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!

DoJ Investigating Samsung For Patent Abuse

Soulskill posted about 2 years ago | from the might-as-well-investigate-somebody dept.

Government 146

sl4shd0rk writes "Good news for Apple, bad news for Samsung. Yesterday, Apple filed legal papers with the International Trade Commission citing a Department of Justice investigation into whether Samsung is misusing its 'Standards essential' patents in ways which violate antitrust law. Apple claims Samsung has violated commitments to license its essential patents to competitors on fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory terms. Or, more specifically, Samsung is 'using certain patents as a basis for improper legal actions that seek to block the sale of competitors' products.' The article says Google (because of its recent acquisition, Motorola Mobility) is under the same scrutiny."

cancel ×

146 comments

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

Says Apple? (5, Insightful)

Terry Pearson (935552) | about 2 years ago | (#41756999)

Nothing like the pot calling the kettle black!

not even (5, Insightful)

poetmatt (793785) | about 2 years ago | (#41757103)

This is almost comedy - apple is going to try to claim what samsung proved *apple* did in the lawsuit against samsung which it has now basically lost? Talk about trying for a third attempt to stop your competition through abusing the legal system. Outlined here: http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20121022054044954 [groklaw.net]

summary is that Apple:
sued samsung, claiming samsung abused patents ("charging too much!") while simultaneously abusing patents and encouraging people to use windows phones (hello antitrust!) and anyone other than google. This should set the DOJ off onto investigating *apple/ms/oracle*.

Not only is that hilariously pot -> kettle, but also it doesn't mean the DOJ is investigating anything.

Re:not even (4, Insightful)

starworks5 (139327) | about 2 years ago | (#41757157)

Not even sound jurisprudence will get in the way of crony capitalism, the higher you get in the appeals process the more it appears to be a kangaroo court.

Re:not even (2)

Synerg1y (2169962) | about 2 years ago | (#41757201)

Interesting read, I think ultimately this patent war will hurt Apple a lot more through PR than anything. Probably won't matter in a few years, their PR is going to shit now anyways (a smartphone w/o working maps anyone?), so... when Apple goes out of business, are those patents then invalidated?

Re:not even (5, Insightful)

viperidaenz (2515578) | about 2 years ago | (#41757497)

A Patent Troll will buy them and sue everyone else all over again. That's how the system works.

Re:not even (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41757661)

The maps work fine on my iPhone 5. What is supposed to not work?

Re:not even (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41757779)

Now turn your iphone 5 on. See if the maps still works.

Re:not even (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41757921)

It works fine as long as you're in a big US city. The rest of the world doesn't work fine, if at all.

Re:not even (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41758183)

Even then major university campuses have lost all their details.

Re:not even (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41758859)

Wow! it does? Quick, tell Mr Cook to take his apology [apple.com] back.
The guy has no idea what he's talking about. Fancy having him as a CEO - telling people to use other map apps when there's nothing wrong with theirs!

Re:not even (1)

Jmc23 (2353706) | about 2 years ago | (#41760387)

Never met an apple fan?

Re:not even (1)

MickyTheIdiot (1032226) | about 2 years ago | (#41757519)

An adminstration that is "socialist" is investingating corporate abuse as much as the last corporate crony administration.

That is not at all.

Re:not even (1)

Rob Y. (110975) | about 2 years ago | (#41757567)

What determines a patent on a standard requiring RAND licensing? It would seem that 'pinch to zoom' and 'slide to unlock' have become de-facto standards for touch-screen devices. How is it that trivial patents like those can be used to block sales of a device when a patent that controls the basic functioning of a device must be licensed to precisely those competitors that are abusing the trivial ones? And you can't even block sales of the devices when the infringer refuses to strike a RAND deal...

Re:not even (3, Insightful)

Desler (1608317) | about 2 years ago | (#41757699)

It's determined by their inclusion into a published standard which has rules about FRAND licensing of all included patented works. Apple's patents aren't part of such a standard and not subject to FRAND rules. What was hard about that?

Re:not even (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41758001)

Whats so hard to understand that FRAND requires apple to negotiate, and they decide not to then they can still be held for not having a license for that tech.

Re:not even (5, Informative)

Elldallan (901501) | about 2 years ago | (#41759911)

From what I read the problem is that the typical negotiations on FRAND patents is that I want to license patent X and in return u get to license patent Y plus $Z(or the other way around). This is of course fine but then Apple comes along and wants to license some FRAND patents but refuse to include any of their own patents in the deal but they still expect to pay only $Z. Samsung tells Apple no way thats completely unreasonable, either you agree to license us some of your patents or you pay a lot more than $Z... Apple does not like that and instead decides to whine to the Department of Justice and the ITC.

Re:not even (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41760297)

FRAND doesn't require you to play nice if you find out that somebody hasn't been paying the royalties that they owed. And that's the thing, Apple opted to not pay the royalties and then went on the offensive trying to sue Android out of existence.

Claiming that it's a violation of FRAND is a bit of a stretch. Apple brought it on themselves when they chose to not only not pay the royalties, but to subsequently file those frivolous questionable suits.

Re:not even (5, Insightful)

tlhIngan (30335) | about 2 years ago | (#41758217)

What determines a patent on a standard requiring RAND licensing? It would seem that 'pinch to zoom' and 'slide to unlock' have become de-facto standards for touch-screen devices. How is it that trivial patents like those can be used to block sales of a device when a patent that controls the basic functioning of a device must be licensed to precisely those competitors that are abusing the trivial ones? And you can't even block sales of the devices when the infringer refuses to strike a RAND deal...

Easy.

A standards body, like IEEE, 3GPP, etc., decide they want a new standard. Ethernet (yes, there are patents on all parts). WiFi (plenty to go around). 5G, Codec. whatever. They get together industry to help them produce the new standard. Industry presents their technology, and they hash out what will make it and what doesn't. As a condition for having the technology included in the new standard, all related patents to use that technology must be FRAND licensed. Otherwise you get a really broken spec where competitors cannot implement the standard because the companies refuse to license.

It's also a big game of political football - technologies that are great may be shunned and inferior ones used because the company with the inferior technology greased more palms. It's pretty lucrative.

Basically a patent is FRAND licensed if it's used in a standard for that standard only, because you can't implement the standard without that patent.

Apple needs ot license Samsung patents in order to produce a phone because Samsung put their technology into the celluar spec, probably LTE or 3G, and you cannot build a phone without those patents (implementing the standard automatically violates the patent).

However, the other things like pinch-to-zoom and slide-to-unlock (if valid), are not part of a standard (there's no standard for "smartphone" that everyone has to follow). You could tap a sequence of numbers to unlock (say, entering a PIN code). You could require the user press the power button three times to unlock, etc.

An de-facto standards aren't standards - Microsoft doesn't have to license you the Office patents to implement something that reads Office documents (which they provide), even though Office is a defacto standard in business. Well, they do for their XML standard (because they submitted it as a standard), but not for say, the .doc format.

TiVo's got the same thing - they have a bunch of core DVR patents that if you implement one, you pretty much have to license it, but they don't have to.

As an aside, a lot of standards also have licensing bodies where you can acquire a license to every patent for one fee without having to talk to any of the participants - MPEG has MPEG-LA to license you all the patents used for a video codec, I think the IEEE has one as well for Ethernet and WiFi. 3GPP doesn't (which means if you want to build a phone, you have to talk to everyone).

Re:not even (2)

PortHaven (242123) | about 2 years ago | (#41758487)

OkaY,

Any Slashdotters want to form a standards association with me. We will evaluate and release a standard for intuitive network connected device (INCD) interactions, recommended design layouts, and features.

> an INCD should have a rectangular shape. It is preferably that a 16:9 ratio is utilized but not required.
> an INCD should have slightly rounded faces to reduce user injury.
> an INCD should have a flat screen, preferably with touch sensitivity.
> an INCD should adopt a number of gestures:
- bringing fingers together should bring content closer together. Moving apart should spread concent.
- rotating two fingers should result in rotated content.
- tapping should trigger actions
- etc
- etc

Re:not even (1)

micheas (231635) | about 2 years ago | (#41760241)

IIRC LTE is not a standard and thus not subject to FRAND licensing terms.

IIRC the Apple v. world lawsuits caused the cell phone manufactures to decide to implement LTE in an adhoc basis.

Re:not even (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41757895)

Exactly as their patent application, many attempts until it gets accepted!

Re:not even (3, Informative)

Joce640k (829181) | about 2 years ago | (#41758235)

This is almost comedy

No, it is comedy, a farce to be exact.

Re:not even (2)

freman (843586) | about 2 years ago | (#41758281)

That was my first reaction - if apple hadn't started this shit it wouldn't be a problem

The mobile phone industry was getting along quite happily before apple came along, minor squibbles and scuffles but for the most part it was a quiet industry.... apple comes along and starts suing everyone...

Besides... how many small countries does apple want to buy?

Re:not even (1, Funny)

foniksonik (573572) | about 2 years ago | (#41758517)

And you don't suppose it was Samsung et al the existing phone makers who tried to keep Apple out?

Which is more likely? The old guard with everything to lose, no need to innovate and a complacent consumer base - does everything in its power to keep out competition. Or. A new competitor with everything to gain, innovation oozing out of every pore, sues and fights at every turn to stay in the game.

Re:not even (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41758783)

Nope, you just need to look at who shot first really...

Re:not even (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41760021)

You mean Nokia?

Re:not even (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41759979)

That was my first reaction - if apple hadn't started this shit it wouldn't be a problem

Are you just trolling for mod points, or are you revising history to fit your current prejudice?

(Hint: Apple didn't start it)

Re:Says Apple? (5, Insightful)

AmiMoJo (196126) | about 2 years ago | (#41757127)

Just another move in the on-going patent wars. Apple must ultimately lose, or we are all screwed.

Re:Says Apple? (1)

MickyTheIdiot (1032226) | about 2 years ago | (#41757563)

Broader than that... people that want the idea of "Intelectual Property" to prevail need to fail.

Anyone here say they are a "strict consitutionalist"??? You should be on my side.

Re:Says Apple? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41760135)

Apple must ultimately lose, or we are all screwed.

In fact, in this particular battle it is exactly the opposite. If companies that contribute to the pool of standards essential patents (SEP) were allowed to withdraw from their obligation to provide SEPs on FRAND terms to everybody, then whole industries would either become cartels (the patent holders may decide to license only to each other, making new players impossible) or would collapse (it just takes that one company changes idea, then nobody can any longer build anything). Imagine a future where it is impossible for a newcomer use any standardized technology... this is what Motorola and Samsung's actions risk to lead to.

Re:Says Apple? (2)

crazyjj (2598719) | about 2 years ago | (#41757205)

I feel like there should be a smoking robot somewhere repeating "DOES NOT COMPUTE! DOES NOT COMPUTE!"

Re:Says Apple? (5, Funny)

Jeng (926980) | about 2 years ago | (#41757379)

I feel like there should be a drinking and smoking robot somewhere repeating "Bite My Shiny Metal Ass"

Re:Says Apple? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41757207)

Nothing like the pot calling the kettle black!

In Italy we'd say Apple has the face like his (her?) ass. (= they're shameless)

Re:Says Apple? (1)

fustakrakich (1673220) | about 2 years ago | (#41757345)

Pot and Kettle in a steel cage match. What could be better entertainment? There sure are a lot of complaints from people who will vote for more of the same in less than two weeks. I say make the best of it. All this bellyaching isn't going to change a damn thing.

Re:Says Apple? (1, Flamebait)

CDPatten (907182) | about 2 years ago | (#41757769)

I think you guys don't understand what “standards essential” patents are and how they came to become STANDARDS essential. You seem to think common patents = standards essential patents, and that just isn’t the case.

So for the record, Apple really isn't abusing standards essential patents like Samsung/Motorola. When a standard is being debated, and before it's agreed on by a standard body, the patent owner is consultant and (in virtually all cases where it becomes a standard) the owner agree to license that patent fairly and without discrimination (meaning to competitors). Microsoft and Apple aren't abusing their PATTENT ESSENTIAL patents. They are just making people pay up for using their other patents that happen to provide common functionality.

In other words, Apple and Microsoft aren't in the position Samsung and Google/Moto are in. They have patents on things that, while seem standard or essential, they didn't agree to license them with any "standards" body. They are just really popular things that everybody wants.

Maybe some examples will help you understand. Motorola agreed to certain wifi and video patent licensing before their patented technologies where included by the governing standards body. Microsoft agreed to ZERO licensing agreements for their proprietary product ActiveSync technology (not exactly true anymore, since the EU got involved, but that would be another debate). However, Apple didn't agree to allow pinch and zoom as a standard and the EU hasn’t forced them to license it. It’s just pinch and zoom is really cool and everyone copied them. Fast forward and Google-Motorola is pissed that Apple and Microsoft won't let them use their active sync and pinch and zoom patents for free so they are breaking their promise on the wifi/video patents and charging absurd rates for those patents. It’s not the pot calling the kettle black. You just don't understand the back story.

Re:Says Apple? (5, Insightful)

Cederic (9623) | about 2 years ago | (#41757981)

So for the record, Apple really isn't abusing standards essential patents like Samsung/Motorola.

I wasn't aware that Samsung were abusing standards essential patents at all.

My understanding is they're willing to licence them on fair and reasonable terms. Apple on the other hand insist on using them without licencing them.

charging absurd rates

So Samsung want $6 (per phone) for patents essential to the very nature of a device, while Apple want $30 (per phone) for patents that should never have been fucking granted in the first place.

While you're right about absurd rates, I'm not sure you realise just who is trying to charge them.

Re:Says Apple? (0, Troll)

CDPatten (907182) | about 2 years ago | (#41758351)

Again, you miss the point. I assume that is because you are emotionally vested in this (swearing doesn't make you sound more forceful, just more emotional) and your emotions must be clouding any sense of consistent logic. The "it's not fair" argument works well for little kids, but this is more of an adult topic than playground teasing. It's about business, law, etc.

Apple never agreed to charge a reasonable price for the pinch and zoom patent. They applied for it, and were granted it. If you have issue with them getting that patent fine (I don't like it was granted to them either, and I agree its a stupid patent in the first place, however... that is another conversation). The fact remains is they were granted it, and it is not a patent they agreed to license at a fair price. Samsung however did agree to license certain patents at a fair price, and they are trying to charge some vendors (who compete more aggressively and charge them a lot for patents, e.g. Apple) significantly different terms than others. In other words, it would appear they are trying to "get back at apple" by abusing patents they agreed they wouldn't abuse.

It doesn't matter if Apple charges a billion dollars a phone for pinch and zoom. They never agreed to license it to anyone in the first place. If you want to be mad at someone, be mad at the USPTO office, but not Apple for leveraging their IP. Samsung and Google's abuse of patent essential patents risks upending all standards for everyone. If they can abuse them, why can't everyone who holds a patent essential patent. Once you open that door, who would ever develop a product using standards... you risk $$$$$$ abuse once the standard is established.

Being controlled by your emotions when making decisions can be a very reckless thing... i'd suggest you take a longer look at your miss-guided opinion.

Re:Says Apple? (5, Insightful)

Cederic (9623) | about 2 years ago | (#41758421)

Samsung however did agree to license certain patents at a fair price

I'd say 2.4% is a very fair price, especially when being asked to pay up to 40% for far less valuable patents.

I'm not emotionally attached, beyond being fucked off with Apple's bullshit behaviour. I just happen to swear all the fucking time.

Re:Says Apple? (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41758547)

Again, YOU miss the point. There was no abuse. No one was denied those patents. Apple wasn't denied those patents. They just thought $6 for actually useful and complex patents are way too high. Then they turn around and say that their obvious application of plugins to search and ease-in animations to scroll is worth $30. Hypocrisy much?

Re:Says Apple? (5, Insightful)

GoatCheez (1226876) | about 2 years ago | (#41759577)

Samsung however did agree to license certain patents at a fair price, and they are trying to charge some vendors (who compete more aggressively and charge them a lot for patents, e.g. Apple) significantly different terms than others

I was under the impression that the vendors that got lower prices did so because of cross-licensing agreements.

Samsung: "Oh, you want this FRAND patent but don't want to pay $6? Okay, well how about you license us the technology for your patent xxxxx, and we'll lower the rate to $1"

Normal Vendor: "That sounds reasonable. Patent xxxxx is trivial compared to your standards essential patents. Deal."

Apple: "NO WAY! We don't want to pay a dime!"

Re:Says Apple? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41759899)

Boy talk about not getting it. You continue to ignore the point no matter how many times it's spoon fed to you. You Apple fanboys are all alike. I suggest you take a long hard look in the mirror at what you've become.

Re:Says Apple? (1)

elashish14 (1302231) | about 2 years ago | (#41760059)

Just because the system is thoroughly broken legally does NOT give you a moral right to abuse that breakage. If you think the legal process the final word on whether you should be able to do something or not, well, I have a German dictator to introduce you to.

Re:Says Apple? (1)

shentino (1139071) | about 2 years ago | (#41760771)

It fits, because the German dictator wrote the law his way, not unlike how Apple's lobbyists did.

Re:Says Apple? (1)

shentino (1139071) | about 2 years ago | (#41760739)

As I said before and I'll say again.

Don't give me this "Apple is only following the rules" when their lobbyists help WRITE them.

Re:Says Apple? (1)

foniksonik (573572) | about 2 years ago | (#41758733)

Is $6 fair and reasonable? Is it the same fair and reasonable that other licensees get?

The other thing is irrelevant.

Re:Says Apple? (4, Informative)

Elldallan (901501) | about 2 years ago | (#41759947)

Other licensees typically write cross-license agreements where they offer some of their own patents in return and therefore gets a sometimes much lower rate.
Apple wants the lower rates without offering any other patents in return.

Re:Says Apple? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41760331)

Other licensees also generally make sure that they've paid their royalties before suing competitors. I have a hard time believing that Apple should pay the same rates seeing as they've been infringing on those patents for quite some time and then filed suit over some trivial stuff.

Re:Says Apple? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41758023)

There you are! I was wondering where have Apply fan kids disappeared in this thread.

Re:Says Apple? (1)

PortHaven (242123) | about 2 years ago | (#41758507)

Flat screen, slightly rounded edges....essential.

Maybe we need to dig up Steve Jobs and put a bullet through his head?

Re:Says Apple? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41757979)

This new enquiry sponsored and paid for by... Apple. Even a 5yr old can figure this out.

Re:Says Apple? (1)

Karlt1 (231423) | about 2 years ago | (#41758969)

Samsung agreed to license its patents under FRAND so that they would be part of the standard. When did Apple agree to license its patents to anyone to become part of a standard?

Re:Says Apple? (3, Insightful)

Rich0 (548339) | about 2 years ago | (#41760369)

So, Apple just has to pay Samsung the FRAND licensing fee, which they are refusing to do. I hear it is just a couple of bucks per phone. Everybody else pays that to Samsung, or an equivalent value in cross-licensing other patents.

Pot Calling Kettle Black (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41757029)

Film at 11

... what? (5, Funny)

ZiakII (829432) | about 2 years ago | (#41757031)

Samsung is 'using certain patents as a basis for improper legal actions that seek to block the sale of competitors' products.'

Can Apple sue Samsung for using Apples business plan?

Re:... what? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41757233)

Samsung is 'using certain patents as a basis for improper legal actions that seek to block the sale of competitors' products.'

Can Apple sue Samsung for using Apples business plan?

No no no... it's called a "design patent" now. And you can sue anyone for that shit. Apple's got precedent for that!

Re:... what? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41757463)

Nope. IBM actually owns that patent.

Re:... what? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41758531)

I think "improper" is the keyword here.

a little like the pot calling the kettle black (2)

starworks5 (139327) | about 2 years ago | (#41757037)

Seriously? you mean thin tablets with rounded corners, is any less worse of an abuse than what samsung has done?

Where's the same scrutiny for Apple? (5, Interesting)

dclozier (1002772) | about 2 years ago | (#41757073)

Yes their patents may not be under FRAND but it looks like they *should* be.

Apple's Licensing Offer To Samsung Raises Questions About FRAND Rates and What's Behind the Attacks on Google [groklaw.net]

Re:Where's the same scrutiny for Apple? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41757231)

Where's the same scrutiny for Apple? In the same universe where Samsung is also an American company.

Re:Where's the same scrutiny for Apple? (1)

bobthesungeek76036 (2697689) | about 2 years ago | (#41757363)

And Apple is an American company??? Can you say "Foxconn"? Sure, I knew you could...

Re:Where's the same scrutiny for Apple? (2)

JWW (79176) | about 2 years ago | (#41759983)

If using Foxconn makes a company "not American" then there aren't very many American tech companies.

Re:Where's the same scrutiny for Apple? (1)

thetoadwarrior (1268702) | about 2 years ago | (#41758597)

So what does that mean that the European Commision and South Korea (samsung's homeland) are also investigating samsung over this?

Re:Where's the same scrutiny for Apple? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41759379)

So what does that mean that ITC just told Apple to go fish [groklaw.net] ?

Investigations means there were complaints from Apple in both jurisdictions and they were deemed reasonable to investigate. That's all.

Re:Where's the same scrutiny for Apple? (1)

tooyoung (853621) | about 2 years ago | (#41758811)

Yes their patents may not be under FRAND but it looks like they *should* be.

Is there a standards organization that determines visual and behavioral GUI standards for the entire phone and tablet industry? If not, then why would the Apple GUI patents be covered by FRAND?

Dirty scandalous sons of bitches (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41757111)

Apple is the one company I absolutely despise most. I think I'm going to put some krylon tape on the breather hole of my 1tb seagate hard drive and make them replace it for free under applecare.

That'll teach em!

Oh for fsck's sake (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41757249)

Put the CEO of Apple and the CEO of Samsung in a room (rounded corners optional). The last one alive is the winner of EVERYTHING.

Re:Oh for fsck's sake (1)

Roobles (1880882) | about 2 years ago | (#41757271)

Put the CEO of Apple and the CEO of Samsung in a room (rounded corners optional). The last one alive is the winner of EVERYTHING.

The problem there is that Apple's CEO would cheat and use dirty tricks to win.

Re:Oh for fsck's sake (2)

mrbester (200927) | about 2 years ago | (#41757433)

This is true even if Apple sent an ex-CEO as they'd argue about the meaning of "alive" citing "Weekend at Bernie's" (an Apple film, remember? No? Have a lawsuit to jog the memory) as prima facie evidence.

Re:Oh for fsck's sake (1)

Jeng (926980) | about 2 years ago | (#41757465)

There is no cheating. The rules are simple, two men enter, one man leaves.

Re:Oh for fsck's sake (1)

Githaron (2462596) | about 2 years ago | (#41758005)

With all the rounded corners involved, it would take too long.

Don't blame Samsung (2)

walterbyrd (182728) | about 2 years ago | (#41758157)

This is 100% Apple's fault. Apple started all of this. Samsung, Google, everybody else, is trying to protect themselves against Apple.

Patent Types (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41757251)

I had thought that the purpose of the patent system was to promote actual technological advances that become standards, such as A/C current or the Transistor.

Little did I know it was actually there for vague UI designs.

That's Funny, the ITC Sees it Completely Different (5, Informative)

Chibi Merrow (226057) | about 2 years ago | (#41757257)

According to the ITC [groklaw.net] judge reviewing Apple's complaints about Samsung's standards essential patents, Apple didn't avail themselves to any of the existing remedies when they felt Samsung wasn't offering them a fair licensing deal. They essentially said "You're asking for too much, so we're not paying anything."
If Apple really felt the prices were too high, there are processes in place to force Samsung to the negotiating table. They didn't use any of them. There's no evidence they even made a counter-offer.
Seems more like Apple just doesn't care about other people's patents than Samsung is offering an unfair deal.

Re:That's Funny, the ITC Sees it Completely Differ (1)

arbiter1 (1204146) | about 2 years ago | (#41757289)

Yea its Apple its alright for them to file for product bans but its not alright for anyone to file for bans of its products. Apple has some sad ass double standards.

Re:That's Funny, the ITC Sees it Completely Differ (5, Informative)

Chibi Merrow (226057) | about 2 years ago | (#41757375)

Oh but it's completely different.

Apple wants the product banned because it has rounded corners and lets you search for stuff.

Samsung wants the product banned because it uses an international communication standard that cannot be implemented without a technology that Samsung invented.

I mean, c'mon, can't you see how much better Apple's case is? ;)

Re:That's Funny, the ITC Sees it Completely Differ (4, Insightful)

viperidaenz (2515578) | about 2 years ago | (#41757663)

Samsung wants the product banned because it uses an international communication standard that cannot be implemented without a technology that Samsung invented that everyone else is paying royalties for but Apple refuses to do so, claiming the price is too high and not even attempting to negotiate.

FTFY.

Re:That's Funny, the ITC Sees it Completely Differ (1)

mrbester (200927) | about 2 years ago | (#41757387)

Then surely they've missed their chance? They had the opportunity, didn't take it, tough luck.

Re:That's Funny, the ITC Sees it Completely Differ (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41758125)

Yeah, I've got a word for that narrative.
It's called bullshit.

Re:That's Funny, the ITC Sees it Completely Differ (0, Troll)

mosb1000 (710161) | about 2 years ago | (#41758401)

Apple is of the opinion that they do not owe any licensing fees because those fees have already been paid by their parts supplier. This decision has been affirmed by every court that's reviewed it. Samsung continues to file injunctions to ban sales of Apple products even though it is quite clear they don't have a winnable case in court. At this point, it makes perfect sense for Apple to sue them over these lawsuits, Samsung can't possibly really believe they will ever win one of these cases, and they're really just using them to harass Apple in retaliation for Apple's own (winnable) lawsuits.

With regard to the article you linked: if you actually read the judges ruling, rather than Groklaw's questionable interpretation of it, you will notice that the ITC judge is simply claiming that the ITC does have jurisdiction.

With regard to the notion that Apple should have made a counter offer: since Apple feels they owe nothing, what counter offer would you propose they make? They can't go that rout, because in doing so they would have to give up the patent exhaustion argument (that their chip supplier has already paid the appropriate licensing fees and Samsung has no legal right to ask for fees from Apple) which is not a realistic possibility.

Finally, this judge has said that there's no evidence to back Apple's assertion that the fees Samsung was asking are excessive. It may be true that Apple didn't present evidence to that effect, but Samsung was asking for nearly $15 per iPhone, which is probably more than Apple paid for the RF chips that use Samsung's FRAND patents. It's hard to see how you could consider that a reasonable price.

Re:That's Funny, the ITC Sees it Completely Differ (1)

thetoadwarrior (1268702) | about 2 years ago | (#41758611)

There must something to it given that the EU and South Korea are also investigating Samsung.

Samsung's no angel. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41757377)

Don't be so quick to rush to Samsung's defense here. We've already seen this standards patent bait-and-switch before.

I believe it's called "Pulling a Rambus"

Re:Samsung's no angel. (5, Interesting)

Drathos (1092) | about 2 years ago | (#41757597)

These aren't submarine patents, like what Rambus did.

This is Apple pulling double standards. Lots of companies have licensed Samsung's standards-essential patents, but Apple refused to. Just because it's FRAND, doesn't mean that Apple can ignore the need to license them. There is some question of patent exhaustion (I think that's the right term), but the courts seem to be inconsistent in dealing with it (see CSIRO vs Buffalo Technology).

Apple has a long history of ignoring other people's/companies' IP, but crying foul over their IP, which is largely questionable.

Re:Samsung's no angel. (2)

FloydTheDroid (1296743) | about 2 years ago | (#41760555)

First mention of patent exhaustion I've seen in this thread at my threshold.

I believe what happened was Apple bought Qualcomm's chipset to implement wireless and Samsung had an agreement with Qualcomm regarding the licensing of those chips. Samsung basically changed the agreement [zdnet.com] so that Apple was not properly licensed like every other company which used those chips.

Re:Samsung's no angel. (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41760661)

You might want to read the current ITC ruling [groklaw.net] (you might want to skip opinion parts though, too nutty even for Apple-hating me) - information in summary is outdated/incorrect.

Part VII talks about patent exhaustion issues at length, in short - Apple failed to show the evidence for patent exhaustion defense both for Intel and Qualcomm chips, Samsung seems to argue that the license transfer was revoked due to ongoing lawsuits brought by Apple, or that's as far as I can deduce from that {[redacted]} ruling, {[redacted]} {[redacted]} {[redacted]} fuckers {[redacted]}: "Samsung says that the {[redacted])" (Id. at 252 (citing RX-0175C at 5.6).) Here, argues Samsung, Apple brought infringement claims against Samsung and, { [redacted]}. (Id. (citing CX-1587C).) Samsung says that Apple failed to identify any case or authority that would permit the Commission from preventing Samsung from exercising its express contractual rights under the Qualcomm agreement."

Re:Samsung's no angel. (1)

viperidaenz (2515578) | about 2 years ago | (#41757719)

Samsung didn't tell everyone to use the standards based on their patents and then sue, they license them to all the players in the mobile market. Some (Apple) however, refuse to pay, even though they knew they had to to implement the standard.

Hm (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41757461)

Why doesn't the government just investigate patent abuse in general? The patent system is long overdue for an overhaul.

Re:Hm (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41757617)

The government is the creature of the corporate culture.

The corporate sycophants on slashdots are going to jump all over this post... but what group has more power in washington right now? Name one. It sure as hell isn't the voters.

Re:Hm (2)

Stargoat (658863) | about 2 years ago | (#41758139)

Because if we looked at patents, we would shortly thereafter look at copywrite. And that would offend the Mouse.

Re:Hm (1)

Un pobre guey (593801) | about 2 years ago | (#41758417)

And the Mouse will sic its most powerful dog [techdirt.com] on them.

How about Apple? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41757583)

How about the Apple patents.

Anyway...
Fuck Crapple!
Kill Crapple!
Die Crapple Die!

Re:How about Apple? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41759337)

What standards essential apple patents are you thinking of?

Doesn't even deserve a car analogy (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41757723)

It's like that kid in PE who got his kicks beaming people in the face with balls so he could make everyone flinch by just saying "think fast!" is now hiding behind the coach after suddenly realizing that everyone else has started carrying balls, not to hit each other with, but for the sole purpose of beaming that annoying little dickshit in the face if he gets anywhere near them.

However in this case, the coach is his crazy Vietnam vet uncle, the school is in Chinatown, and Uncle doesn't like those non-American talkin' foreigners who aren't man enough to tangle with the big boys mano a mano ganging up and depriving his kin of being able to play however he wants, so one by one starts issuing detentions and taking away the other kids' ball privileges until nephew feels safe again.

It's so farcical, even this analogy is farcical.

shitcock hipsterfags (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41757839)

Corners that don't sever limbs on a glancing contact are Apple's holy property and anyone who does anything remotely similar is a thief, a pirate and a pediophiddydiddlerist. But technical standards requiring actual work to research and develop have to be given away because "Waaagh, it's not fair, and they're not as cool as us".

Your sort ought to be rounded up and loaded onto cattle trucks.

War never changes... (1)

Burning1 (204959) | about 2 years ago | (#41758069)

War. War never changes.
The Romans waged war to gather slaves and wealth. Spain built an empire from its lust for gold and territory. Hitler shaped a battered Germany into an economic superpower.

But war never changes.

In the 21st century, war was still waged over the resources that could be acquired. Only this time, the spoils of war were also its weapons: patents and licensing agreements. For these resources, Apple would invade Alaska, Microsoft would annex Canada, and Samsung would dissolve into quarreling, bickering nation-states, bent on controlling the last remaining resources on Earth. :)

DOJ: Without a clue (1)

PPH (736903) | about 2 years ago | (#41758201)

Samsung is 'using certain patents as a basis for improper legal actions that seek to block the sale of competitors' products.'

Uh, dude. That's what patents are for. They grant the holder exclusive rights to the invention. I don't see any exceptions for monopolization, anti trust or whatever in the relevant Constitutional clause or subsequent enacting legislation.

Ahhh now I Get It (1)

Zamphatta (1760346) | about 2 years ago | (#41759001)

That must be why the DOJ's too busy to go after all the habitual patent troll companies.

ITC Administrative Law Judge Rejects Apples claim (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41759049)

http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20121007194355579

Poor Summary. DOJ already investigated. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41759459)

Do the submitters read the articles, or is is a quick scan?

The anti-Apple bias of the Slashdot crowd ... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41760137)

... is quite amusing.

Most here have already decide Apple is "guilty" and in the wrong before any investigation has even started. LOL.

Continue your circlejerking I suppose. But be careful who you "support". An enemy of your enemy isn't necessarily your friend.

http://www.kernelmag.com/features/report/3028/samsung-power-corruption-and-lies/

http://www.reuters.com/article/2007/12/10/us-korea-samsung-idUSSEO889720071210

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?