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!

Samsung Drops European Injunction Requests Against Apple

Soulskill posted about 2 years ago | from the there-will-be-peace-in-our-time dept.

Cellphones 71

An anonymous reader writes with this IDG News report: "Samsung dropped all claims pending in European courts in which it asserted patents that are essential for mobile communication devices to prevent the sales of Apple products in Europe. The injunction requests against Apple, which aimed to get courts to impose sales bans on infringing products, were withdrawn in the U.K., France, the Netherlands, Germany and Italy. Samsung only withdrew the injunctions requests — other litigation against Apple in Europe continues, Anne ter Braak, a spokeswoman for Samsung in the Netherlands, said in an email on Tuesday. While Samsung said it withdrew its claims in the interest of protecting consumer choice, it could have to do with a European antitrust investigation."

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

Who cares (1, Insightful)

Seeteufel (1736784) | about 2 years ago | (#42331139)

Why shall I care about these patent battles between companies which deserve to suffer, because they did nothing to stop patent law extention to software? May they all rott in hell.

Re:Who cares (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42331165)

Because Samdung the repeatedly convicted cartelist is treated as some sort of saint and innocent by the Slashturd horde because they make Android phones.

Re:Who cares (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42331309)

Yeah. I really don't understand why people come to the defence of Samsung so quickly. They are NOT a nice company.
The SK govt is practically a subsidiary of Samsung. They're untouchable there. They get away with this right now because the times are good for Samsung. I'd be quite worried if the company ever starts to falter.

Re:Who cares (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42331965)

Yeah. I really don't understand why people come to the defence of Samsung so quickly. They are NOT a nice company.
The SK govt is practically a subsidiary of Samsung. They're untouchable there. They get away with this right now because the times are good for Samsung. I'd be quite worried if the company ever starts to falter.

Right, this is a machiavellian backstabbing contest between soulless greedy corporations and the egomaniacal borderline sociopaths that run them. Samsung is widely perceived as fighting the good fight along with Google and Google has a large and very loyal group of fanboys here on slashdot. Apple has taken over from Microsoft as the great empire of evil and since people here see things in Black & White... well you can see where that ends.... flame-throwers, napalm air-strikes and fire retardant suits.

Re:Who cares (3, Insightful)

Rennt (582550) | about 2 years ago | (#42331343)

Because it's not really Apple or Samsung that are suffering. It's us. The consumers who are literally paying for the benefit of stagnation and lack of choice.

Apple and Samsung like the weather in Hell just fine.

Re:Who cares (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42331841)

Stagnation? Like before the iPhone came out and a smart phone meant a blackberry or a nokia candy bar with wml support? When android was still a blackberry knock-off and RIM sued samsung over the BlackJack, their blackberry knock-off?

Re:Who cares (0)

PRMan (959735) | about 2 years ago | (#42331895)

Except that the Windows Phones were doing full web fine before there even was an iPhone. It's just that flip phones were cool and smartphones made you an uber-nerd. Apple made smartphones cool, but the functionality was nothing new.

Re:Who cares (2)

MightyYar (622222) | about 2 years ago | (#42333109)

Except that the Windows Phones were doing full web fine before there even was an iPhone.

If by "fine" you mean "painful". Windows (and all the other phones, for that matter) tried to either reformat the page for mobile or display the website like a desktop - there was nothing like the "pinch to zoom" experience of the first iPhone. The resistive screens and stylus oriented OS did not exactly help. I was late to the iPhone party, but I did have to admit that the web browsing experience was actually pretty amazing.

Re:Who cares (2)

Savage-Rabbit (308260) | about 2 years ago | (#42332139)

Because it's not really Apple or Samsung that are suffering. It's us. The consumers who are literally paying for the benefit of stagnation and lack of choice.

Apple and Samsung like the weather in Hell just fine.

Stagnation? Like before the iPhone came out and a smart phone meant a blackberry or a nokia candy bar with wml support? When android was still a blackberry knock-off and RIM sued samsung over the BlackJack, their blackberry knock-off?

He has a point, the iPhone may have changed things radically but all we have today, other than iOS, is a plethora of Android phones. Android may be different enough from iOS to make for long and bitter court battles over (alleged) copycatting but Android is still very close in concept to iOS, too close to be truly different and innovative. Google just followed the general formula created by Apple with iOS while (unsuccessfully) trying to stay different enough to avoid lawsuits. And worse yet we are heading for an Android monoculture where the only serious competitor is iOS. The only other player on the smartphone OS market doing anything really radically different and innovative is Microsoft with it's Windows Phone.... irony abounds.

Re:Who cares (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42332279)

Google just followed the general formula created by Apple with iOS while (unsuccessfully) trying to stay different enough to avoid lawsuits.

I don't see why you say "unsuccessfully". Google itself hasn't been sued over imitating iOS. It's specific Android vendors (Samsung, HTC) which have been sued, and lots of the claims in the lawsuits center on things which have nothing to do with Android itself. For example, Samsung's imitation of Apple's hardware design and trade dress, right down to the boxes the phones came in.

(Before people start spamming dumb "APPLE PATENTED THE ROUND RECT" bullshit, note that before Samsung was copycatting Apple they were copycatting RIM and others. Samsung actually lost in court to RIM over very similar issues. Android's involvement in Samsung's behavior is mainly that it finally gave Samsung a competitive smartphone OS base to build imitative products on, and Apple's involvement is merely that they proved to be the right one to imitate.)

Re:Who cares (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42333243)

Google hasn't been sued because they aren't making money on Android. Let's see...5% of nuthin' is still nuthin' last I checked.

Re:Who cares (0)

danbob999 (2490674) | about 2 years ago | (#42333083)

Before the iPhone a smart phone meant a phone on which you could install apps without asking for permission to the manufacturer.
Touch screen smart phones existed before the iPhone. Apple's innovation is its restriction.

Re:Who cares (0)

iamhassi (659463) | about 2 years ago | (#42331893)

Because it's not really Apple or Samsung that are suffering. It's us. The consumers who are literally paying for the benefit of stagnation and lack of choice.

Apple and Samsung like the weather in Hell just fine.

Um, what? Apparently you don't remember what passed for a smartphone in 2006. Apple completely revolutionized phones and deserves all the credit, everyone else just copied what Apple did, and Apple got tired of them copying. We were suffering in 2006, now we are living great with technology straight from Star Trek.

Re:Who cares (3, Informative)

Cerium (948827) | about 2 years ago | (#42332277)

Ugh. Enough of this backwards justification for this crap.

Do a few minutes of 5th-grader-level research and you'll find that there were more than a few phones/pdas/whatever that had touch screens with grids of icons before the iPhone existed. The tech simply wasn't cheap (or cool) enough yet. Apple was simple in the right place at the right time.

Your memory of how things got to where we are now is fuzzy at best. :/

Re:Who cares (1, Informative)

MightyYar (622222) | about 2 years ago | (#42333167)

All of the Palms had grids of icons, but I have the Palm that was contemporary with the first iPhone, and the experience just can't be compared without writing a 7 page post. The web experience on the Palm was utterly atrocious. There was a convoluted way to get Opera Mini to run after installing some Java stuff on it, but you still had this terrible resistive touch screen and stylus-focused OS. There is a reason that Palm abandoned that software platform, and it had nothing to do with "cool".

Re:Who cares (3, Informative)

Cerium (948827) | about 2 years ago | (#42333753)

Okay, so let's just pretend for a second that I didn't specify any other device types or reasons in my very short example. Let's also ignore the mental acrobatics you performed to disregard the remainder of that chunklet of information I posted in a seemingly feeble attempt at steering the clearly biased back toward the gray area within which the rest of us live.

Let's pretend all of that. Even still, you're saying that the iPhone was a technological evolution of devices that were not only already in existence, but established enough that there were known workarounds for the seemingly terrible user experience.

Even if that were exactly the case, to hold Apple so highly for their "accomplishments" that you feel they're justified in suing everyone else for "stealing" mind-numbingly obvious IP is sociopathic at best.

Look, If you guys enjoy living within the walled garden of Apple, great. I'm happy for you. However, to think they somehow developed everything in a vacuum and everything to come after is a mindless copy... Jesus Christ, man.

Re:Who cares (1)

MightyYar (622222) | about 2 years ago | (#42335595)

I didn't want to pretend that I had experience with every other device on the market. I did have experience with Palm. I liked it a lot at the time. I had played with Windows CE devices and found them to be more capable, but less usable than the Palm. Blackberry continues to have a sub-par internet experience, and it was very much lacking when the iPhone came out.

Today the situation is different. iPhone, Windows, and Android all have very similar internet browsers. All use the iPhone's basic interface. I think it is very fair to say that they copied. It is also fair to say that iPhone built upon what was already out there, and quite obviously copied a lot of stuff that already existed. I've had two iPhones, but I'm currently on Android. My next phone will be Windows if those are still available.

I don't really care who sues who - it is just corporate details that don't bother me in the least. Dispute resolution is what the courts are for, and we have all of these ridiculous IP laws that set up tons of artificial disputes. My hope is that the largest companies in the world eventually come around to see how stupid and expensive all of these IP laws are, and they use their considerable leverage to get them reformed. If these cases result in a monopoly of some sort, I will change my tune - but currently the smartphone market is simply amazing.

Re:Who cares (2)

Joce640k (829181) | about 2 years ago | (#42335351)

Yep. Apple didn't even innovate the name...remember the iPaq? [wikipedia.org] A phone/PDA made by Compaq.

Re:Who cares (2)

oxdas (2447598) | about 2 years ago | (#42332505)

As others have said, from a functionality standpoint, there is nothing Apple added to the party with the iPhone in 2007. Apple did package that functionality in user friendly way and made it cool. I will give significant credit to Apple for expanding the smartphone market, but they did not create the smartphone, the touchscreen phone, or rows of icons (and the original iPhone didn't have an App store). There is nothing that could be done on an iPhone in 2007 that I couldn't do on my phone in 2004.

Re:Who cares (1)

danbob999 (2490674) | about 2 years ago | (#42333107)

I will give significant credit to Apple for expanding the smartphone market

The smartphone market would have expanded with or without Apple. Apple just happen to have launched a smart phone at the right time. They could have launched one 5 years prior and it would have sucked just like anything available that year.

Re:Who cares (1)

oxdas (2447598) | about 2 years ago | (#42339427)

I also believe the smartphone market would have expanded without Apple. However, in my opinion, the iPhone helped the market grow much more quickly that would have occurred otherwise. Afterall, smartphones had been around for years before the iPhone and didn't experience such explosive growth until the iPhone. While numerous other companies were developing new smartphone operating systems, the success of the iPhone pushed those projects higher on the priority list of their respective organizations. In addition, it is my opinion that Apple exerted a strong influence on many aspects of smartphone evolution. All that said, I also don't see the iPhone as technologically revolutionary in any way.

Re:Who cares (1)

danbob999 (2490674) | about 2 years ago | (#42344357)

Afterall, smartphones had been around for years before the iPhone and didn't experience such explosive growth until the iPhone.

Apple entered the smartphone market because it was about to explose. The market did not explose because of them. It's certainly not Apple's entry to the market that made Nokia get 69% year on year growth and RIM 112% that year.

Beside, you could also say that the smartphone market didn't experience such explosive growth until the first Blackberry, Android, Windows mobile or Symbian smart phone and that would also be true. Apple isn't the exception here.

Re:Who cares (1)

OhSoLaMeow (2536022) | about 2 years ago | (#42332849)

May they all rott in hell.

They ported Rise of the Triad to Android? COOL!

Perhaps legal costs are starting to bite (5, Interesting)

SuperKendall (25149) | about 2 years ago | (#42331153)

You have to think, with the relative lack of victory by any of the phone makers (Apple, Samsung, Motorola, Google) in the court of law, that at some point the legal bill would come due and companies would start coming to their senses about fighting in the courts vs. the market.

Samsung is already doing really well in the market as it is, so why should they bother to try and limit what other devices companies can sell? The same thing goes for Apple.

With any luck in 2013 we'll see all of the lawsuits subside as sanity takes hold.

Re:Perhaps legal costs are starting to bite (3, Interesting)

CrimsonAvenger (580665) | about 2 years ago | (#42331289)

Samsung is already doing really well in the market as it is, so why should they bother to try and limit what other devices companies can sell?

Given that Samsung asked for this injunction after Apple tried for a similar injunction in the USA (which, conveniently enough, was just denied), I would expect that this was just a tit-for-tat maneuver to convince Apple that the stakes were getting a bit high.

So now that Apple no longer has the injunction option in the USA, dropping the European one by Samsung just makes sense.

Cutting off nose... (2)

SuperKendall (25149) | about 2 years ago | (#42331339)

So now that Apple no longer has the injunction option in the USA, dropping the European one by Samsung just makes sense.

If they thought they could win, it makes little sense to drop the case now.

If they never thought they could win, it made little sense to go through the very considerable cost of initiating the lawsuits, just to "show Apple a thing or two" (tit for tat). Since it had no impact on Apple all it did is cost Samsung a lot of money! At the very least Samsung should have waited to see if Apple's suit would gain any traction at all, then start that as a counter-measure.

Re:Cutting off nose... (1)

Antonovich (1354565) | about 2 years ago | (#42334471)

Wrong. It DID cost Apple money. They would have spent considerable amounts, possibly even more than Samsung, in investigating the claims, buying "presents" for the various judges, etc. If the cases had have gone ahead without Apple having done any preparation, they almost certainly would have lost. Apple are becoming more comfortable in the courtroom than in the market place - they definitely would have come prepared and anything that involves lots of top quality lawyers costs lots.

Re:Cutting off nose... (1)

SuperKendall (25149) | about 2 years ago | (#42334609)

Ok, good point that Apple had to take some action in response to those suits. But at this point it's probably no more than Samsung took to file them; in any case it still cost Samsung money, and has no impact on Apple at all which has a lot of cash. End result is that right now Samsung is out that cash, even if it did hurt apple some. There is no winner there.

Samsung were winning in the marketplace. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42336071)

And they would have to PAY MORE to continue the case, therefore dropping it now that the situation in the market wasn't going to be decided by whoever got the nicest judge, they could drop the case.

How many cases are plea bargained? How many extortion notices (for example, patent claims) are settled not because they were valid, but that defending against them costs more than the payback at the end?

Continuing to kick Apple when they were down and spend money on it for no gain would be cutting off their nose to spite their face.

Re:Cutting off nose... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42336611)

Since it had no impact on Apple all it did is cost Samsung a lot of money! At the very least Samsung should have waited to see if Apple's suit would gain any traction at all, then start that as a counter-measure.

Litigation takes loads of time.
Starting the paperwork in Europe, would make any European verdict to more timely follow the US.
If they waited for a verdict in the US and only then started litigation in Europe, it could take a really long time for the retaliation strike to take effect.

Re:Perhaps legal costs are starting to bite (2)

PRMan (959735) | about 2 years ago | (#42331911)

This is exactly it. Now that there is not an injunction in the US for the Samsung phones, they are proving it was a defensive move, not offensive, by dropping it. I assume if Apple dropped their lawsuits in the US, Samsung would probably drop theres in Europe as well.

Re:Perhaps legal costs are starting to bite (1)

whisper_jeff (680366) | about 2 years ago | (#42333647)

You have to think, with the relative lack of victory by any of the phone makers (Apple, Samsung, Motorola, Google) in the court of law...

Yeah.

Ok.

Um.

Over $1 billion.

That's a "relative lack of victory in the court of law"?

While that case is still playing out (and probably will for a couple more years...), I'd say that a major victory has been won and the others are hoping to duplicate that win. While it would be nice if they all worked out cross-licensing deals (or, in the absence of such a deal, stopped copying each other...) and got on with making cool stuff, I don't see that happening just yet.

It is a loss overall (1)

SuperKendall (25149) | about 2 years ago | (#42333819)

Over $1 billion.

That's a "relative lack of victory in the court of law"?

Yes, I think overall it is a loss. At this point Apple may well be approaching that figure on legal fees.

But in addition to pure monetary outlay, think of all the industry goodwill from customers and suppliers (like Samsung) this has cost them. That $1 billion does hardly anything to Samsung so as far as they are concerned they really did get away with a slap on the wrist relative to the success they have had.

It's not like Apple has any use for $1 billion more than they had; and it's going to take eons to pry it out of Samsung with the appeals alone.

Totally not worth it, even if Samsung did infringe to some degree.

Re:It is a loss overall (1)

Theaetetus (590071) | about 2 years ago | (#42337001)

Over $1 billion.

That's a "relative lack of victory in the court of law"?

Yes, I think overall it is a loss. At this point Apple may well be approaching that figure on legal fees.

... in terms of legal fees paid by Apple since 1975? Maybe. That particular case? No... Patent litigation is expensive - I know, because I'm working on one right now (ugh) - but you're off by an easy two orders of magnitude. They've probably spent around $5-10 million on that case.

Re:It is a loss overall (1)

SuperKendall (25149) | about 2 years ago | (#42339327)

They've probably spent around $5-10 million on that case.

I'd bet it's way more than that, consider alone the multi-hundred page documents the gave to the jury.

However I'm not talking about just this case, I'm talking about all the lawsuits total. Out of all those suits this is the only one they made money on.

As my use of the word "regardless" implied though, it doesn't matter if the lawsuits totaled cost less than $1b, because the loss of goodwill (the technical accounting form) easily surpasses $1b when combined with the legal expense.

Re:Perhaps legal costs are starting to bite (1)

tlhIngan (30335) | about 2 years ago | (#42334003)

No, it's because of several things.

First, Samsung would be doing to Apple what Samsung accused Apple of doing. Remember the reason that Samsung got to see the HTC-Apple contract? Samsung said that they believe that some of the patents in that contract are the same ones Apple sued Samsung for and is asking for an injunction for. Now if Apple is willing to license the patents out (say to HTC), injunctions should NOT be an option. Oh, the patents Samsung is suing Apple for that they just dropped? Patents that Samsung is willing to license to others (because they're FRAND). Oops.

Second - they're FRAND patents. Microsoft and Apple have managed to bring up interesting points about FRAND patents that has the EU (and many other governments, including South Korea) that they believe what Samsung is doing is abusive of the whole FRAND thing, and the EU has made very loud noises about investigating abuses of the FRAND system. Well, Samsung is doing just that, too. (And Microsoft is doing the same to Motorola).

What the EU could do is strip Samsung of the ability to use those patents for any purpose and force an agreement (which if they deem Samsung to be abusive, could go Apple's way and end up being declared "free" or extremely cheap).

Dropping the lawsuit was the more intelligent choice Samsung has done because it wouldn't have been good to Samsung at all - first you argue against your own case, followed by potential of the EU doing some investigations.

It wasn't about "honor" or "costs" or whatever. It's that Samsung's case had very shaky legs - if Samsung could get an injunction over FRAND patents, Apple could turn around and say they illegally saw the HTC contract and should pay (even more) damages because their argument was null and void. Or the EU would do some investigations and end up declaring FRAND patent rates to be decided by the EU, not the company that owns them. Continuing the lawsuit was really not in Samsung's interest.

Re:Perhaps legal costs are starting to bite (1)

SuperKendall (25149) | about 2 years ago | (#42334971)

Really good point about FRAND. These companies thinking they can extort whatever fee they like from companies that have a lot of money from patents covered under FRAND are really playing with fire.

OK, so what situation are you talking about? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42335049)

Because Samsung isn't doing that to Apple.

There are two prices that are available to EVERYONE.

1) A rate that Apple are being asked for. Apple are refusing to pay that much "because our phones are more expensive".
2) A rate that is cheaper if you pool your patents. Apple refuse to pool patents.

So in this case there is nothing about Samsung extorting whatever fee they like from companies from patents covered by FRAND.

So what case are you talking about?

Re:Perhaps legal costs are starting to bite (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42335093)

FRAND doesn't mean free for Apple to use

Because it made sense (2)

thetoadwarrior (1268702) | about 2 years ago | (#42331155)

I assume they thought they'd lose or it would have rammifications on them and what they can charge others in the future. I'll be really surprised if they decided to be nice to Apple.

Maybe they are realizing (1)

ModernGeek (601932) | about 2 years ago | (#42331207)

Maybe Apple and Samsung are realizing that nobody but the lawyers win when they put so much effort into suing each other. While Steve Jobs was mad at Google for producing Android behind his back while key members of Google sat on their board, maybe Apple is starting to realize that just like the Microsoft situation where almost the same thing happened with their Operating Systems that in order for Apple to win Google and others don't have to lose. It's should be about having the best product and nothing else. I hope that Apple will follow Samaung and drop their suits.

Re:Maybe they are realizing (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42331251)

If that were true Samsung would be dropping all litigation. This is because of antitrust issues because it involved FRAND patents.

Maybe Samsung realizes (1)

Andy Prough (2730467) | about 2 years ago | (#42333683)

(as did Microsoft) that in the end, they really need Apple to survive as a competitor in order to avoid all the anti-trust traps.

The real solution to this patent mess... (1)

pubwvj (1045960) | about 2 years ago | (#42331445)

The real solution to this patent mess is to completely eliminate all patenting.

A second best solution would be a return to the original idea that patents are for very limited times and then move into the public domain. Adjusting for market lifespan changes that should be about two years.

A third best, and more likely scenario, is to put everything under FRAND like rules. All patents must be licensed to anyone in a fair manner after a period of two years from the original patent filing.

Let's stop enriching the lawyers and get back in the business of innovation and production of great products.

Re:The real solution to this patent mess... (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42331627)

Let's stop enriching the lawyers and get back in the business of innovation and production of great products.

What's the point of innovating if some company like Samsung or Google just comes along and steals your ideas?
Surely the result will be companies that are good at copying and not ones that are good at innovating.

Re:The real solution to this patent mess... (1)

dpidcoe (2606549) | about 2 years ago | (#42331663)

What's the point of innovating if some company like Samsung or Google just comes along and steals your ideas?

To make money for Google and Samsung of course.

Good for Samsung (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42331599)

As bad as the patent nonsense is overall, at least they knew when to back down after Apple requests were turned down.

Apple, on the other hand, are probably going to be more pissed.

And the rest... (1, Flamebait)

Mr_Silver (213637) | about 2 years ago | (#42331629)

While Samsung said it withdrew its claims in the interest of protecting consumer choice, it could have to do with a European antitrust investigation.

And that they are FRAND licenced, so they don't have a leg to stand on.

Oh and that they are under investigation in Korea for potentially abusing wireless Standards Essential Patents.

Plus the US Department of Justice is also looking at potential antitrust abuse by Samsung.

Not to mention that the FTC has made it clear that it won't tolerate the use of FRAND-encumbered Standards Essential Patents to block competitors in the US.

Nope, it was just about protecting "consumer choice" :)

Re:And the rest... (0)

Tough Love (215404) | about 2 years ago | (#42331701)

Apple employee much?

Re:And the rest... (1)

EGSonikku (519478) | about 2 years ago | (#42331855)

Denier of reality, much?

Re:And the rest... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42332077)

Hur dur, Samsung innovates!

Re:And the rest... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42335113)

When Apple copies from Samsung and Android = Innovation
When Samsung copies Apple = Stealing

Re:And the rest... (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42331887)

"Not to mention that the FTC has made it clear that it won't tolerate the use of FRAND-encumbered Standards Essential Patents to block competitors in the US."

So what about video codecs?

Oh, right, only worrying about patents from non-USA companies, right, forgot.

Hey, did you know that the Samsung licencing IS FRAND? If you pay with only cash it's one price, if you want you can barter with other goods (patents).

But if Apple were allowed the cheaper rate for patent pooling members without pooling the patents, that would make it UNfair and Discriminatiory.

Oh, right, only worrying about patents for USA companies, right, forgot.

Re:And the rest... (1)

LordLucless (582312) | about 2 years ago | (#42334469)

And that they are FRAND licenced, so they don't have a leg to stand on.

The F in FRAND stands for fair, not free. They weren't FRAND licensed - reason being, Apple never licensed them. The question in dispute isn't the cost of the patents going forward, its punitive damage for not paying the FRAND cost upfront. If there's no punitive component to the cost, then there's no disincentive.

Re:And the rest... (1)

Mr_Silver (213637) | about 2 years ago | (#42334633)

The F in FRAND stands for fair, not free. They weren't FRAND licensed - reason being, Apple never licensed them. The question in dispute isn't the cost of the patents going forward, its punitive damage for not paying the FRAND cost upfront. If there's no punitive component to the cost, then there's no disincentive.

I never said it meant free, you must be confusing me with someone else.

Qualcomm and other chip suppliers already licence the patents, they then include that cost into the cost of the chip and pass the licence onto the buyer. They are allowed to do that.

As such, if Apple buy something from Qualcomm then they've already paid the FRAND licence indirectly to Samsung - no second payment to Samsung (and the hundreds of other companies who hold patents) is necessary as Qualcomm have already done the legwork. This is why Samsung don't have a leg to stand on.

(Disclaimer: I've bought chips from Qualcomm and the ease of handling all the various patent licences is part of their sales spiel)

license cost for the patents prove you wrong (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42335949)

The licensing cost for these patents were based on the cost of the FINAL PRODUCT.

Since the chips were not the entire cost of the FINAL PRODUCT and could not be, the cost of licensing the patent enacted on those chips CANNOT be included in the price of the chip.

Your assertion is COMPLETEY AND UTTERLY FALSE.

Another way of interpreting it.... (0)

Tough Love (215404) | about 2 years ago | (#42331687)

Another way of interpreting it: Samsung does not wish to be perceived as a greedy thug like Apple.

Re:Another way of interpreting it.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42331899)

Another way of interpreting it: You're a retard.

Re:Another way of interpreting it.... (0)

the eric conspiracy (20178) | about 2 years ago | (#42332125)

More likely they think it's a waste of money. Apple stock is starting it's inevitable fall to reality and their margins are reverting to the mean.

Soon enough the iPhone will be remembered as the the product that followed the Blackberry into the dustbin of history.

Re:Another way of interpreting it.... (1)

coinreturn (617535) | about 2 years ago | (#42335997)

More likely they think it's a waste of money. Apple stock is starting it's inevitable fall to reality and their margins are reverting to the mean.

Soon enough the iPhone will be remembered as the the product that followed the Blackberry into the dustbin of history.

Yeah, keep up that fandroid hate-fantasy of yours. You sound like the Romney supporters did before the election.

Re:Another way of interpreting it.... (1)

the eric conspiracy (20178) | about 2 years ago | (#42336367)

Unlike Romney supporters the facts are on my side:

1. Apple stock off 200 points.

https://www.google.com/search?q=AAPL&aq=f&oq=AAPL&aqs=chrome.0.57j60j64j0l3.3905&sugexp=chrome,mod=1&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8 [google.com]

2. Apple market share falling.

http://www.idownloadblog.com/2011/11/15/ios-loses-market-android-recent-quarter/ [idownloadblog.com]

3. Apple's margins down.

http://seekingalpha.com/article/1070841-apple-gross-margin-conundrum-explained [seekingalpha.com]

So who is denying reality here?

Re:Another way of interpreting it.... (1)

coinreturn (617535) | about 2 years ago | (#42336485)

First, it's not 200 points. Second, that's off from a single-day all-time high - that's called cherry-picking your data. Third, Apple's sales are still through the roof and they are raking in 52% of the profits from smartphones (from YOUR linked article). Marketshare is marginally down in the THIRD QUARTER (pre-iPhone 5 sales). That doesn't sound like dustbin material. You are cherry-picking and wishfully thinking.

Re:Another way of interpreting it.... (1)

the eric conspiracy (20178) | about 2 years ago | (#42343347)

It is $200+. Apple's all time high is $705, and Monday it was trading pre-market below $500.

It is not cherry picking data. It is pointing out that the dance is winding down. It was a great ride while it lasted. I've seen this things before. Trees don't grow to the sky.

As this article points out Apple is merely a niche player now.

http://www.businessinsider.com/android-market-share-2012-11 [businessinsider.com]

Apple is 6th in China, the fastest growing market:

http://ibnlive.in.com/news/iphone-5-hits-china-as-apple-market-share-slips/310515-11.html [in.com]

Apple is a company that has gone about as far as they are going to go unless they find new markets and new products. And finding something on the scale of the iPhone is going to be really unlikely. As one of the articles I pointed out, that's a once and a lifetime event.

Re:Another way of interpreting it.... (1)

coinreturn (617535) | about 2 years ago | (#42343737)

Why are you using Monday pre-Market as your point? Cherry-picking, that's why. Why wouldn't you use today's value? Cherry-picking, that's why. You ignore their revenues; companies with those kinds of revenues and profits don't go into the dust bin. Yes, the stock is down, and anyone who was fool enough to buy at $700 deserves such - it was overvalued by a lot. Apple is not a niche player, your fandroid fantasy notwithstanding.

Re:Another way of interpreting it.... (2)

Tough Love (215404) | about 2 years ago | (#42334367)

Another way of interpreting it: Samsung does not wish to be perceived as a greedy thug like Apple.

My friend, by modding that down you prove that not only is Apple a corporate thug, but is staffed by thugs who like it that way.

Somebody is worried the EU will reform patents (1)

WillAffleckUW (858324) | about 2 years ago | (#42331769)

Obviously, someone at Samsung realized that the EU is likely to reform patents, and disallow all their patents as a result.

Re:Somebody is worried the EU will reform patents (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42335121)

EU is going to allow software patents and apple is going to patent everyhing from icons to math and are counting on winning in that little court in germany

chinese clones (1)

porjo (964384) | about 2 years ago | (#42334637)

I purchased an S3 clone a few weeks back direct from China - couldn't be happier with it, and several work colleagues have expressed interested in getting one too. For all I know the phone infringes on multiple patents - I don't know, nor do I care! While the 'brand name' companies squabble over patents, Chinese manufacturers are stealing their lunch.

Clarification (1)

perrin (891) | about 2 years ago | (#42335513)

I see a lot of articles in the various "news press" that fail to do even the most rudimentary fact checking before reposting with their own take on this. Most post some variant of "Samsung drops pantet lawsuits in Europe". That is not what this is all about. They are dropping all their attempts to get injunctions based on standards essential patents in Europe. This is most likely because the EU is looking into the matter, and the EU can stomp a company pretty hard if they are found to violate competition rules.

Patent lawsuits are otherwise proceeding as normal. Those of us in the peanut gallery will be kept entertained for years to come, I am sure.

Check for New Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?