:2006-07-04
I don't know if it had merit or not, but it won't affect the Apple/Sony case, so the Apple bashers might have to find another argument. The "Apple stole from Sony" stuff is just whistling in the wind at this point.
http://allthingsd.com/20120730/samsung-thwarted-in-bid-to-show-appl...
RE[2]: Comment by El_Exigente
by darcysmith on Wed 1st Aug 2012 04:55
in reply to "RE: Comment by El_Exigente"
Member since:2006-04-12
RE: Comment by El_Exigente
by itanic on Mon 30th Jul 2012 16:12
in reply to "Comment by El_Exigente"
Member since:2008-08-03
Evidently Groklaw thinks that because Apple uses Samsung's FRAND-encumbered standards-essential patents, that Apple is somehow obligated to let Samsung use Apple's patents at the same royalty rate. Where could such an idea have possibly come from? It certainly has nothing to do with reality.
In return for having their patents made part of the standard, Samsung agreed to FRAND royalties, and if that is no longer sufficient, then that's Samsung's own fault, and possibly they will think longer and harder before getting into a similar situation again.
The standard FRAND licensing fees are for companies who cross-license. Apple either needs to cross-license, or pay a higher rate; they shouldn't have it both ways.
Features
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/18/13 21:33 UTC
Why does Google get so much credit in the technology industry? Why, despite the company's many obvious failings, do many geeks and enthusiasts still hold a somewhat positive view on the all-knowing technology giant? A specific talk at Google I/O this week provides the answer.
Linked by David Adams on 05/16/13 4:23 UTC
OSNews is a sponsor of this year's O'Reilly OSCON in Portland, Oregon, USA. A lucky OSNews reader will win a free three-day pass, including two tutorials days. To win the pass, post a comment on this story saying something about Open Source Software or OSCON. We'll pick a winner at random next week. If you don't have an OSNews account, you may email us your entry. Part of the conference is the 9th annual Open Source Awards, and today the 16th is the deadline for nominations. If you'd like to nominate an outstanding open source contributor, do it here. Read on for more information about OSCON. Update: The 20% discount code for OSNews readers is "OSN."
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/11/13 21:41 UTC
"Windows is indeed slower than other operating systems in many scenarios, and the gap is worsening." That's one way to start an insider explanation of why Windows' performance isn't up to snuff. Written by someone who actually contributes code to the Windows NT kernel, the comment on Hacker News, later deleted but reposted with permission on Marc Bevand's blog, paints a very dreary picture of the state of Windows development. The root issue? Think of how Linux is developed, and you'll know the answer.
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/08/13 14:22 UTC
This is one of those news items that's fun to write, fun to read, fun to comment on, and where no one will be able to say anything unkind. It's all just one big ball of awesome fluffiness. TuneTracker, the BeOS radio automation software, has just released something very special: TuneTracker System 5, the first version designed entirely and specifically for Haiku. In fact, it actually includes Haiku in the software package. Better yet, TuneTracker also unveiled several system-in-a-box products - which have Haiku and TuneTracker pre-installed.
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/02/13 15:28 UTC
Exactly twenty years ago, a document was published that played a huge role in establishing the web as we know it today. Twenty years later, and this simple and straightforward document is proof of an irrefutable fact: while closed technologies can change markets, open technologies can change the world.
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 04/29/13 21:06 UTC
Oh multitasking. That staple of computing that got thrown out the window with many modern smartphones. We got some rudimentary thing in its place - but even as multitasking on phone and tablets improves, its user-visible side remains cumbersome. Windows 8 has a neat implementation, and now it's time Android follows in it footsteps.
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 04/24/13 22:24 UTC
They're here! Whether that excites you or not remains to be seen, but the Galaxy S4, which will most likely become the best selling Android smartphone of the year by a huge margin, has been reviewed by all the major sites, and there's lots of interesting conclusions in there - although I think most of you will get the gist.
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 04/18/13 11:21 UTC
Nokia has posted its quarterly results for the first quarter of 2013, and just like the quarters that came before, there's not a whole lot of good news in there. The rise in Lumia sales still can't even dream of making up for the sales drop in Symbian phones, and when broken down in versions, the sales figures for Windows Phone 8 Lumias in particular are very disappointing. In North America, Nokia is getting slaughtered.
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 04/16/13 9:29 UTC
The day has finally come: Google has started shipping Google Glass to the lucky few early adopters. Now that it's shipping, Google has also unveiled a lot more about the API and the specifications of the device itself. While the company had already given out substantial details at earlier occasions, there are still a few surprises here.
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 04/15/13 22:44 UTC
Almost exactly three years ago, I wrote about why OSNews was no longer OSNews: the alternative operating system scene had died, and OSNews, too, had to go with the times and move towards reporting on a new wave of operating systems - mobile, and all the repercussions that the explosion of smartphones and tablets have caused. Still, I was wondering something today: why aren't we seeing alternative operating systems on mobile?More Features »
Sponsored Links
Member since:
2007-01-08
The Groklaw article is a very impressive piece of dishonesty and ignorance.
Firstly, Microsoft has shown no desire to destroy Android: they seem quite content to collect a royalty on every Android device sold. Every Android device maker except Motorola pays royalties to Microsoft, who have not attempted to prevent anyone from selling Android devices.
Apple on the other hand, does want to destroy Android.
Evidently Groklaw thinks that because Apple uses Samsung's FRAND-encumbered standards-essential patents, that Apple is somehow obligated to let Samsung use Apple's patents at the same royalty rate. Where could such an idea have possibly come from? It certainly has nothing to do with reality.
In return for having their patents made part of the standard, Samsung agreed to FRAND royalties, and if that is no longer sufficient, then that's Samsung's own fault, and possibly they will think longer and harder before getting into a similar situation again.
Is it really the case that the ideologists at Groklaw do not understand the purpose and economic rationale for there even being such a thing as a standard-essential patent? It's hard to believe.
As for Apple demanding $24 per device for its design patents: well, they can demand anything that they want. A jury will decide how much they should actually get. And if the jury decides that $24 is what the per device royalty should be, then that's what it should be.