Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Apple and Samsung Agree To Settlement Talks

Unknown Lamer posted more than 2 years ago | from the agree-to-pretend-to-talk dept.

Patents 97

tlhIngan writes "It looks like the Apple v. Samsung war might be over soon. Both parties have agreed to meet to attempt to reach a settlement. While they are not required to settle (Google and Oracle recently went through the same process), it could be a positive signal that Apple might be willing to license the patents under Tim Cook, versus fight it out in court under the late Steve Jobs."

cancel ×

97 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

The dead (2, Insightful)

barista (587936) | more than 2 years ago | (#39722445)

Return of the King aside, the dead usually don't put up much of a fight.

Re:The dead (5, Funny)

TWX (665546) | more than 2 years ago | (#39722453)

I donno, I can think of numerous films that have otherwise. Especially films starring Bruce Campbell...

Re:The dead (2)

Penguinisto (415985) | more than 2 years ago | (#39723419)

I donno, I can think of numerous films that have otherwise. Especially films starring Bruce Campbell...

...or directed by George Romero.

Re:The dead (1)

bryan1945 (301828) | more than 2 years ago | (#39728815)

If I only had mod points for you...

Re:The dead (1)

RivenAleem (1590553) | about 2 years ago | (#39733053)

Hail to the King, baby.

Re:The dead (3, Funny)

Hentes (2461350) | more than 2 years ago | (#39722769)

You would think so, but even if your enemy dies, their IP will remain to haunt you for centuries.

Re:The dead (0, Flamebait)

sl4shd0rk (755837) | more than 2 years ago | (#39722887)

the dead usually don't put up much of a fight.

Steve was a GOD. He *will* be back to fight. These people will not know what hit them. This is blashphemy. I'm telling mom..

Re:The dead (1)

RenderSeven (938535) | more than 2 years ago | (#39726259)

Yes he was, and he would have fought. But Apple shareholders didnt seem to have the same enthusiasm for him using 'every last penny' to fight Android. With his leadership personality and winning track record the shareholders probably stayed quiet, but with Steve gone I doubt the shareholders will sit by and watch their money and resources being spent on a vendetta. A settlement is the right move, everyone wins. Except the money grubbing lawyers of course.

APOLLO APPS WONT RUN ON WP7 MANGO !! (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39722447)

Dead-end WP7 Phones ?? Yes !! We LOVE you MS !!

Re:APOLLO APPS WONT RUN ON WP7 MANGO !! (1)

bigredradio (631970) | more than 2 years ago | (#39722471)

I think someone forgot to take their meds this morning.

Re:APOLLO APPS WONT RUN ON WP7 MANGO !! (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39722631)

This is a problem only if old phones don't get an upgrade to Wp8. Will they or won't they?

Re:APOLLO APPS WONT RUN ON WP7 MANGO !! (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39722967)

Old phones being ones that went on sales last week?

No, they won't get upgrade to WP8 coming in 6 months.

Need Win8 too APOLLO APPS WONT RUN ON WP7 MANGO !! (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39723119)

Developers will soon learn that Windows 8 has to be used to develop for it - the emulator (it's called the Windows Phone Simulator, to be precise) requires W8. No hardware to test, though. Not good in Mudville, Casey fans, not good.

Apple willing to license? (4, Interesting)

sosume (680416) | more than 2 years ago | (#39722537)

I still cannot understand why very technical inventions (such as 3G and GSM) can only be licensed under FRAND conditions, but fluff like 'slide to unlock' (have that in my toilet) or rounded corner ("they are everywhere!") yield massive license income.. I would really love to see this before a judge so we can finally get this mess cleaned up for good.

Design versus patents (1, Insightful)

Kupfernigk (1190345) | more than 2 years ago | (#39722607)

Well, patents are granted on the basis that the inventor discloses his idea and profits for a while, to the greater good of society as the knowledge base is extended. So FRAND is a corollary of that. On the other hand, slide to unlock and particular shades of round corners are non-functional decoration (because there are many other equally good ways to unlock or to shape a corner) and so offer no benefit to society. In our society, non-functional frizz, whether it is the shape of a corner or the wail of a "singer", is given a very high value because the country is run by arts graduates rather than scientists and engineers. We all know that in a post-industrial society intellectual property is the basis of the economy (insert further self-justifying media person rubbish to suit.)

I believe that Samsung did try at one point to show that the "design features" of the iPad were actually obvious engineering features and so design patents were not applicable.

Re:Design versus patents (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39722831)

Patents are granted to provide incentive to promote scientific progress for the country as a whole. As a side note, the inventor gets exclusive access to their patent for a small period of time so they have a leg up on the competition.

The PRIMARY goal of patents is to OPEN UP IDEAS TO THE PUBLIC, not sequester them for eons and rake in massive profits.
The same goes for Copyright. The primary goal of copyright is to get content into the public domain, period. Profit and racketeering are what businesses and their congressional lackeys have twisted it into.

Nowhere does it say that patent and copyright are for profit of the person registering them.

Re:Design versus patents (1)

BlackSnake112 (912158) | more than 2 years ago | (#39724155)

I thought the original idea behind patents was to stop the big guy from crushing the little guy by the little guy to bring something to market. Somewhere along the line this got changed to the big guy patenting everything they can to stop other guys (both big and small) from doing anything remotely similar.

Re:Design versus patents (1)

value_added (719364) | more than 2 years ago | (#39723007)

In our society, non-functional frizz, whether it is the shape of a corner or the wail of a "singer", is given a very high value because the country is run by arts graduates rather than scientists and engineers.

So ... it's the art school graduates, is it?

You think they're conspiring with the members of the Council on Foreign Relations, Trilateral Commission and the Bilderberg Group to achieve world dominance, or do they just want to take over the White House and re-decorate it?

Re:Apple willing to license? (2, Interesting)

Desler (1608317) | more than 2 years ago | (#39722643)

Because that's he agreement you make by having your patents included in a standard?

Re:Apple willing to license? (4, Insightful)

AdrianKemp (1988748) | more than 2 years ago | (#39722715)

3G, GSM, etc. are not technical inventions.

They are standards.

When a standards body agrees to take a patent as part of the standard, they generally require FRAND licensing as part of that agreement.

Nowhere anywhere does something *have* to be FRAND, but if you want it in a standard you're going to be going down that road.

Re:Apple willing to license? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39729607)

not to sound antagonistic but can you think of a lock that doesn't incorporate some form of sliding motion?

is this not a standard feature of any given lock?

You are right, you don't understand. (5, Informative)

Brannon (221550) | more than 2 years ago | (#39722745)

Nobody forced anybody to license anything under FRAND conditions. The patent holders voluntarily committed them to FRAND licensing in order to get them included within a standard. That's how standards work. By the way, FRAND doesn't mean "free" as you seem to believe, some of those companies make a lot of money off of their FRAND patents. It means that you can't charge Apple more than you charge Toshiba--which is exactly what Motorola was trying to do.

Also, design patents != standard patents. Nobody is claiming that rounded corners is some kind of technical invention, that isn't the purpose of design patents--they are *by definition* aesthetic. They exist so that a competitor can't make a look-alike replica of your product and then sell it to confused customers--which is exactly what Samsung was trying to do.

All that said, I think Apple overstates their case sometimes by assuming every feature on another phone which is similar to an iPhone was copied from the iPhone. Sometimes there is a simpler explanation, like two people trying to solve the same problem came up with a similar answer, or the feature actually existed in an earlier product.

Re:You are right, you don't understand. (1)

Compaqt (1758360) | more than 2 years ago | (#39723369)

Confused customers?

What are, fresh off the boat? (Substitute your own expression - fresh off the farm, whatever.)

If so, what are they doing with a smartphone?

They don't know they have a Samsung instead of an iPad? Even with it saying "SAMSUNG" on the front?

Also: Knight-Ridder Tablet.

Re:You are right, you don't understand. (1)

tlhIngan (30335) | more than 2 years ago | (#39723827)

Confused customers?

A design patent is effectively a trademark on a physical implementation, except unlike trademarks, they last for a VERY short time (5 years). They differ from trademarks in that you don't have a use ir or lose it, and trademarks are more ethereal - they don't apply to physical objects, but to abstract designs and text (for obvious reasons).

Given how often consumers ARE confused by similar trademarks (look at how many people try to copy a can of Coke - the color, the way the text is done, etc), shows it's actually something a lot of companies do to intentionally mislead.

Hell, go to China sometime and look at all the iPhone and iPod ripoffs. On a lark a coworker bought one of the MP3 players - looked like an iPod Nano until you looked at it closely. Worked like crap, though.

And hell, there were ads a few years ago from some computer company (MDG?) that said "FREE iPOD WITH EVERY COMPUTER". Turned out it was one of the clones as the ads the next week said "FREE iPOD-LIKE PLAYER" and eventually turned into "FREE MP4 PLAYER".

Re:You are right, you don't understand. (2)

Compaqt (1758360) | more than 2 years ago | (#39726293)

And there aren't any imaginary property remedies other than design patents?

Anyway, the Samsung is not in the same category as the knockoff "Eyephone" (props to the guy who made it for the corniest knockoff).

And yeah, it happens to be black with round corners, but so is half the stuff on my desk (the other half is grey with rounded corners).

And it prominently states SAMSUNG.

Finally, is the new judicial standard going to the "dumbest smartphone user alive" standard?

Sigh...lots of stupidity in this thread. (1)

Brannon (221550) | more than 2 years ago | (#39727381)

Like it or not, that's how the world works. You can't make a contour bottle that looks exactly like Coca-Cola's bottle, with a similar color scheme and the name Cola-Cola, and then sell it. Why not? because of design patents.

Re:Sigh...lots of stupidity in this thread. (1)

Compaqt (1758360) | more than 2 years ago | (#39730581)

Wait, I thought it was claimed above that design patents are only for 5 years?

While agreeing with you on the Coca Cola example (exact same packaging + it says "Coca Cola"), I have a problem when Apple tries to patent black, which has been used for computer gear forever (in computer years).

Something like Ferrari Red might have been understandable--like the Acer Ferrari laptops.

They never tried to patent black. (0)

Brannon (221550) | more than 2 years ago | (#39731111)

Or rounded corners. No more than Coca Cola corp tried to patent curved glass, or a round top, or the color red. Design patents and trade dress cover the convergence of many aesthetic properties--each one independently wouldn't be unique but when combined in a particular way then they can constitute a design patent infringement. The problem is, in the legal filings, you can't just say "Hey, they made a bottle that looks just like a Coke bottle", you have to say "they combined several elements including a red label, curved bottle, beveled shape, round top, etc." Just like Apple had to list "rounded corners, black surface, etc. etc.". Of course, the smug tiny little brains on slashdot see that and say "Apple tried to patent rounded corners!!!!!"

By the way, in my example I didn't say the bottle would be called Coca Cola (that would be a trademark violation regardless of a design patent), I said "Cola Cola", but your brain pattern matched and turned that into "Coca Cola". Isn't it funny how that works?

Re:They never tried to patent black. (1)

Compaqt (1758360) | more than 2 years ago | (#39731189)

>By the way, in my example I didn't say the bottle would be called Coca Cola (that would be a trademark violation regardless of a design patent), I said "Cola Cola", but your brain pattern matched and turned that into "Coca Cola". Isn't it funny how that works?

Slashdot hive mind at work.

Re:Sigh...lots of stupidity in this thread. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39731249)

You can't make a contour bottle that looks exactly like Coca-Cola's bottle, with a similar color scheme and the name Cola-Cola, and then sell it.

Which is why samsung made a tablet that doesn't look exactly like an ipad, they don't have any buttons on the front and they even put SAMSUNG on there, they certainly don't put anything similar to 'ipad' (like opad or epad) or 'apple' anywhere on it.
Sure it is black with rounded corners - which is in no way original - and it has a ~1" uniform bezel around the screen, which is only logical given the touch interface and ability of such devices to be oriented any way.

Re:You are right, you don't understand. (1)

icebike (68054) | more than 2 years ago | (#39724567)

By the way, FRAND doesn't mean "free" as you seem to believe, some of those companies make a lot of money off of their FRAND patents. It means that you can't charge Apple more than you charge Toshiba--which is exactly what Motorola was trying to do.

Not only motorola, but others in the same consortium were trying to charge Apple more.

Why? Because it was a patent POOL, with an organization to track and settle licensing fees between partners. You brought your pertinent patents into the pool, and you paid your license fees per handset. Apple brought no patents to the table. They just usurped the right to use all of these patents, claiming that any fees due were paid by the chip manufacturers. They offered nothing in return for the use of these patents, refusing to license any of their own. (They really had virtually nothing to offer in GSM or CDMA arena anyway, because they invented nothing in this area).

So the other companies charged Apple the non-FRAND prices. Apple refused to pay, refused to cross license, and simply used the patents anyway, knowing they would be protected by their friends in Washington. If Apple lost in court (and there are cases pending which they may well lose), the penalties would extend to billions of dollars, and cover all handsets they ever made.

FRAND only works when all parties play along. No part of FRAND implies Mandatory Licensing. One might argue that it should, especially for Standards Based Technologies.

Fighting about rounded corners is simply a desperation move.

Re:You are right, you don't understand. (1)

UnknowingFool (672806) | more than 2 years ago | (#39725829)

True the patent pool protects everyone but what about those that came into the market after the original standards were agreed upon? Should they have to invent a time machine to get themselves into the pool? Also one of Apple's complaints with Motorola is that they are double-dipping. They charged Qualcomm licensing fees to make the 3G chips then charges Apple who uses the chips another fee. That's like Micron trying to get you or Dell to pay SDRAM licensing to them after you bought DDR modules from Kingston.

Re:You are right, you don't understand. (1)

icebike (68054) | more than 2 years ago | (#39726367)

Apple does hold some patents that they are now using to sue everyone in sight. They could have offered these patents to the patent pool, but instead they chose to offer none, even when some were asked for.

As for charging the chip makers and then the handset makers, that is standard practice, agreed upon by the entire pool. Its not double dipping, because it was purposely set up that way. Further, some chips have multiple different capabilities, and you only have to license the ones you actually use in your handset.

Johnny-come-lately entrants have to offer something to get pool pricing. Else they pay non-pool pricing. Apple knew this going in.

Stop making shit up. (1)

Brannon (221550) | more than 2 years ago | (#39727437)

There is no such thing as 'patent-pool' pricing. There is no difference in the licensing price for companies which contributed to a standards patent-pool vs. companies who didn't. That's not why patent-pools exist and you repeating it over and over doesn't make it anymore true. It is pure fiction.

Such a difference is specifically impermissable by the "non-discriminatory" requirement of FRAND, that's what the 'ND' stands for. Look it up.

Re:Stop making shit up. (1)

icebike (68054) | more than 2 years ago | (#39727617)

Why don't you look it up!

There is no clear definition of FRAND, it differs with each patent pool.

Re:You are right, you don't understand. (1)

chrb (1083577) | more than 2 years ago | (#39727881)

Your arguments are against the patent system itself.

True the patent pool protects everyone but what about those that came into the market after the original standards were agreed upon? Should they have to invent a time machine to get themselves into the pool?

Unfortunately, that is the way that patents work. "What if you became an X developer after X has already been invented?" is a common problem; if someone has a patent, and you create a product that requires that patent, then you must license it. It doesn't matter that you entered the field after the patent was created - it doesn't matter if you weren't born when the patent was created - you will still be at the mercy of the patent holder until the patent expires. Pertinent example: "What if you create a graphics library and GIFs have already been invented?"

They charged Qualcomm licensing fees to make the 3G chips then charges Apple who uses the chips another fee.

Separate charges for manufacture and integration are also allowed by the patents system.

That's like Micron trying to get you or Dell to pay SDRAM licensing to them after you bought DDR modules from Kingston.

Or like Apple suing Samsung and HTC over an operating system that they bought from Google? There is no law that prohibits a patent holder from suing anyone in the distribution chain who they claim violates their patent.

Re:You are right, you don't understand. (1)

UnknowingFool (672806) | more than 2 years ago | (#39731773)

Separate charges for manufacture and integration are also allowed by the patents system.

Not unless they charged Qualcomm for everything already. The chips Apple bought are stock chips that everyone else uses.

Or like Apple suing Samsung and HTC over an operating system that they bought from Google? There is no law that prohibits a patent holder from suing anyone in the distribution chain who they claim violates their patent.

Not remotely similar. Apple is suing HTC over functional patents that they believe they invented and never licensed to Google. Whether those patents are valid is another question. Apple is suing Samsung for copying their designs. Again the question is whether Apple has a case as they never licensed the designs to Samsung. In the case of Micron, they are a part of the SDRAM patent holders. Companies that make DDR ram must pay licensing fees to them; however, the end users (like consumers and PC manufacturers) do not have to pay as the RAM manufacturers paid already. That is what Apple is claiming Motorola is doing: charging Qualcomm and then charging them to buy what Qualcomm paid.

For another analogy, every time someone buys an AMD chip, they don't pay Intel separately for x86 patents. The pay AMD the price of the chip. Any x86 patents are paid by the price of the chip.

You tragically misunderstand patent pools. (1)

Brannon (221550) | more than 2 years ago | (#39727241)

You seem to believe standards work by several companies contributing patents to a pool and then those companies are the only ones who get to build to the standard. That is *not* how they work, and frankly that is a pretty stupid guess as to how they work.

Companies contribute patents to a pool as a condition of making that technology part of the standard under requirements to FRAND that technology for any and all who want to implement that standard (whether those future companies contributed to the pool or not). Companies then set licensing costs for everyone who wants to implement the standard--those costs have to be FAIR, REASONABLE, and NON-DISCRIMINATORY. Some companies choose to pay the licensing costs with a fair trade of intellectual property, others pay in cash.

Apple purchased chips from Qualcomm. Qualcomm paid those licensing costs, so Apple felt like they shouldn't have to pay the licensing costs twice--they considered their debt paid.

Meanwhile, Motorola (and others) approached Apple and said that they wouldn't accept cash from them anyway as payment for the FRAND technology, they would only accept in exchange Apple's non-FRAND patent portfolio--presumably so that they could make literal copies of iPhones.

I'm not a lawyer, but frankly I see Apple's side of this one.

Re:You tragically misunderstand patent pools. (2)

icebike (68054) | more than 2 years ago | (#39727521)

Meanwhile, Motorola (and others) approached Apple and said that they wouldn't accept cash from them anyway as payment for the FRAND technology,

That's the part you made up out of whole cloth. Moto never said they wouldn't accept cash. In fact they are suing for several billion in cash.

The patent pool had FRAND pricing and collection mechanisms for two different tiers. One was the members, the other was for non-members. (Apple is not the only non-member, there are several who use various pieces of this technology and pay the non-member pricing for everything from speed cameras to water meters).

Apple refused to pay the non member pricing. Non-discriminatory doesn't mean you get it for free if you don't feel the price is ok. It means you get the same price as everybody else in your class.

Further Apple's claim of having paid via their purchase from Qualcomm in violation of the licening agreement set up by the association. is As of April 2012, the controversy centers on whether a FRAND license to a components manufacturer carries over to an equipment manufacturer incorporating the component into equipment, an issue NOT addressed in the U.S. Supreme Court's default exhaustion doctrine in Quanta v. LG Electronics.

Sure, they will happily accept $500B in cash. (0)

Brannon (221550) | more than 2 years ago | (#39731129)

But what they won't do is accept the same amount of money from Apple that they would from Qualcomm. Do you honestly think that if this was a matter of a couple of bucks per phone (like what they charge everyone else) that Apple wouldn't happily pay? Apple is a $500B corporation.

No, the stumbling blocks were (a) Apple felt like Qualcomm's license should extend to them, that's for the courts to decide, and (b) Moto wanted Apple's non-FRAND patent portfolio in exchange so they could make Motorola iPhones.

Re:You tragically misunderstand patent pools. (1)

chrb (1083577) | more than 2 years ago | (#39728291)

You seem to believe standards work by several companies contributing patents to a pool and then those companies are the only ones who get to build to the standard. That is *not* how they work

In fact, that *is* how some standards work. You seem to believe that it is illegal to create a patent pool unless the patents are offered to competitors on FRAND terms. Unfortunately, there is no such law. It is legal for companies to create a private patent pool. Qualcomm do not have to license their CDMA patent pool to you, so that you can create competing CDMA chipsets. The only reason that the GSM patents are considered FRAND is because that is how the GSM Alliance chose to operate (probably due to its E.U. origins as a government-mandated open standards protocol). They could just have easily have created a set of non-FRAND patents, and it would have been completely legal.

Motorola (and others) approached Apple and said that they wouldn't accept cash from them anyway as payment for the FRAND technology

Not true. In fact, Nokia explicitly asked the court to declare a cash value on the patents that they hold. This is the essence of the argument (and something that is missed every single time this appears on Slashdot) - the dispute is not about whether or not the FRAND patents should be licensed, the dispute is over how you define "fair" in the context of patents. Every company making GSM phones has to negotiate a patent license from every other company that has patents in the GSM patent pool. Lawyers negotiate and patent cross-license deals (including both FRAND and non-FRAND patents!) are done, some cash changes hands, and the deal is done. What Apple did was (apparently) refuse to license their patents, presumably because they want to use them to prevent other manufacturers from making similar smart phones. That means that the whole patent payment must be made in cash. At this point there is a difficult problem - what, exactly, is a "fair" cash value for a large essential patent pool? 1% of profits? 5% of profits? 5% of revenue? 50% of revenue? Only a court can decide.

Engadget actually got some lawyers to do a readable version of the situation back in 2009. It's a shame that so many people still argue the same points without actually reading or understanding the basic facts of these patent licensing cases. 'So it's got to be cash, and even if Apple's willing to pay a straight cash royalty for Nokia's patents, negotiating that price is anything but easy -- FRAND is basically what wireless industry licensing executives have to believe so they can sleep at night. In reality FRAND is nebulous and undefined, with almost no specific rules for determining what a "fair, reasonable, and non-discriminatory" license actually is.' - http://www.engadget.com/2009/10/29/nokia-vs-apple-the-in-depth-analysis/ [engadget.com]

Re:You tragically misunderstand patent pools. (1)

Brannon (221550) | more than 2 years ago | (#39731165)

It doesn't matter if that isn't how all standards work, it is definitely how *the standard we are talking about* works.

I don't see why it is so hard to set a price. Just look at what other companies paid. Not every licensee traded IP for their license and even when they did, look at the value of that IP. Now look at what they are asking Apple to pay, I think you'll notice that there are a few zeroes attached to the end of the Apple price.

BTW: Apple owns a huge LTE patent portfolio acquired from Nortel. How come we haven't heard any stories about them using their LTE patents to extort competitors? they should be free to do that, right? because Fair Reasonable and Non-Discriminatory is sooooo nebulous.

BTW, FRAND does imply Mandatory Licensing (1)

Brannon (221550) | more than 2 years ago | (#39727265)

that's the whole frickin point. That's what 'non-discriminatory' means.

Idiot.

Re:BTW, FRAND does imply Mandatory Licensing (2)

icebike (68054) | more than 2 years ago | (#39727547)

You still have to pay the fees appropriate to your class. You don't get to use the patents for free and contribute neither money or patents to the pool. Its not discriminatory to expect you to pay for the patents you use.

Re:You are right, you don't understand. (1)

Solandri (704621) | more than 2 years ago | (#39727111)

Nobody forced anybody to license anything under FRAND conditions. The patent holders voluntarily committed them to FRAND licensing in order to get them included within a standard. That's how standards work.

Which is why I contend that if things continue as they are, with Apple securing exorbitant licensing fees for trivial patents like "slide to unlock" while FRAND patents are limited to small fixed royalties, there is only one logical outcome:

FRAND and standards are dead. No company/inventor in their right mind will submit their patent to become part of a standard under FRAND. They will keep it to themselves and require individual licenses, both to generate more money and to protect themselves from patent lawsuits. Welcome to the brave new world of standard-less technology, brought to you by Apple.

Re:You are right, you don't understand. (1)

chrb (1083577) | more than 2 years ago | (#39728373)

They already do require individual license. There is no global license for the GSM "patent pool" - if you want to make a GSM phone, you have to go to each patent holder and license their patents individually. The argument is about this:

FRAND patents are limited to small fixed royalties

Well, who said that FRAND patents would be limited to small fixed royalties? In fact, the patent holder is free to license their patents in any way they wish. That just means that they can't charge one person more than another for a patent license (which is impossible to judge, since the deals involve cross-licensing, and patents don't have a $ value attached to them), and that they are "fair", which can only be decided by a court of law.

Re:You are right, you don't understand. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39730539)

"It means that you can't charge Apple more than you charge Toshiba"

No it doesn't. It means you must offer the same terms to everyone, and patent reciprocation is often one of those terms. If a party rejects those terms, then (even for FRAND patents) you can then offer them at whatever price you want.

Re:Apple willing to license? (1)

Lunix Nutcase (1092239) | more than 2 years ago | (#39722763)

What exactly is wrong with that? Standards are meant to be universally adopted and having standard essential patents not be licensed under FRAND terms goes against that. If Samsung didn't want to be tied by FRAND terms then they shouldn't have forced their patents into the standards. Other than anti-Apple screed, I don't see any reason why standard essential patents shouldn't be FRAND. You do realize that making these patents non-FRAND does more than just stick it to Apple, right? For example, there would then be nothing stopping Samsung for holding these patents over any of their competitors head and force them out of the market through heavy licensing fees f these patents were not under FRAND terms. And if you think Samsung wouldn't do such a thing you are extremely naive.

Re:Apple willing to license? (2, Insightful)

gnasher719 (869701) | more than 2 years ago | (#39722773)

I still cannot understand why very technical inventions (such as 3G and GSM) can only be licensed under FRAND conditions, but fluff like 'slide to unlock' (have that in my toilet) or rounded corner ("they are everywhere!") yield massive license income.. I would really love to see this before a judge so we can finally get this mess cleaned up for good.

Explanation: Some patents are part of a standard, and everybody _must_ use them to use that standard. If one company with patents used in the 3G standard for example refused to license their patents, then they would have a monopoly. If two companies refused to license their patents, then we would have no 3G phones. Therefore, whenever some standard is created, everyone has to agree to license their patents under FRAND conditions. If you refuse, they will change the standard so that your patents are not part of it.

"Slide to unlock" is not _required_ by anybody. You can build a perfectly nice phone without using that patent. "Rounded corners" on the other hand is not something that is patented, or patentable, and referring to it seems to indicate that you are a bit clueless. You can get a design patent for a design which consists of many, many design elements, and only someone copying that combination of design elements would be infringing. I can get a design patent for a phone that has A, B, C, D and E, and you would then be free to create a phone that has A, C, D and E, but not B.

Re:Apple willing to license? (3, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39724135)

"Rounded corners" on the other hand is not something that is patented, or patentable, and referring to it seems to indicate that you are a bit clueless. You can get a design patent for a design which consists of many, many design elements, and only someone copying that combination of design elements would be infringing. I can get a design patent for a phone that has A, B, C, D and E, and you would then be free to create a phone that has A, C, D and E, but not B.

Bullshit. Design patents do not rely on a specific enumeration of elements, but on drawings, and the similarity to these drawings need not be absolute. For instance, the iPad design patent (D504889 [google.com] ) being asserted against Samsung shows a square edge between the front face and all sides. And yet, making a tablet contaning all elements of that design except the square edge (replacing it, say, with a small radius) would not keep you safe -- in fact the iPad itself has a small radius here. The test for infringement regards the overall effect of the design (excluding functional elements), viz. whether "in the eye of an ordinary observer, giving such attention as a purchaser usually gives, two designs are substantially the same" (Gorham v. White).

See Amini Inovation Corp. v Anthony California, Inc., where an element-by-element comparison of the type you endorse was rejected:

[T]he trial mistakenly analyzed each element separately instead of analyzing the design as a whole from the perspective of an ordinary observer. The trial court is correct to factor out the functional aspects of various design elements, but that discounting of functional elements must not convert the overall infringement text to an element-by-element comparison.

Picking one element and changing it doesn't mean you don't infringe; the only way to avoid infringing is to make sure the whole design is sufficiently dissimilar to avoid infringement, and whether one element is enough depends on the prominence of that element and of whatever you replace it with.

Of course, this is part of why design patents are an evil blight -- it's too hard to avoid infringement, and too hard to clarify what elements are functional vs. ornamental, when a major principle of good industrial design is simplicity, and the reduction to functionality -- the better the design, the blurrier the line of infringement becomes!

Re:Apple willing to license? (1)

Hentes (2461350) | more than 2 years ago | (#39722797)

Because the former are standards and the latter are not.

Re:Apple willing to license? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39723127)

It basically boils down to this. Cellular companies who spent umpteen millions on inventing wireless wanted to make products - and sharing their patent pool in a standard, licensed under FRAND made that possible without a cluster of lawsuits. Thus FRAND was built into the standards.

The problem is that they didn't foresee a well-healed outsider coming in with a bunch of trivial patents, buying now commoditized (thanks to FRAND) cellular chipsets, paying low FRAND fees, but building a patent wall around their neat but technically trivial product differentiation.

Its easy for a detached observer to see that the guys who did all the work in cellular -essentially inventing it- are getting screwed by a newcomer that's not contributing back. Legality is another matter. We'll also see how many non-FRAND patents the cellular companies can find to fight back (for example, Motorola's push notification that won the injunction I don't believe is covered by FRAND).

I would imagine that future standards will have some extra protection to prevent this situation, but we'll see. I would also imagine Apple, maybe MS, and a few others would do what they can to prevent that from happening.

As someone who wants to see continued wireless innovation, I would like to think the guys that came up with all the inventions to this point will get paid and come up with more. It takes a combination of competition and institutional knowledge (largely lost if the Nokias and Motorolas of the world are lost) as well as newcomers to spur innovation. I don't have confidence that a triumphant Apple (or pick a winner) would continue to innovate in wireless at the pace we've been enjoying for the past 30 years if they can just hoover other companies tech without contributing back.

Re:Apple willing to license? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39723201)

They already are getting paid since every mobile device contains licensed chipsets. Samsung has done plenty of patent bullying of its own in its wide field of industries so don't even try to act like they are some innocent victim. And trying to abuse FRAND patents as retaliation is bad no matter who it's done against (yes, even when against Apple). Just because you hate Apple doesn't make Samsung's abuse of FRAND okay.

Re:Apple willing to license? (1)

chrb (1083577) | more than 2 years ago | (#39728723)

They already are getting paid since every mobile device contains licensed chipsets.

Well, that is the big question, isn't it? If all of the chipsets come with applicable and transferrable patent licenses, then why does the case exist?

If the situation is as simple as you suggest, then the court case would be a slam dunk for anyone using such a chipset. The fact that it hasn't been suggests that the chipset may not include a transferable license for all FRAND patent licenses, or the chipset violates other licenses that are non-FRAND. The real question is, why is the chipset manufacturer forcing their customer to defend their product, instead of defending the case themselves under some patent indemnification clause?

We have to wait for the court to decide on the case. Until then, we have no way of knowing what the terms of the patents license from the chipset manufacturer to their clients actually are. I would guess that the patent license states that the chipset manufacturer isn't liable for patent issues arising for the use of their chipset in a fully assembled product, as they have no way to control what the final assembled product actually is and does, and hence no way to control what patents may or may not be violated by the final product. At best, they would indemnify the operation of the baseband processor, but everything that runs off the main CPU is likely not covered.

Re:Apple willing to license? (1)

Compaqt (1758360) | more than 2 years ago | (#39723385)

Yeah, on the one hand, it seems good that Apple is capitulating. On the other, I would have really liked to have seen Apple get smacked.

As it is, by licensing "rounded corners" and "the color black", won't Samsung be adding weight to Apple's ridiculous claims, and thereby making it more likely for them to be able to extract dollar$ from other manufacturers?

Re:Apple willing to license? (2)

UnknowingFool (672806) | more than 2 years ago | (#39723947)

There is a difference between a design patent and a functional one. If you contend that design patents should not exist, then no company could protect their designs. Raye Ban sunglasses , Suny headphones, Koach purses would be everywhere and legal. The legal argument has not been whether Apple had the design patents (they do) . The question has been whether Samsung deliberately copied their design. Using one point of the 24 points in Apple brief says you we not reading the whole thing.

Re:Apple willing to license? (1)

shutdown -p now (807394) | more than 2 years ago | (#39724635)

I still cannot understand why very technical inventions (such as 3G and GSM) can only be licensed under FRAND conditions, but fluff like 'slide to unlock' (have that in my toilet) or rounded corner ("they are everywhere!") yield massive license income

Simply put, it's because companies whose patents were made into GSM and 3G specs have signed legal documents like this one [etsi.org] , while Apple did not. FRAND is voluntary - it doesn't automatically apply to your patents unless you declare that it does (but most standard organizations require that you do that if you propose a standard, implementing which requires a patent that you hold).

Re:Apple willing to license? (1)

TheRaven64 (641858) | more than 2 years ago | (#39726191)

It's very simple: those are the terms of being incorporated into the standard. When standards like GSM are proposed, all of the involved parties (typically meaning all of the people who do a nontrivial amount of research in the field) meet and say 'we have a very good way of doing that' and if other people agree that it is as good as they say, then they get to put it in the standard in exchange for FRAND conditions. They benefit, because now everyone who implements the standard must license their patent, and everyone else benefits because they have a good standard that they can implement at a reasonable price.

Crappy patents have no special rules, because no one needs to license them. You can make a phone without licensing Apple's patents, but you can't make one without licensing Samsung's or Nokia's. It's not that their patents are more technical, it's that they are part of a published standard. If the standard allowed people to charge whatever they wanted for patent licenses, then it would be useless. The EU, for example, standardised on GSM for all 2G deployments. It was the required as a condition for all spectrum licenses. If a single company had been able to say 'actually, we changed our minds, and now anyone who implements this has to pay us $100/month for every cell plus $10/month for every client, then there would have been serious problems.

Re:Apple willing to license? (2)

mjwx (966435) | more than 2 years ago | (#39731313)

I still cannot understand why very technical inventions (such as 3G and GSM) can only be licensed under FRAND conditions, but fluff like 'slide to unlock' (have that in my toilet) or rounded corner ("they are everywhere!") yield massive license income.. I would really love to see this before a judge so we can finally get this mess cleaned up for good.

Rather, why is software able to be patented at all?

You cant patent 2+2=4 because anyone can figure that out, same with software. Someone with no exposure to your software, with the same goal is likely to figure out the same way to do it if it is the most logical conclusion, same as 2+2=4.

But this is Apple more or less admitting it has no real case and stands to have more damage done to it by fighting Samsung. Their attempts to get injunctions have failed, the Galaxy brand has gone gangbusters, Apple lost and are looking for the cheapest way out..

Sanity returning to Apple? (5, Insightful)

ilsaloving (1534307) | more than 2 years ago | (#39722539)

I hope that this is a sign that saner heads are starting to prevail now that they no longer have an ego-maniac at the helm. Steve Jobs definitely had a very good sense of aesthetics and industrial design, which led to excellent products and services. But by all accounts he was, to put it mildly, an asshole.

I really hope that under the current leadership, Apple will start learning to play more nicely with others without sacrificing the aspects that brought them to the point they're at now.

Re:Sanity returning to Apple? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39722673)

I'm hoping that Cook is willing to settle this lawsuit quagmire. Long term, it just means Apple is going to be making money, either by people buying their stuff, or royalties from people buying the competition. If Apple keeps fighting with scorched earth tactics when it comes to patents, it might happen that someone out of nowhere obtains a patent that even the legions of Apple lawyers can't overthrow, flag as FRAND, find a way around, or negotiate with. It would likely be someone out of China (where government owns business as opposed to vice versa.) Someone paid for by other companies in the business just to ensure the next iDevice isn't allowed to be sold.

Apple already tried this... (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39722891)

Apple offered [wsj.com] settlement deals to both Samsung *and* Motorala before enteringlitigation. Yes, even with Steve Jobs at the helm.

Perhaps you ought to check your facts before speaking ill of the dead.

Re:Apple already tried this... (1)

NatasRevol (731260) | more than 2 years ago | (#39723071)

Guessing, but I'd bet there was a 'fuck you' clause specifically put in by Steve.

So what? It means nothing (1)

chrb (1083577) | more than 2 years ago | (#39728509)

Apple offered [wsj.com] settlement deals to both Samsung *and* Motorala before enteringlitigation.

Yes, and I'm sure Samsung and Motorola in turn offered settlement deals to Apple before entering litigation.

That is how the legal world works:
"Why don't you give me $20 per device?"
"No. Why don't *you* give *me* $20 per device?"
"See you in court"

The important detail is the terms of the deal that was offered, not the fact that a deal was offered in itself.

Re:Sanity returning to Apple? (1)

danomac (1032160) | more than 2 years ago | (#39723307)

I hope that this is a sign that saner heads are starting to prevail now that they no longer have an ego-maniac at the helm.

You mean Apple under Cook may consider allowing Flash on their devices? The most recent complaints I've heard about the iPads from coworkers is that their shiny new toy doesn't seem to be able to show all of the webpages they look at.

That could get interesting, but I'm pretty sure Jobs has starting rolling in his grave already...

Re:Sanity returning to Apple? (4, Informative)

Karlt1 (231423) | more than 2 years ago | (#39724309)

You mean Apple under Cook may consider allowing Flash on their devices? The most recent complaints I've heard about the iPads from coworkers is that their shiny new toy doesn't seem to be able to show all of the webpages they look at.

Where have you been? Adobe is abandoning Flash for Android and every other mobile platform.

http://blogs.adobe.com/conversations/2011/11/flash-focus.html [adobe.com]

sometimes it takes an asshole.... (1)

schlachter (862210) | more than 2 years ago | (#39724941)

..to say fuck the world and do what you think is best/right/beautiful/elegant/etc.

Re:sometimes it takes an asshole.... (1)

Nerdfest (867930) | more than 2 years ago | (#39727637)

Except the 'no Flash' thing was most likely a "Fuck you, you can't run any code that we don't get 30% of the price from".

Re:sometimes it takes an asshole.... (1)

Karlt1 (231423) | more than 2 years ago | (#39729835)

So if Flash for mobile was so great, then why did Adobe abandon it?

Re:sometimes it takes an asshole.... (1)

Nerdfest (867930) | more than 2 years ago | (#39730087)

Whether it's great or not doesn't enter into it. They're also abandoning Flash on Linux, TVs, etc. They know HTML5 is the future, and that future got pushed ahead a bit by Apple's greed.

Re:sometimes it takes an asshole.... (1)

indiechild (541156) | about 2 years ago | (#39732339)

Yeah, that's why the Safari mobile browser has such good HTML5 support!

Re:Sanity returning to Apple? (-1, Troll)

Savage-Rabbit (308260) | more than 2 years ago | (#39723403)

I hope that this is a sign that saner heads are starting to prevail now that they no longer have an ego-maniac at the helm. Steve Jobs definitely had a very good sense of aesthetics and industrial design, which led to excellent products and services. But by all accounts he was, to put it mildly, an asshole.

I really hope that under the current leadership, Apple will start learning to play more nicely with others without sacrificing the aspects that brought them to the point they're at now.

All true, but I can still undestand why Apple is pissed off, both Android and the early Samsung devices are blatant iOS and $IPRODUCT knockoffs (excepting the latest ones like the Samsung Galaxy SII where Samsung finally seems to have started doing it's own thing). When the Samsung phones first arived I was shopping for around for a new pone and I actally mistook them the Samsung Galaxy S a cople of times for iPhone 3 series devices, they looked so similar even pretty close up. I just handed an iPhone to a user who migrated straight from Symbian to Samsung/Android well over a year ago. About an hour after handing him the device I ran into him again and asked him how he was getting along with the iPhone. The aswer was "Fine, it's almost exactly like Android."... Me: LOL. Another thing he really liked was that the iPone came with only a handful of apps whereas his Samsung Galaxy Tab came with a whole slew of crappy apps preinstalled you have no use for. It's pretty much the same feeling you got a few years ago when you bought a Dell desktop, oodles upon oodles of crappy preinstalled software.

Re:Sanity returning to Apple? (2)

Mordermi (2432580) | more than 2 years ago | (#39723623)

Really? I had a Galaxy S and it looked and felt nothing like an iPhone. Car analogy for /.? Sure, I feel that it's basically like mistaking a Camaro for a Charger. Really, they're that different. They're both muscle cars, they're both nice, they both have the same basic functions, but they're entirely different and anyone that knows anything about cars would never confuse them.

Re:Sanity returning to Apple? (1)

mjwx (966435) | more than 2 years ago | (#39731331)

I hope that this is a sign that saner heads are starting to prevail now that they no longer have an ego-maniac at the helm.

Not really, it's a sign that someone at Apple has realised that they have no case against Samsung. They never really did, Apple was hoping to cause enough delay and interference that Samsung would give up (Dear Fanboys, remember that Apple did not ask for license fees from Samsung like most patent disputes, they sought injunctions to prevent Samsung from selling their products and that Apple struck first). A poor gambit that failed miserably.

Now they are appealing to Samsung not to crush them in the legal system. Samsung will likely not pursue them legally as it's more expensive and Samsung is a rational corporation.

Don't sue you're suppliers (1)

JWW (79176) | more than 2 years ago | (#39722551)

It always struck me as really weird how Samsung was a major supplier for parts for Apple products AND the target of lawsuits by them.

It just seems terribly terribly inefficient. Instead of haggling over an agreement to a suit, just haggle over the cost of the parts.

Sort of like Samsung saying "how about we do away with this lawsuit and just discount price of the massive amount of memory you're buying from us?"

Re:Don't sue you're suppliers (3, Insightful)

gnasher719 (869701) | more than 2 years ago | (#39722819)

Sort of like Samsung saying "how about we do away with this lawsuit and just discount price of the massive amount of memory you're buying from us?"

Samsung is a big company. The Samsung vice president of memory would tell the Samsung vice president of tablet design to f*** off if he were asked to sell memory to Apple cheaper. That's _his_ profit and _his_ bonus on the line, and he won't give that up because some other vice president had to produce a tablet design that gets them sued.

Re:Don't sue you're suppliers (1)

mjwx (966435) | more than 2 years ago | (#39731343)

Sort of like Samsung saying "how about we do away with this lawsuit and just discount price of the massive amount of memory you're buying from us?"

Samsung is a big company. The Samsung vice president of memory would tell the Samsung vice president of tablet design to f*** off if he were asked to sell memory to Apple cheaper. That's _his_ profit and _his_ bonus on the line, and he won't give that up because some other vice president had to produce a tablet design that gets them sued.

This, Both would be under the same banner, Samsung Electronics so they'd be under the same C level execs who would tell both sides to fuck such a deal off.

These talks are happning because Apple has realised it cant win in court. They've tried all kinds of legal tricks to get injunctions but none of them worked. The Galaxy tab sold well and Apple failed in stopping it. These talks are Apple asking Samsung nicely not to crush them in the courtroom. Apple did the same thing with Nokia in it's patent suit. On the eve of getting crushed by Nokia in the courtroom Apple agreed to settle out of court.

It's pretty common for corporations to do this. One side realises that it cant win in court so it negotiates for a lesser penalty then the court would impose.

Re:Don't sue you're suppliers (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39724799)

You also just struck on the evidence, IMHO, why ultimately Apple will prevail in this.
Samsung needs Apple much more than Apple needs Samsung.
Apple has been buddying up with LG, and Sharp to underscore this.

Same reason why Apple when and bought a mapping company and never did anything with it. It was a defensive move that said to Google, "you can't squeeze us, we can leave you at any time."

Headline somewhat misleading (surprise) (5, Informative)

Registered Coward v2 (447531) | more than 2 years ago | (#39722581)

The court ordered them to talk and try to reach an agreement; something a judge can do. However, that does not mean they have to settle. Since it is both CEOs and senior council at the talks, you'd think they could reach an agreement. Cook seems like a rational person, and I assume the head of Samsung is as well. My guess is some sort of cross licensing deal with maybe an agreement to keep talking to avoid food fights in the future. This is a classic case of both sides needing the other and to try to find a way to put away the gun they've pointed at each others head without losing face.

Re:Headline somewhat misleading (surprise) (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39722703)

This is a classic case of both sides needing the other and to try to find a way to put away the gun they've pointed at each others head without losing face.

Why, oh, why can't they both pull the trigger, leaving the world a better place? *sigh*

Re:Headline somewhat misleading (surprise) (1)

NatasRevol (731260) | more than 2 years ago | (#39723085)

Not sure why you thought the headline was misleading, unless you didn't read until the last word.

They agreed to talks, not settlements. Which is exactly what the headline says.

Re:Headline somewhat misleading (surprise) (2)

xeno314 (661565) | more than 2 years ago | (#39724515)

Eh, it's misleading for a couple reasons that lay people don't always realize. Think of it like this - it works in exactly the same way that news organizations make headlines out of people pleading 'not guilty'. That isn't news. Any attorney would advise their client to plead not guilty at the initial arraignment - you do the leg work and dealing on the case later, and maybe the plea gets changed in a deal. Either way, it's boilerplate to start with 'not guilty'.

This is an equally unremarkable headline. State and federal courts almost universally have local rules that permit judges to order mediation or just flatly require mediation. That's what's happening here. Apple and Samsung may or may not 'agree' in this case, but they'll be doing it anyway because that's how the system works. To sum up, there's no news here, civil procedure is just taking its natural course. The headline (and source article) are both somewhat misleading because there's no real news here, and the two companies aren't negotiating just because they think it's the best thing to do.

(Articles like this are one of my pet peeves as an attorney. I often wonder what the equivalents are for other professions...)

Re:Headline somewhat misleading (surprise) (1)

NatasRevol (731260) | more than 2 years ago | (#39725025)

Other professions call it vaporware announcements.

Does this mean it's snowing somewhere? (1)

StuartHankins (1020819) | more than 2 years ago | (#39722603)

I will be happy to see this situation come to a close. Would like it better if the whole patent system were reworked, but I will take a small amount of progress any day. It's a bad thing that corporations use bludgeons because if you don't you get beaten down. Restore some sanity in the process, please!

Re:Does this mean it's snowing somewhere? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39722693)

Yes, its snowing in northern sweden :)

What we need here... (1)

rsmith84 (2540216) | more than 2 years ago | (#39722655)

is a SUE-ANCE!

Common Sense (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39722671)

Confirms that Steve Jobs was an asshole.

The Lawyers Win (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39722677)

Business as usual.

So Tim is not the pretentious asshole Jobs was? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39722695)

Amazing.

Hm... (2, Insightful)

JustAnotherIdiot (1980292) | more than 2 years ago | (#39722727)

it could be a positive signal that Apple might be willing to license the patents under Tim Cook, versus fight it out in court under the late Steve Jobs.

Or it could be a sign that Apple realized they're fighting a losing battle so they're trying to salvage what little they can keep.

Re:Hm... (3, Informative)

AdrianKemp (1988748) | more than 2 years ago | (#39723111)

OR

It could be a sign that the judge effectively ordered them to do it. If they'd said they weren't available/willing to sit down the judge would have deemed them uncooperative.

Re:Hm... (3, Interesting)

msobkow (48369) | more than 2 years ago | (#39725339)

Why is this "insightful"? The only reason they're at the negotiation table is the judge in the case ORDERED them to talk. It doesn't indicate anything about a change of policy or mindset on behalf of either party.

And around the country (2)

Identita (1256932) | more than 2 years ago | (#39722885)

Intellectual property litigation attorneys weep

Re:And around the country (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39723897)

No they cheer. If the war went and became as scorched earth as it looked like it would, then we would have eventually seen major patent reform.

Now they get to keep their jobs.

Dawww! (1)

Quiet_Desperation (858215) | more than 2 years ago | (#39723435)

That's sweet. I heard both sides agreed to hug when the urge to file a motion arises. Samsung will get a custom plushie of Steve Jobs and Tim Cook gets a pony. Pffft! What is this namby pamby crap? I want my corporations FIGHTING! Fight, you pansies! Cook, take those damn chakrams back out of your briefcase and forge you some whoop ass! FINISH THEM!

This doesn't mean what you think it means (1)

erroneus (253617) | more than 2 years ago | (#39723721)

Just because they have to sit down and talk doesn't mean they will arrive at any agreements. What it does mean is that they will likely help to narrow down a variety of issue such as what is mutually agreed upon and what is mutually disputed. As we saw in the Oracle vs Google situation, they also went into talks. What they ended up with was some narrowing down of things. There was no way Google was going to agree to give anything to Oracle.

I still see much potential to the idea that Apple vs Samsung vs Apple will help usher in the patent apocalypse we've all been waiting for.

Either way apple has lost face (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39728789)

No matter how this turns out, Apple have lost.
I will never buy or RECOMMEND another apple product due to their asshatery.

Check for New Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>