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 576083
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[9]: You forgot Google
by Nelson on Sun 3rd Nov 2013 13:10 UTC in reply to "RE[8]: You forgot Google"
Nelson
Member since:
2005-11-29

Companies are free to seek monetary compensation like Motorola did from Microsoft. Seeking injunctions is off the table.

A good example is iCloud Push in Germany that Apple had to remove due to a preliminary ruling on an SEP that was later thrown out.

The act of tying, requesting non-SEPs in reciprocation for SEPs is NOT FRAND and pretty much the only ruling supporting your position is an ITC which overstepped its authority and was remanded by its boss.

Samsung cannot request Apple's crown jewel patents in exchange for a license to a patent they promised to make broadly available. How do you not get this?

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[10]: You forgot Google
by Thom_Holwerda on Sun 3rd Nov 2013 13:17 in reply to "RE[9]: You forgot Google"
Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

Companies are free to seek monetary compensation like Motorola did from Microsoft.


You are ignoring virtually everything I said in my post. So, I'll just repeat the question in the faint hope you might actually reply for once: what if FRAND terms are offered, but not accepted? They are not allowed to sue over SEPs, so what other options does that leave?

Exactly: none. SEPs can be freely violated, since SEP holders have no way to enforce them. Apple knows this, and abuses this loophole considerably.

Samsung cannot request Apple's crown jewel patents in exchange for a license to a patent they promised to make broadly available. How do you not get this?


Except - they can. The ITC made it very clear that asking for cross-licensing is NOT a violation of FRAND commitments. How do you not get this?

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[11]: You forgot Google
by Nelson on Sun 3rd Nov 2013 14:04 in reply to "RE[10]: You forgot Google"
Nelson Member since:
2005-11-29


You are ignoring virtually everything I said in my post. So, I'll just repeat the question in the faint hope you might actually reply for once: what if FRAND terms are offered, but not accepted? They are not allowed to sue over SEPs, so what other options does that leave?

Exactly: none. SEPs can be freely violated, since SEP holders have no way to enforce them. Apple knows this, and abuses this loophole considerably.


I answered it clearly -- they are free to seek monetary compensation through the court system. Not seek injunctions through quasi judicial agencies like the ITC.

A good example is Motorola which got its rate set by the courts and which received compensation from Microsoft.

If the goal of an SEP is to get compensation for IP, and a court mandates that the infringing party do so (Microsoft), then why is that not an adequate remedy?

http://www.theverge.com/2013/9/4/4696086/microsoft-wins-patent-tria...

Motorola was awarded $14.5 million dollars for their SEP.

Its much less than the outrageous $4 BILLION a year demand, but it is higher than Microsoft's offer.

This is an example of a case that was adjudicated in the courts and where a remedy for an SEP was deemed appropriate.

Another example, and (you're going to like this one) it comes from the USTR's veto of the Samsung case at the ITC.

The USTR did not rule out future SEP based injunctions at the ITC, but he did set a higher bar for them. He instructed the ITC to do more due diligence in building a factual record of the case.

So SEP injunctions are possible, they just won't sail through the ITC. You should be happy, this is more than a Judge is willing to grant.


Except - they can. The ITC made it very clear that asking for cross-licensing is NOT a violation of FRAND commitments. How do you not get this?


Because what you're doing is akin to arguing that the decision of a lower court stands on higher legal ground than the decision of an appellate court.

The ITC answers to the USTR, the USTR deemed the ITC was wrong and threw out the injunction because an adequate factual record had not been established. The problem was that the ITC deemed the economic impact of a FRAND injunction to be too severe to stomach without more public interest fact finding on behalf of the ITC.

On the other hand, a district judge has found that Motorola has abused its FRAND commitment. US an EU regulators have said that Google/Moto's FRAND abuse is anti competitive as well.

The ITC's ruling was from the moment it came out highly unusual and controversial, especially when you look at existing case law and past rulings by other judicial apparatuses.

Reply Parent Score: 4

RE[11]: You forgot Google
by mkone on Thu 7th Nov 2013 22:59 in reply to "RE[10]: You forgot Google"
mkone Member since:
2006-03-14

"Companies are free to seek monetary compensation like Motorola did from Microsoft.


You are ignoring virtually everything I said in my post. So, I'll just repeat the question in the faint hope you might actually reply for once: what if FRAND terms are offered, but not accepted? They are not allowed to sue over SEPs, so what other options does that leave?

Exactly: none. SEPs can be freely violated, since SEP holders have no way to enforce them. Apple knows this, and abuses this loophole considerably.

Samsung cannot request Apple's crown jewel patents in exchange for a license to a patent they promised to make broadly available. How do you not get this?


Except - they can. The ITC made it very clear that asking for cross-licensing is NOT a violation of FRAND commitments. How do you not get this?
"

The ITC was wrong. The ITC is the only court "in the world" that thought it was OK for SEPs that were supposed to be made available on FRAND terms to be tied to a demand for non-SEP patents.

You should not let your bias in this case cloud your judgement. Samsung is rightly being investigated on anti-trust grounds. Samsung was abusing its SEPs and most sensible jurisdictions have been finding against such behaviour.

Reply Parent Score: 2