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!

EU Charges Samsung With Abusing Vital Telecoms Patent

Soulskill posted about 2 years ago | from the jig-is-up dept.

EU 96

Dupple sends this news from Reuters: "The European Commission charged Samsung Electronics on Friday with abusing its dominant position in seeking to bar rival Apple from using a patent deemed essential to mobile phone use. The Commission sent a 'statement of objections' to the South Korean group, with its preliminary view that Samsung was not acting fairly. 'Intellectual property rights are an important cornerstone of the single market. However, such rights should not be misused when they are essential to implement industry standards, which bring huge benefits to businesses and consumers alike,' Competition Commissioner Joaquin Almunia said in statement."

cancel ×

96 comments

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

And yet... (1, Insightful)

asmkm22 (1902712) | about 2 years ago | (#42363771)

they do nothing to Apple and their rounded corners?

Re:And yet... (0, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42363913)

Because their design patents are standards essential for making a mobile phone.

Re:And yet... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42363987)

You physically cant make a box without rounded corners. Even if they had some kind of atomic 3d printer to get the atoms in the exact place, they would rub off and make it rounded. Ergo, its a standard of a physical object to not have perfect covers.

Re:And yet... (2)

cheesybagel (670288) | about 2 years ago | (#42365557)

Not just that. There are EU standards forbidding the sale of gadgets with sharp corners.

Re:And yet... (1)

easyTree (1042254) | about 2 years ago | (#42365925)

Samsung have plenty of design-space in which to play. The completely spherical phone is an untapped market, crying out for vendors. Apple have really done everyone a favour. All hail the the fruit! Pretty soon the whole barrel will be as sweet-smelling!

Re:And yet... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42367827)

Samsung have plenty of design-space in which to play. The completely spherical phone is an untapped market, crying out for vendors. Apple have really done everyone a favour. All hail the the fruit! Pretty soon the whole barrel will be as sweet-smelling!

load of fucking bollocks bloke ..

Samsung have every right to do unto that bunch of fucktards apple exactly as they wish after all it IS SAMSUNG'S patent so fuck apple death and failure to all apple devices and employe's

Re:And yet... (2)

Adrian Lopez (2615) | about 2 years ago | (#42364001)

Because their design patents are standards essential for making a mobile phone.

Right on! Apple's competitors could give their phones sharp corners, or use a polkadot pentagonal shape instead of a black rectangular one.

Re:And yet... (1)

fredprado (2569351) | about 2 years ago | (#42364183)

Poe's law will cause you problems here...

Re:And yet... (1)

Adrian Lopez (2615) | about 2 years ago | (#42364427)

Poe's law will cause you problems here...

I didn't miss the irony in AC's post, if that's what you're thinking.

Re:And yet... (1)

fredprado (2569351) | about 2 years ago | (#42365099)

No, I mean that the irony on your post will me missed.

Re:And yet... (1)

Shagg (99693) | about 2 years ago | (#42364583)

Have you seen a current generation mobile phone that didn't violate one of their design patents?

Re:And yet... (0, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42363943)

Design patent vs basic FRAND patent. Shut your pie-hole, fandroid.

Re:And yet... (0)

fredprado (2569351) | about 2 years ago | (#42364205)

FRAND should encompass ALL design patents.

Re:And yet... (1, Flamebait)

zieroh (307208) | about 2 years ago | (#42366341)

Do you even know what a design patent is?

Guess what: they're not the kind of patents that you usually find subject to FRAND obligations.

Re:And yet... (1)

fredprado (2569351) | about 2 years ago | (#42366653)

Considering how basic and obvious they are they should be forcibly FRAND if conceded at all.

Re:And yet... (4, Funny)

jcoy42 (412359) | about 2 years ago | (#42363959)

I just hope they don't make Samsung post an apology on their website.

Re:And yet... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42365417)

I just hope they don't make Samsung post an apology on their website.

Now that would be ironic... and it would get the fandroids hissing like a group of vampires at dawn.

This is so important (1)

aliquis (678370) | about 2 years ago | (#42363971)

"Patents are important! Unless they are for stuff which matters!"

We can't have patents on those can we?

Just stop all patents or accept the stupidity of it.

Re:This is so important (5, Insightful)

aliquis (678370) | about 2 years ago | (#42364047)

s/it/them

Comment on OSnews:
http://www.osnews.com/thread?546002 [osnews.com]
Laurence:

Apple sue nearly every manufacturer over generic shapes and actions, and the government just give a green light for dumb intellectual property to be registered.

Samsung sue Apple over actual inventions, and they get investigated.

This world is going to the shits.

(yes I know Samsung's patents were dubious because of being FRAND, and in an ideal world they shouldn't have used them. But in an ideal world they shouldn't have had to counter sue because Apple generic design patents).

I agree. This is what patents are for after all. Why only have shitty patents for things not important and punish people who've got the real stuff? Make sense? Remove them already.

Re:This is so important (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42364061)

Did you not even read the summary? They are not getting rid of the patent, they are requiring Samsung to license it.

Re:This is so important (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42364179)

problem apple only wants to pay a euro cent or get to use it for free

Re:And yet... (0, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42364015)

Apple didn't agree to be part of a standards body and put FRAND terms on their "rounded corners" patents, then subsequently renege on on said agreement when it became inconvenient.

Yeah, I know what you're going to say next. Apple demanded they pay less than anyone else. So? What's that have to do anything? It's called negotiation. Why is unfair that apple demand better terms, like any business should?

Re:And yet... (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42364671)

FRAND actually sets the licensing rates as "reasonable"... it's the R in FRAND. Apple did not want to pay the already established and accepted reasonable rate and instead wanted a huge discount. Which is again the ND part of FRAND "Non-discriminatory", which states that the rates have to be non-discriminatory across all individuals.

Also, FRAND allows for early-bird adopters of a technology to get a reduced rate (to promote new technology adoption) . Apple was not an early bird adopter and was pretty much late to the party when joining the telecom FRAND agreements.

Re:And yet... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42365031)

FRAND actually sets the licensing rates as "reasonable"... it's the R in FRAND. Apple did not want to pay the already established and accepted reasonable rate and instead wanted a huge discount. Which is again the ND part of FRAND "Non-discriminatory", which states that the rates have to be non-discriminatory across all individuals.

Also, FRAND allows for early-bird adopters of a technology to get a reduced rate (to promote new technology adoption) . Apple was not an early bird adopter and was pretty much late to the party when joining the telecom FRAND agreements.

Technically, that's discriminatory.

Re:And yet... (1)

Runaway1956 (1322357) | about 2 years ago | (#42366271)

In context, had Apple been denied a license at any price, or had Apple been charged ten times what anyone else was paying for the same license, then that would have been discriminatory.

Reading comprehension, available in schools and colleges near you.

Re:And yet... (1)

Plumpaquatsch (2701653) | about 2 years ago | (#42380483)

In context, had Apple been denied a license at any price, or had Apple been charged ten times what anyone else was paying for the same license, then that would have been discriminatory.

Which coincidently is exactly what happened.

Re:And yet... (5, Insightful)

harperska (1376103) | about 2 years ago | (#42364379)

Why does this stupid fandroid argument still get modded insightful on /.? Set aside the ignorance on the difference between design patents (which shouldn't really be patents in the first place, but have to be registered as patents because you can't copyright an industrial design for some reason) and FRAND patents. Apple did not generically patent all "rounded corners" as the fandroids claim. They patented which corners were rounded, and by how much. Compare the iPhone to the Nokia Lumia. Both are minimalist designs. Both have rounded corners. But the Lumia doesn't look anything like the iPhone, thus not infringing on the "rounded corners" design patent, while also clearly showing that having the exact same rounded corners as the iPhone is not a necessity for a smartphone.

Re:And yet... (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42364693)

This is pretty much the situation with most patents - the fandroids have no idea how to read one, much less what it applies to. That is why the outrage - it is easy to get upset about something you don't understand, but think you understand (ie. like the rounded corners, where not ALL rounded corners are infringing).

Same thing applies to software vs. hardware patents. There is no way to distinguish them, so you have to ban them all.

Re:And yet... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42364785)

the fandroids have no idea how to read one, much less what it applies to

Yeah, it's a good thing we have Appholes like you and harperska to set us all straight.

Re:And yet... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42365505)

Damn straight we do.

Re:And yet... (1)

ahabswhale (1189519) | about 2 years ago | (#42378025)

Poor baby want a cookie?

Re:And yet... (4, Informative)

rsmith-mac (639075) | about 2 years ago | (#42364775)

This is fundamentally a FRAND issue. Samsung submitted their patents as FRAND, Apple did not. FRAND places limitations on what Samsung can do with their patents in exchange for a simplified licensing system that gives them long term royalties from virtually every mobile device manufacturer.

Anyhow, going after Apple with FRAND patents was always a risky strategy, and the EU charges are exactly why.

Re:And yet... (0)

drinkypoo (153816) | about 2 years ago | (#42368075)

Anyhow, going after Apple with FRAND patents was always a risky strategy, and the EU charges are exactly why.

Samsung used FRAND patents to counter obvious patents and failed. Clearly, the patent system is total bullshit. This is why we can't have nice things, right? If TPTB can't handle the responsibility of creating patent law that works, then perhaps we shouldn't have any at all.

Flamebait! (1)

drinkypoo (153816) | about 2 years ago | (#42374755)

Apple shillmods are here. Everybody run.

Re:And yet... (0)

Rich0 (548339) | about 2 years ago | (#42368233)

...in exchange for a simplified licensing system that gives them long term royalties from virtually every mobile device manufacturer.

Virtually every mobile device manufacturer, except Apple, apparently.

What is the point in having a FRAND patent if people can choose to not license it and be free from legal action?

Re:And yet... (0, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42365429)

Damn, the Google shills have plenty of mod points today!

It's dipshits like you constantly harping on about "rounded corners", when that was just one small part of the suit, that make me happy to not be part of the Android crowd.

Face it, Android is just a weak copy of iOS. Now with more spyware!

Re:And yet... (1)

easyTree (1042254) | about 2 years ago | (#42366009)

Android still don't seem to have emulator Apple's use of manufacturing plant where their 'staff' are held prisoner and try to kill themselves to escape.

Apple are way ahead of the pack on this one.

Re:And yet... (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42366291)

Hmm... You mean Foxconn, where they make almost all Android devices as well? Oh, and that Foxconn employees have a lower suicide rate than mainland China and the US.

More fandroid drivel backed up by lies.

Re:And yet... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42368283)

That's because they are not allowed to suicide.

Re:And yet... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42366297)

And iOS is a walled garden filled with Stepford soccer moms who are content to passively consume content under the terms of their Apple overlords. Except Woz. He's cool. If they let *him* design a special-edition pre-jailbroken phone ( "iPhone WE" -- "Woz Edition"), I might buy one.

Now, can we get back to appropriately bashing Google and take them to task for bringing us a nominally-open platform that only runs (in the US, at least) on some of the most locked-down & proprietary Qualcomm chipsets on Earth? Or totally dropping the ball & turning "Nexus" from "Ultimate high-end boundary-pushing genre-defining device" into "cheap shit phone with sealed battery that can't even do USB OTG?"

Re:And yet... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42366773)

LOL at butthurt apple shill. No wonder you're accusing everyone else of shilling.

Re:And yet... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42370851)

Wow, you have the writing ability of an 8 year old.

Re:And yet... (4, Insightful)

sg_oneill (159032) | about 2 years ago | (#42367009)

The basic concept is essential vs non essential patents. Essential patents are supposed to be licenced out so as not to be used as a monopolization tool, where as stuff that isnt essential to compete , not so much.

Considering "rounded corners" wasnt even a patent, and its entirely possible to put out a phone with other shaped corners, then no this is not a legitimate comparison at all.

Re:And yet... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42368327)

Essential patents are supposed to be licenced out so as not to be used as a monopolization tool

BUT a Patent gives exclusive right

Re:And yet... (0)

rtb61 (674572) | about a year ago | (#42370225)

Now that is a blatant lie. Rounded corners are essential in engineering design of plastic appliances due to fabrication constraints, material efficiency and better wear and impact characteristics. Apple put in the bullshit patent specifically because ten of thousands of plastic appliances have rounded corners by virtue of design requirements, so the bullshit patent could purposefully be used to obstruct other manufacturer. A straight up psychopathic business scheme.

Re:And yet... (1)

Ian A. Shill (2791091) | about 2 years ago | (#42367453)

The rounded corners, they do nothing!

Re:And yet... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42367935)

it was more than just round corners.

Such rights should not be misused (2, Insightful)

zebslash (1107957) | about 2 years ago | (#42363823)

Indeed, "such rights should not be misused". So why granting bogus patents on obvious features that lead to such abuses? They should fix the system, not try workarounds!

Re:Such rights should not be misused (1)

RyuuzakiTetsuya (195424) | about 2 years ago | (#42368155)

Ah the lament of the Apple hater. Everything Apple does is backwards and wrong until they succeed in the market then it becomes obvious!

Re:Such rights should not be misused (1)

zebslash (1107957) | about 2 years ago | (#42368349)

Where do you read the word "Apple" in my text? Your reply is idiotic, because I would have said the same for ANY company, including Samsung. But do not let the facts go in your way.

Stupid (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42363825)

Apple tried to lowball the licensing at less than a quarter of the rate others were paying. Of course Samsung is going to say No to Apple.

Re:Stupid (1, Insightful)

SirGeek (120712) | about 2 years ago | (#42363845)

Yet you don't see the apple fans talking about THAT now, Do you ?

Re: Stupid (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42364043)

You know or can cite what others are specifically paying? Thought not. Most licensing deals are confidential.

Apple wasn't low balling, Samsung was double dipping - trying to get apple to pay twice

Wow (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42364293)

First claiming something is unknown because licensing deals are confidential, and thus unable to be cited. Then claiming you know it to be the opposite.

The cognitive dissonance is strong with this one.

Re:Wow (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42367697)

Except apple had paid the license on the Qualcomm chips. That's a known fact, so there is no cognitive dissonance. You dpn't know what you're talking about

Re: Stupid (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42364373)

Not for nothing, but I like to dip my balls in applesauce and get my non-gay asian 'friend', Sam Sung, to pay good attention to them. Merry Christmas!

Re:Stupid (1)

easyTree (1042254) | about 2 years ago | (#42366025)

Yet you don't see the apple fans talking about THAT now, Do you ?

They're too busy licking their phones or queuing to buy a <Phone-they-just-bought-three-weeks-ago-for-two-and-a-half-times-the-actual-market-worth-which-was-already-behind-the-curve-when-they-bought-it>S

Re:Stupid (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42364077)

[citation needed]

Re:Stupid (1)

harperska (1376103) | about 2 years ago | (#42364225)

Personally, I don't think FRAND goes far enough, because it just leads to squabbling about what is "fair" and "reasonable". Obviously, the party who owns the patent and the party who wants to make a new standards compliant device will disagree as to how much is fair. From the perspective of the new entrant, the patent owner may have fleeced all previous licensees with regards to the "F" and the "R" in order to maintain a higher across-the-board licencing rate under the guise of "ND". Of course, from the perspective of the patent owner, this is not the case at all.

So in my opinion to avoid this sort of thing in the future, if a patented technology is to be included in a standards-body ratified standard, the patent in question should be made royalty-free. You have to choose: either you can keep your invention to yourself, you can license your invention to others for a fee, or you can have your invention included in an industry standard. But you can't have your cake and eat it too. I don't care if it's Samsung, Apple, Nokia, or whoever, nobody should be able to hold an industry ransom over a feature required by all participants in that industry, even for a "fair and reasonable" amount.

Re:Stupid (4, Interesting)

Intropy (2009018) | about 2 years ago | (#42364531)

I wouldn't go that far. It's good to encourage companies to contribute to standards so that we actually do get standards and not every company for itself. But I think it would be a good idea for open licensing terms to be part of any standards submission. So Samsung can suggest patented tech X as a standard, but that needs to come along with a statement that X will be licensed for 3 cents per device to anyone who wants to use it. The license should cover all reasonably foreseeable use cases, and any that come up later get decided by the standards body. Nothing would stop Samsung from also offering a different license agreement to anyone, but the standard one would always also be on the table.

Re:Stupid (1)

cheesybagel (670288) | about 2 years ago | (#42365589)

Great. Why doesn't Apple make their MPEG-4 patents royalty free as well then?

Re:Stupid (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42365831)

There were times when FRAND meant RAND-Z. And F stood for Free.

Re:Stupid (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42367169)

The ND part makes the rest easy for the court. Find out what everyone else paid and you can arbitrate a price quite easily. You could even likely determine the price for whether or not a cross-license agreement is included.

Re:Stupid (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42364231)

Apple tried to lowball the licensing at less than a quarter of the rate others were paying.

I think that's pretty shrewd. I suppose you would have offered twice what others were paying.

Re:Stupid (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42364745)

You don't understand FRAND. Apple wanted to use FRAND patents without agreeing to established FRAND pricing and non-discriminatory rates. FRAND: Fair, Rasonable, And Non-Discriminatory.

Not to mention that Apple was a late adopter in joining FRAND, so everyone else bore the burden of developing and deploying the tech and infrastructure to make the telecom FRAND patents useful. They should pay the same rate as everyone else.

Re:Stupid (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42365457)

You don't understand FRAND. Apple wanted to use FRAND patents without agreeing to established FRAND pricing and non-discriminatory rates. FRAND: Fair, Rasonable, And Non-Discriminatory.

[citation needed]

Re:Stupid (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42365623)

Apple tried to lowball the licensing at less than a quarter of the rate others were paying. Of course Samsung is going to say No to Apple.

Talk about stupid. You are pathetically uninformed. Fortunately I do not go to Slashdot to get any useful commentary about licensing.

Re:Stupid (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42366599)

Where do you go, Florian?

good (-1, Troll)

Lawrence61 (868933) | about 2 years ago | (#42364003)

SamDung is a maker of cheap plastic imitations of phones.

Huh? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42364011)

Pot, have you met Kettle?

Re:Huh? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42364109)

Trope, have you met cliche?

Dear Slashdot... (0, Flamebait)

yurik (160101) | about 2 years ago | (#42364073)

Dear Slashdot,

I am very confused. Should I love Apple or hate Apple? Should I feel sorry or angry about Samsung?

I am a simple individual, without many thoughts of my own, and I need guidance. When you say Apple's patent that got them $1 billion from Samsung is a bad thingtm and got invalidated [slashdot.org] - everyone seem to rejoice. Now you claim EU, which we all thought protected us from all the evils, is suing Samsung. Please please please, just say how we are suppose to feel towards these two behemoth.

Sincerely,
a humble little me.

Re:Dear Slashdot... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42364187)

You should hate Apple for their legal team, but appreciate that they pushed high-res displays onto phones.

You should be concerned with Samsung's behavior, but appreciate that they manufacture a lot of cool stuff, including those high-res displays than now appear on Apple phones.

Re:Dear Slashdot... (1)

fredprado (2569351) | about 2 years ago | (#42364299)

Let me make it simple for you. Anything that hurts the bully is a good thing. The bully getting away with being bully is not. So basically when you see Apple being screwed you should rejoice. You are free to hate or like the others though. Hope this helps.

Re:Dear Slashdot... (1)

harperska (1376103) | about 2 years ago | (#42364465)

Let me make it even simpler. Anything that hurts a bully is a good thing, so whenever a company that makes over a few billion in revenue gets screwed, whether it's Apple, Samsung, Microsoft, Google, etc. you should rejoice. You don't think any of them got to their dominant position by being nice guys, especially the Korean Chaebol and the privacy invading ad company, do you?

Re:Dear Slashdot... (1)

yurik (160101) | about 2 years ago | (#42364795)

Its funny how a comment that was meant as a joke got flagged as flamebait. Guess my sarcasm and jokes are not ./ friendly :(

Re:Dear Slashdot... (1)

fredprado (2569351) | about 2 years ago | (#42366091)

Poe's Law...

Re:Dear Slashdot... (1)

Nerdfest (867930) | about 2 years ago | (#42364815)

There's nothing wrong with making money. Personally, I think you should rejoice when a company, big or small, gets screwed over after being anti-competitive, or anti-consumer. Of course, I don't think people should give these companies money either.

Re:Dear Slashdot... (1)

fredprado (2569351) | about 2 years ago | (#42365129)

You are free to hate (or not hate) anyone you like, for having money or whatever. That is your pleasure. Completely optional.

Your only obligation is to hate Apple, because it is that bad.

Re:Dear Slashdot... (1)

ahabswhale (1189519) | about 2 years ago | (#42378055)

Your hate is completely misplaced. Don't hate Apple (or anyone else) for enforcing their patents. Hate the patent system if you don't like it. Keep in mind that the patent system requires Apple to protect their patents or risk losing them.

bwahahaha (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42364155)

Laugh not directed at Samsung but at all the retards in the previous /. story about Samsung dropping EU FRAND injunctions against Apple. Notice your koolaid tastes like Korean piss?

The EU is so screwed (0)

spongman (182339) | about 2 years ago | (#42364251)

So now monopoly powers are now granted solely according to the will of unelected officials? Let me know how that works out for you guys...

EU knowledge test (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42369837)

Ignorance level: British or American.

Is this a hardware patent? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42364393)

If so, then I want to see all the software patent banning advocates on this one too. Hardware and software are interchangeable in today's technology (software can be codified in hardware, hardware can be virtualized on software). There is NO difference between them. If you want to ban one, then be consistent on the other.

AAPL HAS AN EU IN ITS POCKET !! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42364519)

With open arms Darmok declare !!

Great (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42364541)

Let's grant companies monopolies on essential technologies!

Oh no, some companies have monopolies on essential technologies! We must regulate them!

Play by the rules, you won't get burned (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42364663)

You might disagree with the way the business world works--as I know many of the ignoramuses on slashdot do--but Apple is the only company in this whole new-age-of-computing fracas that has been playing by the rules.
Stick it to Samsung, EU.

Re:Play by the rules, you won't get burned (1, Informative)

moronoxyd (1000371) | about 2 years ago | (#42365401)

You might disagree with the way the business world works--as I know many of the ignoramuses on slashdot do--but Apple is the only company in this whole new-age-of-computing fracas that has been playing by the rules.

Like not paying license fees for patents of other companies?
Yeah, Apple is soooo innocent...

Re:Play by the rules, you won't get burned (1, Redundant)

easyTree (1042254) | about 2 years ago | (#42366139)

Apple are playing by rule from the Big Book of Business:
* Rule 73b clause ii) Doubly-maximize profits by selling your shiny-yet-behind-the-curve-when-sold product to retards for 2.5 actual market worth whilst simultaneously obtaining the hardware at such low costs that the supplier *literally* enslaves its 'workers' to meet demand to the extent that they are jumping to their deaths to escape.

EU has it totally wrong... (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42365743)

Samsung isn't attempting to bar them from using a patent. They are attempting to bar them from using it without paying for it.
There's a difference.

Apple stole the rounded corner rectangular design.
Apple stole the bounce-back idea.
Apple stole the pinch idea.
Apple has stolen everything that people think makes Apple great.

Apple has stolen Samsung's technology, then sued Samsung for using the same ideas that Apple stole, so Samsung is pushing back to keep Apple from stealing ideas that Samsung developed (yes, Samsung really made something rather than stealing it like Apple does).

Hopefully the EU will get their heads out of their collective asses and start thinking straight...

Re:EU has it totally wrong... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42366093)

Law is an ass. And you know what, it works as intended.

Re:EU has it totally wrong... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42366169)

Or maybe they've been bribed like everyone else?

Great (0, Redundant)

TheSpoom (715771) | about 2 years ago | (#42365935)

The Commission sent a 'statement of objections' to the South Korean group, with its preliminary view that Samsung was not acting fairly.

Samsung then wiped their asses with it and sent it back.

Samsung On Its Knees (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42369855)

In other news Samsung suddenly lost their largest and most profitable market (Europe). Oops.

(You're an idiot).

YAWN! (1)

Crypto Gnome (651401) | about 2 years ago | (#42367339)

This article was brought to you by The Department Of The Blindingly Obvious!

Those of us who have been paying attention know PERFECTLY WELL that this is what patents are for (ie in practice, not "in theory").

More often that not a patent is put to one of three uses:

(1) None at all
(2) Used to Bludgeon competitors
(3) Saved for a rainy-day then sold to the highest bidder (who immediately implement Option #2)

Pretty much NOBODY uses a patent by developing a product using such technicalities and should a competitor wish to use the same merely requiring a license at Fair And Reasonable terms.
Check for New Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?