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.

Thread beginning with comment 576051
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[3]: You forgot Google
by Nelson on Sat 2nd Nov 2013 23:31 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: You forgot Google"
Nelson
Member since:
2005-11-29

It amazes me how people still don't fully grasp the concept of SEPs.

It probably explains why the blind eye os turned to Google's actions. If people stopped to think the destructive effect of undermining commitments made to standards bodies they'd be more alarmed.

Suing over SEPs is going thermonuclear in patent warfare.

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[4]: You forgot Google
by Thom_Holwerda on Sat 2nd Nov 2013 23:48 in reply to "RE[3]: You forgot Google"
Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

In the case of Samsung, the ITC determined that Samsung offered FRAND terms, but that Apple refused to accept them and refused to negotiate. Wouldn't surprise me if the same happened with Motorola. SEP does not mean you may never sue - if FRAND terms are rejected - as Apple did - suing may still be an option.

Unless you have the president's ear, of course.

Edited 2013-11-02 23:49 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 6

RE[5]: You forgot Google
by Shadowself on Sun 3rd Nov 2013 00:05 in reply to "RE[4]: You forgot Google"
Shadowself Member since:
2013-11-02

Actually, that's NOT what the ITC found.

The ITC found that Samsung was due a license fee. The ITC found that Apple had not paid the license fee.

The ITC did NOT rule that Samsung's license demands were fair. The ITC did not rule that Apple's failure to agree to Samsung's demanded fees was unfair.

The ITC instituted an import ban based upon some extremely simple and brain dead facts:
Samsung had patents.
Apple was making products and importing those products into the U.S. that utilized the patented technology.
Apple was not paying any license fees to Samsung.

Hence a ban in Samsung's favor.

The ITC did not take into account that the patents were Standards Essential Patents (SEPs) and must be licensed under Fair, Reasonable, and Non Discriminatory (FRAND) rules. The ITC did not compare Samsung's demands with the rates Samsung was charging everyone but Apple (the Non Discriminatory part).

The Obama Administration looked at those additional circumstances and ruled that the import ban was improper because it did not take into account the fact that the patents are SEPs to be licensed under FRAND rules. The Obama Administration did NOT say that Apple didn't need to license those patents. (In fact the Obama Administrations ruling explicitly says that Apple MUST pay license fees to Samsung.) The Obama Administration just overturned the ban because patent holders of SEPs must follow FRAND rules and Apple must pay FRAND fees!

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[5]: You forgot Google
by Nelson on Sun 3rd Nov 2013 00:06 in reply to "RE[4]: You forgot Google"
Nelson Member since:
2005-11-29

Its great that you cite the ITC, as they're pretty much the only judicial apparatus in the country who didn't recognize tying as an affirmative defense.

And what do you know, the USTR vetoed it.

Reply Parent Score: 3