Linked by Thom Holwerda on Fri 1st Aug 2014 21:40 UTC
Legal

Microsoft is suing yet another Android device maker - but this time it's a very different case than their usual protection money scheme. Microsoft claims that Samsung has stopped complying with a patent sharing agreement between the two companies.

After becoming the leading player in the worldwide smartphone market, Samsung decided late last year to stop complying with its agreement with Microsoft. In September 2013, after Microsoft announced it was acquiring the Nokia Devices and Services business, Samsung began using the acquisition as an excuse to breach its contract. Curiously, Samsung did not ask the court to decide whether the Nokia acquisition invalidated its contract with Microsoft, likely because it knew its position was meritless.

Interesting, if true. This is what happens when you stop paying protection money - the burly men with clubs show up.

Thread beginning with comment 593631
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Bizarre comment by Microsoft's Howard
by softdrat on Sat 2nd Aug 2014 22:37 UTC
softdrat
Member since:
2008-09-17

David Howard, Microsoft VP and Deputy Counsel, commented as follows:

"Curiously, Samsung did not ask the court to decide whether the Nokia acquisition invalidated its contract with Microsoft, likely because it knew its position was meritless."

Courts aren't supposed to get involved until AFTER a lawsuit is filed. Courts resolve disputes; they don't offer legal advice, especially regarding contracts. Sounds like Howard is making a specious comment for the sole purpose of wanting to make Samsung look bad.

Maybe someone knows otherwise, but the MS/Samsung agreement was not negotiated to settle any prior litigation - right?

Reply Score: 2

Nelson Member since:
2005-11-29

Uh, yes there is? Samsung could've asked for a declaratory judgement.

Instead they simply breached the contract.

Reply Parent Score: 2

softdrat Member since:
2008-09-17

Yes, Samsung could have filed for declaratory judgment. Doing so would constitute a LEGAL ACTION. However, that is not how Howard described Samsung's options. Let's go back to Howard's statement.

Here is how he described Microsoft's action:
"Microsoft filed LEGAL ACTION against Samsung ..."

Here is how he described possible actions by Samsung:
"Samsung did not ASK the court to decide ..."

What Howard should have said is, "Samsung did NOT file a LEGAL ACTION against Microsoft ..."

- but he didn't. Total marketing spin by Howard.

Reply Parent Score: 4

Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

There could be a non-compete clause in the agreement or something else that is breached by Microsoft acquiring Nokia. Microsoft had a history of legal abuse, and Samsung had a history of being unclassy. The truth is probably halfway, and believing either of these companies word-for-word seems naive.

Reply Parent Score: 4