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 576104
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[6]: You forgot Google
by TechGeek on Sun 3rd Nov 2013 23:35 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: You forgot Google"
TechGeek
Member since:
2006-01-14

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.



Actually the jury verdict between APple and Samsung, which Apple won, also declared Samsung's actions as fair. Lets face it, Apple has a history of not paying for patents until they get dragged to court. Nokia, Samsung, Motorola (and I don't mean the chip ones, there are others Apple has not paid for yet).

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[7]: You forgot Google
by Nelson on Sun 3rd Nov 2013 23:44 in reply to "RE[6]: You forgot Google"
Nelson Member since:
2005-11-29

Apple was found not to infringe so its a moot point. I wonder if you accept the rest of the Jury's verdict, or if you just take this piecemeal approach to fit your views..

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[8]: You forgot Google
by TechGeek on Mon 4th Nov 2013 04:21 in reply to "RE[7]: You forgot Google"
TechGeek Member since:
2006-01-14

Apple was found not to infringe so its a moot point. I wonder if you accept the rest of the Jury's verdict, or if you just take this piecemeal approach to fit your views..



Its not a moot point on whether or not Samsung is worth coming with their FRAND licensing. All evidence says they are. The fact that the negotiations weren't needed after all has little bearing on whether or not they were fairly conducted.

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[7]: You forgot Google
by majipoor on Mon 4th Nov 2013 11:55 in reply to "RE[6]: You forgot Google"
majipoor Member since:
2009-01-22

Lets face it, Apple has a history of not paying for patents until they get dragged to court. Nokia, Samsung, Motorola (and I don't mean the chip ones, there are others Apple has not paid for yet).


Let's face it: in order to be able to make Apple the bad guy, you see only what you want to see.

There are thousands of SEP patents concerning the 3G, 4G, Wi-Fi, Bluetooth etc. belonging to dozens of companies. Did you ever hear about Apple not paying for a licence for all these patents except for Nokia, Motorola and Samsung?

And considering that Nokia, Motorola and Samsung are all smartphone manufacturers, is it so difficult to understand that all of them were very interested in getting a licence for non-SEP Apple patents? And that they actually did try to force Apple to licence their non-SEP patents as part of the "FRAND" licence they proposed? And that Apple did actually refuse to accept these terms because they are actually not FRAND?

In the Apple vs Nokia case, Nokia never asked for an injunction however which is the right way to proceed. The final judgment did actually tell Apple to pay a fair licence fee, which they did, but Apple didn't have to cross-licence non-SEP patents which was what make the proposed terms un-acceptables.

In the Motorola and Samsung vs Apple cases, we also know that they both asked about 2.5% fee of the whole iPhone price which has been considered as ridiculously high by several EU and US judges.

And I don't know any "other" patents Apple has not paid for yet, but I am sure you know that it is the common practice for ALL manufacturers to sell products without having paid all patents fees (because it is impossible to know which patents are actually involved) and then wait for patent holders to come ask for money.

Edited 2013-11-04 11:59 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[8]: You forgot Google
by TechGeek on Mon 4th Nov 2013 17:59 in reply to "RE[7]: You forgot Google"
TechGeek Member since:
2006-01-14

"Lets face it, Apple has a history of not paying for patents until they get dragged to court. Nokia, Samsung, Motorola (and I don't mean the chip ones, there are others Apple has not paid for yet).


Let's face it: in order to be able to make Apple the bad guy, you see only what you want to see.

There are thousands of SEP patents concerning the 3G, 4G, Wi-Fi, Bluetooth etc. belonging to dozens of companies. Did you ever hear about Apple not paying for a licence for all these patents except for Nokia, Motorola and Samsung?

And considering that Nokia, Motorola and Samsung are all smartphone manufacturers, is it so difficult to understand that all of them were very interested in getting a licence for non-SEP Apple patents? And that they actually did try to force Apple to licence their non-SEP patents as part of the "FRAND" licence they proposed? And that Apple did actually refuse to accept these terms because they are actually not FRAND?

In the Apple vs Nokia case, Nokia never asked for an injunction however which is the right way to proceed. The final judgment did actually tell Apple to pay a fair licence fee, which they did, but Apple didn't have to cross-licence non-SEP patents which was what make the proposed terms un-acceptables.

In the Motorola and Samsung vs Apple cases, we also know that they both asked about 2.5% fee of the whole iPhone price which has been considered as ridiculously high by several EU and US judges.

And I don't know any "other" patents Apple has not paid for yet, but I am sure you know that it is the common practice for ALL manufacturers to sell products without having paid all patents fees (because it is impossible to know which patents are actually involved) and then wait for patent holders to come ask for money.
"


Most of the SEP patents are owned by a very small group of companies and because they are SEP, they are all known about. Apple doesn't have to wait to see who comes knocking, there is a predefined list of all the patents around each technology.

And as for being such a supporter of FRAND, why are you upset that Samsung and Motorola asked for 2.5%? They ask EVERYONE for 2.5%, even though no one ends up paying that much. What Apple is actually doing is asking for special consideration which is not FRAND. Just because Apple thinks 2.5% is too high doesn't make it discriminatory if Samsung and Motorola treat everyone the same. Apple is just a whiny brat who doesn't have any SEPs of its own. Thats the whole reason for this charade. They could reach a reasonable deal if they wanted to. Everyone else in the world managed to secure those patents, even Microsoft. But Apple would rather use this as a excuse to attack SEP patents and weaken everyone elses position at the bargaining table.

Reply Parent Score: 3