Linked by Thom Holwerda on Sat 2nd Nov 2013 17:24 UTC

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.


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.

E-mail Print r 12   87 Comment(s)
Thread beginning with comment 576054
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[2]: You forgot Google
by Shadowself on Sat 2nd Nov 2013 23:49 UTC in reply to "RE: You forgot Google"
Member since:

Do some research. The official record of the court cases contradicts your statements.

Apple never refused to license Motorola's (Google's) or Samsung's patents. What Apple refused to do was agree to a deal that was WAY beyond what the license holders charged other companies.

When a company agrees to have its patents as part of an international standard and the standards body agrees to include that technology in that patent in the standard, the company with the patent agrees in a written contract with the standards body that they will license the patents (called Standards Essential Patents, or SEPs) to ALL COMERS on a "Fair, Reasonable, and NON DISCRIMINATORY" basis. The patent holder per the contract cannot refuse to license the patent to anyone, and the patent holder cannot demand inflated rates from one or more companies beyond what they charge everyone else.

For example, it's part of the court records that Apple offered to pay FRAND rates to Samsung for Samsung's SEPs. (Samsung did not even try to refute this fact.) However, Samsung demanded that Apple pay 12 times what they were charging other entities PLUS Samsung was demanding that Apple license to Samsung Apple's NON SEP patents -- patents for which there was no requirement that Apple license to anyone.

When Apple rebuffed Samsung's extortion attempts, Samsung sued in several countries. In each and every case Samsung's suits based upon SEPs ultimately has been killed.

The cases with Motorola suing Apple over SEPs are similar. Motorola signed a contract with the standards bodies to license SEPs under FRAND rules. Google, through Motorola, is attempting to use SEPs as leverage with Apple. It's not working.

The bottom line is that virtually every major tech company wants a license for Apple's patents. Apple has a very large cross licensing deal with Microsoft. Apple has a much, much more limited one with HTC. That's it. There is no legal basis for Apple to license its patents to anyone else. They may. But they don't have to.

The bottom line is that Apple has never refused (and no lawsuit has shown that Apple has refused) to license SEPs at FRAND rates.

Reply Parent Score: -2

RE[3]: You forgot Google
by Thom_Holwerda on Sat 2nd Nov 2013 23:53 in reply to "RE[2]: You forgot Google"
Thom_Holwerda Member since:

Apple never refused to license Motorola's (Google's) or Samsung's patents. What Apple refused to do was agree to a deal that was WAY beyond what the license holders charged other companies.

Read the actual ITC's words. The ITC was clear in that Samsung's offer was FRAND. It was not an unfair offer at all.

Here's the ITC's opinion - and the ITC actually studied the entire negotiation (you have not):

"The Commission analyzed the history of negotiations between Apple and Samsung (this portion is heavily redacted) to see if Apple showed that Samsung failed to negotiate “in good faith,” and found that Apple failed to do so. Notably, the Commission dismissed Apple’s arguments that (1) Samsung’s initial offer was so high as to show bad faith, and (2) Samsung’s attempts to get a cross-license to Apple’s non-SEPs violated its FRAND commitments."

Edited 2013-11-03 00:01 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 2