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!

US Judge Orders Apple To Share HTC Deal Details With Samsung

timothy posted about 2 years ago | from the mandatory-transparency dept.

Businesses 106

another random user writes with this news from the BBC: "A U.S. judge has ordered Apple to disclose details of its patent-sharing deal with HTC to its rival, Samsung. Apple and HTC signed a 10-year licence agreement earlier this month, but did not make the details public. Samsung, which is also involved in various patent disputes with Apple, asked the courts to tell Apple to furnish the information. It said it was 'almost certain' the deal covered some of the patents at the centre of its dispute with Apple. The court ordered Apple to produce a full copy of the settlement agreement 'without delay,' subject to an 'attorneys' eyes only' designation, meaning it will not be made public."

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

A Pool (2)

whisper_jeff (680366) | about 2 years ago | (#42068205)

Let's start a pool for how long it takes for this "attorneys' eyes only" document to be "accidentally" leaked to the public. I'm going to take 3 days.

Re:A Pool (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42068309)

You'll lose that bet. Samsung is cool and level headed. Apple is known for childish antics like their "apology" to Samsung in the UK. Samsung's legal team are professionals. Apple grabbed the headlines with a billion dollar settlement, but it will be Samsung that has the last laugh. Samsung will easily get that verdict overturned on appeal. They are professionals, not amatuers like Apple legal.

Re:A Pool (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42070357)

Yeah, they are so cool and level headed that they copy Apple whenever they can.

Also, Apple had complied with the court's order. Obviously, did the minimum they felt they could get away with but any company would do the same thing. The judges in Europe are a bunch of fucking tyrants.

Re:A Pool (4, Insightful)

thaylin (555395) | about 2 years ago | (#42070423)

First Samsung has copied no more from apple then apple has from samsung, actually probably less. Also the fact that you are ignoring apples first attempt at the court order shows how much of a fanboy you are.

Re:A Pool (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42071789)

And further down the page you reveal what an apple hater you are and so ignorant that you can't even read court documents properly

And you're a hitler hater, right? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42072077)

Sometimes hating something is correct.

Re:And you're a hitler hater, right? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42072701)

We reached Hitler already? Wow. Fanboism is rampant. I'll mod everyone (pro/anti Apple) as TROLL.

Real farce.

Re:A Pool (2)

Simon Brooke (45012) | about 2 years ago | (#42072553)

Also, Apple had complied with the court's order. Obviously, did the minimum they felt they could get away with but any company would do the same thing. The judges in Europe are a bunch of fucking tyrants.

The judge found, and stated very clearly [theregister.co.uk] , that Apple had not obeyed his order. Which is why Apple was then faced with a much more draconian second order. [theregister.co.uk] You may get to dick around with courts in the USA, but some countries take contempt of court a lot more seriously.

Re:A Pool (1)

elashish14 (1302231) | about 2 years ago | (#42075697)

Steve! Steve! That you? How's the weather down there?

Re:A Pool (0)

Tough Love (215404) | about 2 years ago | (#42068313)

I don't doubt that Apple would consider doing something like that, just to cast aspersions on Samsung in court. In trust, such secret settlement contracts should be illegal anyway, as they are prime building blocks for trust making activity.

Re:A Pool (2)

Tough Love (215404) | about 2 years ago | (#42068323)

..."In truth", not "in trust".

no (1)

poetmatt (793785) | about 2 years ago | (#42068351)

why would they have to? if the information is damning there are ways to release it publicly via the trial without it being "Accidental".

Re:A Pool (1)

ILongForDarkness (1134931) | about 2 years ago | (#42068499)

It will be posted on /. or the like before it is sent to the lawyer by someone in Apple/Apple's lawyer so I take 0 days.

screw that. release it to The AP. (1)

swschrad (312009) | about 2 years ago | (#42068719)

let Apple, Samsung, and the judge find it out from their own preferred newspapers, and then we'll REALLY get this battle on from all the, uh, hmm, perceived spins put on strictly running the wire copy without changing a comma. it'll be like locking them all in a room and never opening the door after the noise stops.

Re:A Pool (1)

gl4ss (559668) | about 2 years ago | (#42074727)

apple and htc shareholders should lobby for getting to know what's in the paper anyhow.

because it's kinda important for judging a value for the company shares.

The public loses out once again... (2)

bogaboga (793279) | about 2 years ago | (#42068207)

Apple to produce a full copy of the settlement agreement 'without delay,' subject to an 'attorneys' eyes only' designation, meaning it will not be made public."

But folks still say this [closed] American judicial system "is the best!"

Re:The public loses out once again... (4, Informative)

Dupple (1016592) | about 2 years ago | (#42068237)

Yeah we do. I can understand HTC and Apple wanting confidentiality, there's all sorts of confidentiality clauses and Samsung seemed happy at first with the redacted document. Clearly the judge isn't and has ordered this limited disclosure.

It looks like HTC asked for the redactions and Samsung accepted.

"HTC has advised the parties that it is willing to acquiesce to Apple’s production of the agreement on two conditions: (1) the Agreement must be marked Highly Confidential – Attorneys’ Eyes Only under the protective order; and (2) the consideration amount must be redacted," Apple said, "Samsung has agreed to both conditions."

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/11/21/apple_redacted_agreement_samsung/ [theregister.co.uk]

Sadly no source from The Registers article. Afterwards Samsung asked to see the whole thing.

http://allthingsd.com/20121121/apple-happy-to-redact-htc-deal-down-to-33-words-just-for-samsung/ [allthingsd.com]

Now it looks like Samsung gets to see the whole document "without delay" now that the judge has ordered it.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/11/22/us-apple-samsung-idUSBRE8AL04020121122 [reuters.com]

Re:The public loses out once again... (4, Funny)

ozmanjusri (601766) | about 2 years ago | (#42069399)

Now it looks like Samsung gets to see the whole document "without delay" now that the judge has ordered it.

The good news is that Apple can give Samsung the original document, and they'll just copy it.

[ducks]

Re:The public loses out once again... (1)

RaceProUK (1137575) | about 2 years ago | (#42073133)

The good news is that Apple can give Samsung the original document, and they'll just copy it.

With a Xerox copier, just for the irony.

Re:The public loses out once again... (3, Informative)

thaylin (555395) | about 2 years ago | (#42070429)

May want to look at a more reliable source when it comes to litigation. If Samsung was happy with the redacted version it would not have went to oral arguments: http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=2012112121031884 [groklaw.net]

Re:The public loses out once again... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42071777)

And you sir should read the related documents

http://www.groklaw.net/pdf4/ApplevSamsung-2151.pdf [groklaw.net]

page 2 line 12 - 14. "Samsung has agreed to both conditions. Despite this, and Apple's acknowledgement that Samsung is preserving its rights to request the unredacted version later, Samsung is unwilling agree that its motion is moot and should be withdrawn.

Samsung agreed to the redacted version and then requested an unredacted version. If you'r going to quote something, check the foot notes as well.

Re:The public loses out once again... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42073271)

You do realise that in the page you link to in the second highlighted panel, there is this line

Apple responds that it is willing to provide the settlement agreement but notes that HTC objects to the production of the agreement’s financial terms because of their competitive value. 8

So it looks like HTC did ask for the redactions, then you go to foot note 8 that leads to

http://www.groklaw.net/pdf4/ApplevSamsung-2151.pdf [groklaw.net]

which states

HTC has since advised the parties that it is willing to acquiesce to Apple’s production of the agreement on two conditions: (1) the Agreement must be marked Highly Confidential Attorneys’ Eyes Only under the protective order; and (2) the consideration amount must be redacted. (Decl. of Richard S.J. Hung in Supp. of Apple’s Opp’n to Samsung’s Mot. to Compel Production of Settlement Agreement with HTC (“Hung Decl.”) Ex. 1.) Samsung has agreed to both conditions. Despite this, and Apple's acknowledgement that Samsung is preserving its rights to request the unredacted version later, Samsung is unwilling to agree that its motion is moot and should be withdrawn.

Sources seem pretty good to me

Re:The public loses out once again... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42068839)

Why should confidential dealings or information be made any more public than necessary. If your medical records are part of some trial, should they be made publicly available simply because attorneys from one side wanted to see them? How about banking or financial information.

Simply because other parties might be interested in that information doesn't give them any right to have access to it.

HISTORY SHOWS AGAIN AND AGAIN !! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42068211)

History shows again and again how nature points up the folly of man !! Godzilla !!

make that

Apple !!

Re:HISTORY SHOWS AGAIN AND AGAIN !! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42068681)

History shows again and again how nature points out the folly of men

FTFY

Not sure where the hell you got "points up the folly of man" from. That doesn't even make sense.

Re:HISTORY SHOWS AGAIN AND AGAIN !! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42069155)

Engrish, Perry Mason once said. Must mean out.

Re:HISTORY SHOWS AGAIN AND AGAIN !! (1)

RaceProUK (1137575) | about 2 years ago | (#42073143)

History shows again and again how nature points out the folly of men

FTFY Not sure where the hell you got "points up the folly of man" from. That doesn't even make sense.

In this context, I'd say there's no significant difference.

This needs to be a thing... (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42068217)

US Judge Orders Apple To Share And Stop Being A Jerk

Apple shot themselves in the foot... (5, Insightful)

dryriver (1010635) | about 2 years ago | (#42068233)

... when, instead of competing fairly and squarely with Samsung, they decided to drag Samsung's Galaxy products through the courts and get their sales banned in several different territories, including several European countries. Samsung's products are well priced, well designed, well manufactured and ooze a sense of "quality" overall, while Apple is more of an "electronics fashion brand" in its marketing approach, catering to i-fanboys and i-fangirls who'll buy anyhing branded "Apple". ------ Face it, Apple: You cannot compete with a behemoth like Samsung by trying to twist the courts/the law to your advantage. Put some proper innovation on the market before Samsung, which makes seriously good products, rolls right over you... Good luck to you, because Samsung are seriously good at product design...

Re:Apple shot themselves in the foot... (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42068267)

You're an idiot and your own version of fanboy for Samsung.

Re:Apple shot themselves in the foot... (2, Informative)

dryriver (1010635) | about 2 years ago | (#42068419)

I own a Samsung smartphone, tablet computer and laptop. Each product was well priced, well designed and quality built and works flawlessly so far. I've had zero issues with any of these products. So yes, I appreciate the quality Samsung brings to the market. Does that make me a fanboy? Hardly.

Re:Apple shot themselves in the foot... (0)

egladil (1640419) | about 2 years ago | (#42068463)

I own a Samsung smartphone, tablet computer and laptop. Each product was well priced, well designed and quality built and works flawlessly so far. I've had zero issues with any of these products. So yes, I appreciate the quality Samsung brings to the market. Does that make me a fanboy? Hardly.

I own an iPhone and a MacBook. Both products was well priced, well designed and quality built and works flawlessly so far. I've had zero issues with any of these products. So yes, I appreciate the quality Apple brings to the market. Does that make me a fanboy?

Re:Apple shot themselves in the foot... (5, Insightful)

fredprado (2569351) | about 2 years ago | (#42068483)

Nope. Acknowledging the quality of Apple's products does not make you a fanboy. Defending Apple's legal practices and bully approach regarding their distributors, competitors and customers does, though, especially when you are directly and negatively affected by it..

Re:Apple shot themselves in the foot... (1)

egladil (1640419) | about 2 years ago | (#42068563)

Yes, exactly. Which was my point, since dryriver seemed to suggest in his original post that everyone who likes Apple's products are "i-fanboys and i-fangirls".

Re:Apple shot themselves in the foot... (2)

thaylin (555395) | about 2 years ago | (#42070539)

Except I am not sure what version of the iphone is built well, every one I have seen and the 2 I have owned have been trash, and I can get a laptop with similar specs to a macbook for half the price and a better warranty .

Re:Apple shot themselves in the foot... (1)

Simon Brooke (45012) | about 2 years ago | (#42072601)

Except I am not sure what version of the iphone is built well, every one I have seen and the 2 I have owned have been trash, and I can get a laptop with similar specs to a macbook for half the price and a better warranty .

H'mmm... I'm not certain that's true. I'll start by saying that I don't own and have never owned any Apple product (whereas I have owned, for example, some Microsoft mice). I don't like their approach to software freedom, and I'm not going to give them my money. But when last buying a laptop I seriously considered a MacBook Air (and I've given one to my niece).

As I say, I don't like Apple, and it seemed silly to buy a MacBook and take MacOS off it. Instead, I bought an Asus Zenbook. It's a nice machine, good quality, well built, but not significantly cheaper like-for-like than the Air. Also, there are little detail points where Apple just wins on quality. A case in point is the power connector. The power connector on the ZenBook is a small coaxial plug, and it's very vulnerable if the machine is knocked off a sofa when charging (don't ask me how I know this). The Air, by contrast, has a magnetic charger connection, which if knocked simply disconnects without damage. That is just better design and better quality, and substantially increases the usability of the device. It's one detail, but it's symptomatic of Apple's obsessive approach to design and quality. I don't like them, as a company, but I have to admit their hardware is generally very good.

Re:Apple shot themselves in the foot... (1)

thaylin (555395) | about 2 years ago | (#42076597)

I believe Apple owns a patent on the connector otherwise many other will use it as well. Also my Asus laptop, 1600 blows my friends 2500 macbook laptop out of the water and when we each had issues with our computers apple was much harder to deal with then Asus.

Re:Apple shot themselves in the foot... (4, Interesting)

mjwx (966435) | about 2 years ago | (#42069773)

Nope. Acknowledging the quality of Apple's products does not make you a fanboy. Defending Apple's legal practices and bully approach regarding their distributors, competitors and customers does, though, especially when you are directly and negatively affected by it..

So I can acknowledging the quality of Apple's products is poor and not be called a "hater".

Yes I said it, the quality of Apple's products are poor, they break easily, are not designed for human use (back button in the top left corner) use low quality audio components and need I remind anyone of Antennagate (if you want to defend that, remember that your holding it wrong). But none of this bothers me. If all Apple did was sell crappy gadgets at exorbitant prices I wouldn't give a crap about them. What I don't like is the fact they want to sue anyone who makes a semi-successful competing product so I have no choice to buy their crappy gadgets.

Re:Apple shot themselves in the foot... (1)

fredprado (2569351) | about 2 years ago | (#42070131)

Yes, if you are accurate and objective in your analysis you can do such a thing without being a "hater". "Hater" and "Fanboy" are terms better reserved for people who are overly emotional and often irrational about what they defend or attack.

Re:Apple shot themselves in the foot... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42072761)

Since you make computers for yourself, you can spend millions on a better quality product. You can design it to your liking and don't have to compromise. In mass market computers, there's a very fine line between a well designed product and a piece of crap. Apple takes extra steps to design their products well, just as you do while remaining affordable.

I presume you design, build and assemble your own tablets and computers since I haven't seen better quality products than Apple's in their price range.

Option 2 you are an ignorant fanboy/Apple hater.

Re:Apple shot themselves in the foot... (1)

CAIMLAS (41445) | about 2 years ago | (#42072249)

Quality of Apple products?

Maybe it's because other products are so much cheaper than Apple's, or maybe it's because Apple's products are still significantly more useful than their competition, but I have only ever seen iPhones with significantly cracked and broken screens. Hell, even my HTC Sensation, which is fairly slimsy and receives a lot of abuse (it's in my pocket all the time, including during brutal SD winters (2 so far), climbing in engine bays and under vehicles, dropped on the ground multiple times, etc.) and still doesn't have a cracked screen.

Or, maybe it's just because the iPhone is designed to break easily.

Re:Apple shot themselves in the foot... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42073003)

Maybe it's because iPods are used by 8yo kids who abuse them. Give your 8yo a Galaxy SIII and let's see how long it lasts, with no supervision of course.

Re:Apple shot themselves in the foot... (4, Insightful)

symbolset (646467) | about 2 years ago | (#42068547)

Well apparently you also enjoy the quality, reliability and price of Samsung products then. That's what your iPhone and MacBook are made of.

Re:Apple shot themselves in the foot... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42069363)

Well apparently you also enjoy the quality, reliability and price of Samsung products then. That's what your iPhone and MacBook are made of.

No, fanboy... they are not made by up completely of Samsung made parts, they contain a few components made by Samsung.

Re:Apple shot themselves in the foot... (2)

symbolset (646467) | about 2 years ago | (#42070929)

For the iPhone only the processor, RAM, flash memory and touchscreen display. Others totally make the box it comes in.

Re:Apple shot themselves in the foot... (1)

symbolset (646467) | about 2 years ago | (#42085001)

Oops, I forgot. The battery also.

Re:Apple shot themselves in the foot... (1)

ahabswhale (1189519) | about 2 years ago | (#42070369)

According to dryriver, anyone who likes Apple products is a fanboy but anyone who likes Samsung's products is just normal and appreciates a well designed product. So, yes! I hope you're properly ashamed.

Re:Apple shot themselves in the foot... (1)

hawkinspeter (831501) | about 2 years ago | (#42071987)

There's some truth to that. Most Apple purchasers tend to have a large amount of brand loyalty, whereas most Samsung customers tend to buy it because they like the product rather than the company.

e.g. someone might buy a Samsung android based phone and when it gets obsolete, they'll probably look around for the best price/performance android phone without being overly worried about who makes it.

Re:Apple shot themselves in the foot... (1)

ahabswhale (1189519) | about 2 years ago | (#42076017)

Yes, there are some folks who are diehard Apple fans but I don't think that's true of most people who buy Apple products. They have far too many customers to all just be classified as fanboys.

Re:Apple shot themselves in the foot... (1)

hawkinspeter (831501) | about 2 years ago | (#42076177)

I agree - there's a whole spectrum of different people who buy Apple, but they do seem to inspire brand loyalty. Personally I'm no fan of Apple the company, but my work has provided me with an iPhone and an iPad, so I do get to use their products. I must say that I hate iTunes software - I'm a linux guy and I have to keep a laptop with Windows on it just to run iTunes.

I used to use an Android phone (HTC HD2) and I preferred the OS to iOS, but there's not much between them. I just wish that Apple would stop being such dicks.

Re:Apple shot themselves in the foot... (1)

Issarlk (1429361) | about 2 years ago | (#42071631)

> own an iPhone and a MacBook. Both products was well priced, ...
Stopped reading here.

Re:Apple shot themselves in the foot... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42068525)

From my experience Samsung is where Sony was before it decided to get into the media business, good engineered products with craptastic software; albeit Samsung's prices are better than Sony's were. Apple, by company history and initial designed trajectory, is just Sony with much better software and a focus on integrated product offerings.

That said your posts definitely come across as a fanboi rant, however you bring up a great point Apple would not be able to compete with Samsung on a per unit basis in the market so as the calculating entity a company is Apple decided they could compete by bringing legal action against Samsung to hobble them. If the tables were reverse Samsung would, and has been, doing the same to Apple. In short don't hate the players hate the game.

Re:Apple shot themselves in the foot... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42070487)

That's just simply not true. If that was true then RIM would have been suing everyone that make a crappy copy of their phone for years and years... yet they never did. Not everyone is a prick like Apple has been the past few years... somehow Jobs kept that part of him under wraps and since his passing it has all unravelled.

Re:Apple shot themselves in the foot... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42072731)

It makes you a rabid fanboi if you're irrational about it and unwilling to admit other people might like different products.

Re:Apple shot themselves in the foot... (1)

RaceProUK (1137575) | about 2 years ago | (#42073153)

I see the Apple fanbois have got modpoints today.

Re:Apple shot themselves in the foot... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42068453)

"well designed, well manufactured and ooze a sense of "quality" overall

but but but
http://www.androidauthority.com/iphone-5-vs-samsung-galaxy-s3-drop-test-116898/

Hello Wikileaks (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42068251)

I'm surprised companies don't use it to leak damaging corporate intel about competitors.

Re:Hello Wikileaks (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42069085)

Ever hear of mutually assured destruction? I believe that things would get very very ugly, very very quickly.

Re:Hello Wikileaks (1)

bhagwad (1426855) | about 2 years ago | (#42069939)

They said the same thing about patent wars.

So... What if what Samsung claims is true? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42068305)

Why would it matter to Samsung if the deal between Apple and HTC concerns some patents that are in dispute? I could understand HTC being concerned that the agreement might be unfair as they could get less than they hoped, but what does it matter to Samsung? Can't they just wait until the patent dispute is resolved then sue HTC if it turns out they are using some Samsung-patented technology they got from Apple?

Re:So... What if what Samsung claims is true? (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42068361)

Apple claims that patents in question are so valuable, that you can not price them in money. Therefore (according to Apple), Samsung products should be banned from the market. Samsung wants to prove that Apple sold those patents to HTC and therefore they have monetary price. If they have a price, Samsung products should not be banned. Even if the product is found to be infringing, Samsung would have to pay money instead of having banned product.

Re:So... What if what Samsung claims is true? (2)

93 Escort Wagon (326346) | about 2 years ago | (#42068375)

No, it's probably all about the actual terms - they want to know if Apple, in their previous negotiations, has been trying to get Samsung to pay significantly more than the value used when calculating the HTC-Apple agreements.

Re:So... What if what Samsung claims is true? (2)

Pax681 (1002592) | about 2 years ago | (#42068397)

Why would it matter to Samsung if the deal between Apple and HTC concerns some patents that are in dispute?

erm.. you think maybe that Samsung are happy to get it dealt with in one single go, and not go on a patent rampage like apple are doing and being total fucking asshats about?
dealing with it like this Samsung can then find that Apple quite possibly extorted a deal from HTC based on patents they don't own.. that would not be HTC's fault but apples.

Re:So... What if what Samsung claims is true? (5, Insightful)

vux984 (928602) | about 2 years ago | (#42068421)

Why would it matter to Samsung if the deal between Apple and HTC concerns some patents that are in dispute?

Apple has alleged that Samsung has caused them 'irreparable harm' by violating their patents, and has requested (and in somes cases gotten) injunctions against Samsung products in several cases now.

Samsungs counter argument is essentially:

(disputed assumption 1) Assuming your patents are valid, and (disputed assumption 2) Assuming we infringed those patents, then: its still not irreparable harm. Apple settled with HTC on those same patents which suggests that infringing those patents isn't irreparable, and that money can 'repair' the harm after all, and that therefore an injunction isn't needed.

Of course its all moot if Samsung is able to get assumption 1 or 2 invalidated, but they're fighting this case at every level.

Re:So... What if what Samsung claims is true? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42069759)

I still don't see how this helps Samsung at all.
It came out in the previous trial that Apple tried to get Samsung to license these patents and Samsung said "screw you".
Only after a court punished Samsung for their blatant infringement do they seem interested in licensing.

I'm sorry, but it doesn't seem right for a company to derive benefit from infringement, get a slap in the wrist, and then retroactively say "ok, we'll play fair now". I mean, isn't that exactly the bullshit that banks have been pulling for years much to everyone's chagrin?

Re:So... What if what Samsung claims is true? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42069931)

They refused to license several patents.

They never attempted to license *all* of their patents to Samsung. (if any)

Re:So... What if what Samsung claims is true? (4, Informative)

thaylin (555395) | about 2 years ago | (#42070459)

It helps because there are patents apple states it cannot and will not license to others because of the harm it would cause them. If they licensed them to HTC then that proves at worst they were wrong, and at worst they lied to the court.

Re:So... What if what Samsung claims is true? (1)

Anubis IV (1279820) | about 2 years ago | (#42070185)

It should also be noted that, in case it wasn't already obvious, HTC is much smaller than Samsung in the mobile space. It thus would not be hypocritical or illogical for Apple to be able to assert that Samsung caused irreparable harm while HTC did not, since if Samsung displaced a significant amount of market share that would have otherwise gone to Apple, Apple would indeed be irreparably harmed, given that they will likely never recover that. In contrast, losing a miniscule amount to HTC is something that can be easily recovered.

Nonetheless, I do think it's fair for Samsung to challenge Apple's arguments on this basis. I merely wanted to point out that there is not necessarily an attempt at having it both ways on Apple's part (which is something they have been guilty of in the past).

Re:So... What if what Samsung claims is true? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42074667)

It is a very risky argument to make that licensing to HTC is acceptable and to Samsung is not. The license is a product. It has to have a single price. If you don't have a single price and especially given the size of the company you are engaged in anti-competitive price fixing and market manipulation ... You do see where this argument is going, right?

Re:So... What if what Samsung claims is true? (1)

vux984 (928602) | about 2 years ago | (#42078691)

It should also be noted that, in case it wasn't already obvious, HTC is much smaller than Samsung in the mobile space. It thus would not be hypocritical or illogical for Apple to be able to assert that Samsung caused irreparable harm while HTC did not

That's fair, but things do get a bit weird when something is 'for sale' to one customer but not to another. Its ok to negotiate different prices for different customers... but to tell one customer the product isn't for sale to them at any price can get one in trouble, especially if you are in a monopoly position -- which is precisely what a patent grants the holder.

Look who works for Apple! (5, Funny)

Freshly Exhumed (105597) | about 2 years ago | (#42068343)

Truth is stranger than fiction...

http://imgur.com/gallery/Swtc9 [imgur.com]

Re: Look who works for Apple! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42068429)

And Mr Peugeot works for Citrone

http://fleetworld.co.uk/news/2010/Jul/0434000979.htm

Re: Look who works for Apple! (1)

Sique (173459) | about 2 years ago | (#42069353)

Actually, Citroën and Peugeot are both trademarks of PSA (Peugeot Société Anonyme).

Re:Look who works for Apple! (1)

ILongForDarkness (1134931) | about 2 years ago | (#42068537)

No wonder Samsung had all the stuff needed to infringe Apple patents quickly. It wasn't that they were a vendor it was because they had a "Specialist" on the inside. Nice.

Re:Look who works for Apple! (1)

Xest (935314) | about 2 years ago | (#42072043)

You sound serious...

Re:Look who works for Apple! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42069379)

lol, business cards

Re:Look who works for Apple! (1)

elashish14 (1302231) | about 2 years ago | (#42075751)

I was fine learning that Samsung makes some of the parts in the iphone, but this is just creepy...

Apple with give them a Pages document (1)

93 Escort Wagon (326346) | about 2 years ago | (#42068349)

Then, if Samsung is able to read it, Apple will be able to say they copied iOS!

The Shadows and Vorlons... (1)

craznar (710808) | about 2 years ago | (#42068359)

stomping around the universe.

Best not to be underfoot during this battle.

So the question remains, which one is Samsung, and which Apple ?

Re:The Shadows and Vorlons... (3, Insightful)

jo_ham (604554) | about 2 years ago | (#42068399)

stomping around the universe.

Best not to be underfoot during this battle.

So the question remains, which one is Samsung, and which Apple ?

Why does it matter which is which? That was the whole point of the Dawn of the Third Age. Both "parents" were just as bad as each other.

Re:The Shadows and Vorlons... (1)

craznar (710808) | about 2 years ago | (#42068405)

Of course it matters which was which, the Shadows had way cooler stuff.

Re:The Shadows and Vorlons... (1)

drinkypoo (153816) | about 2 years ago | (#42070025)

does it matter which is which? That was the whole point of the Dawn of the Third Age.

No, it was the dong of the third age. I am reminded, because I just finished rewatching that season.

Re:The Shadows and Vorlons... (2)

bazald (886779) | about 2 years ago | (#42069255)

So the question remains, which one is Samsung, and which Apple ?

Pretty obvious, really. Apple cares about being hip, "Who are you?", and Android is all about user choice, or "What do you want?"

Its a start (3, Interesting)

PPH (736903) | about 2 years ago | (#42068363)

Eventually, make this whole patent/licensing/royalty an open market. The gov't grants you a patent. Fine. You get to decide what its worth. No problem. So, put up a 'For Sale' sign. You want $X per unit to use your technology. You accept that price from any buyers.

This would go a long way toward ending patents as a club to selectively beat competitors over the head. And once we put a stop to that nonsense, companies will be a lot less enamored with their patent portfolios.

Re:Its a start (1)

thaylin (555395) | about 2 years ago | (#42070469)

And if they dont want to pay that amount? Your system seems identical to how the system works now, with just a small and insignificant change

Re:Its a start (1)

PPH (736903) | about 2 years ago | (#42075193)

Like I said: Its a start. And an open market is by no means insignificant. If everyone pays the same for a patent, then the holder can't discriminate against one manufacturer or in favor of another. The value of a patent portfolio as a tool for market manipulation is diminished. And the lobbying pressure to keep the system as is is diminished.

Great technology isn't being developed in labs ... (1)

PolygamousRanchKid (1290638) | about 2 years ago | (#42068371)

. . . it's being litigated in courts.

Wanna make a big impact in the tech industry . . . ?

Study law, not engineering.

Let's just call it oligopoly and be done with it (1)

gelfling (6534) | about 2 years ago | (#42068431)

Or just merge them all into a single company.

Re:Let's just call it oligopoly and be done with i (1)

viperidaenz (2515578) | about 2 years ago | (#42069157)

I don't think that would work very well.

Samsung is one of the largest manufactures in the world and sells components to just about every other company in the world. They have something in virtually every TV, computer, cellphone, tablet... Name a modern electrical appliance and it probably has Samsung part in it.

Apple is a designer brand that only sells finished products to consumers.

so (0)

ILongForDarkness (1134931) | about 2 years ago | (#42068491)

Apple gives HTC a good deal because there isn't as much of a mess in the courts with them vs Samsung. Then Samsung wants the info so they can claim that the award Apple got was too large. Nice. Sorry but companies can sell things to customers at different prices for whatever reason they want including but not limited to how much of a jerk you are.

Full marks for conjecture ... (4, Interesting)

golodh (893453) | about 2 years ago | (#42068561)

now read the facts so that you get an idea what you're talking about.

See:

http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=2012112121031884 [groklaw.net] .

For those too lazy to follow a link, here is the gist:

"Earlier this month Samsung asked that the court force Apple to turn over its settlement agreement with HTC, and today US Magistrate Judge Paul S. Grewal granted that requested. According to Samsung, the document could play a vital role in determining whether it will need to take any of its products off the market in the wake of the $1.049 billion verdict Apple won back in August. If Apple licensed some of its unique user experience patents, Samsung argues, then Cupertino is clearly fine with competitors using that IP as long as it receives money in return â" and since Apple will be receiving a payout in connection with the verdict, the extra step of an injunction isn't justified."

In plain text: Apple: no injunctions for you and drop the damages you ask to what you can actually negotiate in the marketplace.

Want to bet that Apple isn't at all happy about this?

Re:Full marks for conjecture ... (2)

tlhIngan (30335) | about 2 years ago | (#42069029)

If Apple licensed some of its unique user experience patents, Samsung argues, then Cupertino is clearly fine with competitors using that IP as long as it receives money in return Ã" and since Apple will be receiving a payout in connection with the verdict, the extra step of an injunction isn't justified."

This could be bad though, not just for Apple, but Motorola AND Samsung.

Remember, Motorola and Samsung are arguing for injunctions against iDevices for violating FRAND patents. If Samsung is indeed arguing that if you're willing to license the patents, then you can't ask for an injunction, then it blows away Motorola and Samsung's injunctions against Apple as well.

And there's an added twist - FRAND patents must be licensed to anyone and everyone who asks. Apple's patents aren't FRAND, and they can demand Samsung pay twice as much for them as HTC is paying. Or probably close to 10 times as much, given the relative marketshare of Samsung vs. HTC. Or not at all, since Apple is free to not want to license to Samsung but license to HTC and others as Apple's patents aren't FRAND and the "ND" part doesn't apply.

Re:Full marks for conjecture ... (2)

Sique (173459) | about 2 years ago | (#42069383)

Actually, Motorola offered Apple to license the patents, and Apple declined. So your argument is moot. Motorola was willing to license. Apple now tries to weazle out of the FRAND story by claiming that Motorola's prices weren't FRAND conform, but they got laughed out of court in Wisconsin already about this.

Re:Full marks for conjecture ... (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42070317)

Apple says: We won't license our patents, so ban them because there is no recourse that we will accept. (This agreement with HTC may prove that they do infact accept money for licenses)

Motorola says: We will license them but apple refuses. Therefore ban them.

Banning is only appropriate when:
A) They refuse to pay for something. (What apple are doing)
B) You refuse to sell something (at all) they are using. (what Apple CLAIM they are doing to Samsung)

Fines are appropriate when:
C) You will sell something to someone, but can't agree on the price. (What Apple are *actually* doing with Samsung - apple say the price is infinite)

Re:Full marks for conjecture ... (1)

ILongForDarkness (1134931) | about 2 years ago | (#42070309)

There is always an amount of money that someone will license something for you (at least if they or their shareholders are sane). The court put a value on the damage of 1+ B they didn't say: "oh we don't know so we won't award anything." or "we agree irreprable harm so Apple you now own Samsung". They put a value on it.

Now the value you put on it depends on the type of customer you have to deal with. Do you have to deal with a customer that rips your stuff off and only pays you after a legal battle? Or do you have one that was more passive? Are they going to bring the tech to areas you aren't interested in pursuing yourself or are they going to be direct competition? The pain in the ass factor is a very large factor in determining how lax you are with your licensing rate.

And cue the end of settlements... (1)

SvnLyrBrto (62138) | about 2 years ago | (#42068643)

... in *ANY* of these lawsuits. (Don't forget, there are a whole lot more companies throwing suits around in the mobile space than just Apple and Sansung.) If those previously-confidentail settlements can be dragged out into the public courts; there's no longer a way for the companies involved to come to a cease fire that allows both sides to save face.

Without that ability, watch all parties go for nothing but the full-out nuclear option in the future. There's no reason to do anything else.

Re:And cue the end of settlements... (1)

Prof.Phreak (584152) | about 2 years ago | (#42069715)

So it's settled, the lawyers win! :-D

Hiding information from shareholders (2)

big_e_1977 (2012512) | about 2 years ago | (#42068777)

Since both to these companies issued publicly traded shares of stock, they should be legally obliged by the SEC to disclose the exact nature of these settlements to the shareholders.

You FAIL it.. (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42070541)

To Them...then politics openly. diseases. The told reporters, the project is in

What about HTC? (1)

uvajed_ekil (914487) | about 2 years ago | (#42071545)

Is this fair to HTC, or does it give Samsung a further competitive advantage over them, given that they probably had something to gain in their agreement with Apple and keeping it from Samsung's eyes? HTC need all the help they can get.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?