Slashdot Mirror
Apple Says Samsung 3G Patents Violate RAND Requirements
judgecorp writes "The patent dispute between Samsung and Apple has finally boiled down to clear understandable terms. Samsung says Apple has not been paying it royalties for use of patented 3G technology. Apple says Samsung smuggled that technology into the 3G standards, disclosing its IP demands later. The Dutch court will rule on 14 October."
The issue at hand now seems to be whether Apple already has a license to the patents under the 3G "Reasonable and Non-Discriminatory" requirements for patented technology used in the standard. If Samsung really believes Apple needs a separate license, when can we expect them to sue everyone else?
Why would they sue anyone else? Apple attacked them, they're countersuing. They're under no obligation to sue anyone else and from their history there's no reason to assume they will.
...who wants to block sales of a device because it has rounded corners.
The tab ultimately got temporarily banned because of the gallery application: It is not allowed to display thumbnails, that when tapped are displayed fullscreen, where it is then possible to scroll horizontally to the next/previous.
My point is: Apple is a hypocrite.
Yes, I know there is no way around RAND patents and that there IS a way around rounded corners, but it's equally absurd.
"Apple says Samsung smuggled that technology into the 3G standards, disclosing its IP demands later."
Where have I heard that one before?
Are they hoping that, should Samsung fall, all the other Android phone manufacturers will immediately settle?
Apple tried to differentiate their product through litigation and they believed their own press that they were the baddest bully on the block.
They've forgotten their own history that every time they try to litigate something HUGE, they lose and they lose a big chuck of what legal protections they have.
For example, think of the look-and-feel suit against Microsoft many years ago. Apple thought they were the big bully, and Microsoft beat them like a drum.
Apple should concentrate more on getting the iPhone 5 out and less on worrying about Samsung selling a tablet in Europe.
Replies to this thread will be based on the type of phone in your pocket. The OP has an iphone.
Here is a comment I already made on another web site about this issue:
There is something that many people seem to be missing about FRAND patents. While the terms of FRAND licensing agreements are rarely released, it is widely believed that companies that license their patents through FRAND usually require a cross-licensing agreement with the licensee. This makes sense: why should you be forced to allow other companies to license your hard-earned technologies for a relatively low price only to allow those companies to come back and sue the dick off of you? Requiring a cross-license agreement from all licensees sounds extremely Fair, Reasonable, and Non-Discriminatory to me.
However, it is also widely believed that Apple wants to license the FRAND patents WITHOUT allowing other companies to cross-license Apple's patents. This belief was bolstered by the fact that the only term of Apple's settlement agreement with Nokia over FRAND patents that was released to the public was the fact that Nokia relented and allowed Apple to license their FRAND patents without a cross-licensing agreement. This made sense in that particular case because most of Apple's patents in the mobile arena are software patents related to elements of iOS. Since Nokia is moving towards WP7 and Microsoft already has a cross-licensing agreement with Apple and indemnifies all hardware manufacturers of WP7, it didn't make sense for Nokia to continue an expensive protracted legal battle with Apple over something that was quickly becoming irrelevant. However, Samsung is in a completely different position from Nokia and they aren't going to give in nearly as easily. Game on!
(posting AC because I'm at work...)
I'll be very curious to see how the hordes of Apple haters/Samsung cheerleaders spin this as anything even vaguely good. If Samsung successfully strongarms more money out of Apple for F/RAND patents, then the _ENTIRE INDUSTRY_ will be at danger of the same thing which is 100% counter to the core concept of F/RAND patents in industry standard technologies. You may hate Apple (as seems so popular on /. lately); you may hate that they're defending their IP rights (or disagree that they should have been given the right to protect those IP rights to begin with); you may think a lot of things, but I think only a fool would think that Samsung being successful in this effort is a good thing.
That's it. I really don't have anything else to say.
I don't respond to AC's.
Samsung is being treating everyone who ISN'T suing them in the same non-discriminatory manner.
d
all language nazi's will burne in heil!
FRAND exists to enable industry standards. Companies agree to subject a subset of their intellectual property to FRAND in order to make that technology part of a standard--those companies get money from licensing fees for those technologies from other manufacturers (who *must* use that technology in order to implement the standard). Some of the licensees might choose to sign cross-licensing agreements in lieu of some of that money, just like they might choose to pay in frequent flyer miles or beer.
Having some technology included in a telecommunications standard (like GSM/LTE/etc.) doesn't somehow give you free license to every other piece of intellectual property from every licensee. Put simply, owning the patent on some nuance of GSM shouldn't give Samsung the right to make nearly identical copies of iPads. That's not how the system works or has ever worked for anyone ever in the history of mankind ever. It is clearly stupid and if the situation was reversed then you would be screaming bloody murder.
But the situation isn't reversed, because Apple owns technology on multiple standards (firewire, thunderbolt, etc.), you never see them insisting on cross-licensing in order for someone to implement those standards.
Perhaps you shouldn't hang out on a tech website?
> Apple just re-release stuff with Apple logos and claim they invented it
What they hell are you talking about?
>> If Samsung really believes Apple needs a separate license, when can we expect them to sue everyone else?
I doubt it. I think it's a tax specifically reserved for those who abuse patents. Win or lose, this should give Apple some pause the next time they feel like using patents to prevent fair competition.
Bonus for us - it ties up a portion of Apple's lawyers, who would undoubtedly be working on attacks against other small players.
With the community design in the EU there will be only one maker of any particular shape of thing. Only Apple iPads unless it isn't a tablet. Everyone will be robbed of stylish clothing because there will be only one maker of each shirt, pant, dress, skirt, blouse, gown, etc. The fashion industry will come crashing down. Furniture makers will have only one design of each piece of furniture because someone else will already have all other possible designs protected. Books and book covers. Cutlery. Plates. Everything you can think of will have only one design from one maker. People will stop buying because there won't be any choice. This law is a suicide pill for an economy. It's patently absurd.
Is the fact apple lied to a German court and submitted doctored images to keep the galaxy S off store shelves. So now Samsung decided to play the court game to and Apple is now crying foul of the rules they used in the game.
I believe it was a challenge to the commentors
on Slashdot to prove that their stated convictions are consistent and non-biased.
"I like to lick butts!" by MobileTatsu-NJG (#32700246) (Score:5, Informative)
Even patent trolls start out with one victim... If they took on everyone they would face a mass of lawyers and use up a lot of resources fighting many adversaries at once. If they sue one large corporation and prevail, the next victim is more likely to settle... I'm not saying Samsung is a troll, but if they do only sue ONE infringer I think it might hurt them in court... you either defend you IP or you don't. Then again they could sell licenses cheap the the corporations they choose not to sue.
You have the right to remain sentient. If you give up the right to remain sentient, you will be elected to public office
The words Free, Reasonable, Non-Discriminatory oblige them to not single out Apple for any reason, especially one so vindictive as a countersuit.
Apple is suing Samsung for copying their designs. There are many designs and Apple has chosen theirs, most other tablet makers have also chosen their own. Samsung, however, has decided against that and chosen to use Apple's. Violating their FRAND obligations is not a valid defense on Samsung's part. Coming up with their own designs is.
What if those terms include things like "you must assign to me all revenue you make from selling anything with a fruit-based logo on it"? Motorola and Nokia will happily agree because the cost to them for that term is $0, for Apple the cost is $100 Billion. Are those FRAND terms?
Nope? what's the difference?
Samsung may have signed some cross-licensing agreements with other companies for IP reasonably valued at millions, and now they want Apple to hand over IP reasonably valued at billions--that's not non-discriminatory.
Idiot.
Does that agreement even apply to Apple?
Often FRAND only applies to those who are part of the standard body when the standard was made.
The very idea of "using patents defensively" is one of the greatest illustations of how evil the current patent regime has become.
Likewise, the GNU project developed copyleft as a way of using copyrights defensively because RMS considered copyrights in computer programs evil. It's just a lot easier to avoid infringing a copyright than a patent because unlike patent infringement, copyright infringement requires having had access to the plaintiff's work.
> when can we expect them to sue everyone else?
This seems like FUD to me. Samsung and Apple are in a deathlock. It doesn't matter who started it. Samsung may well sue the hell outta everyone in existence, but until they go after, say, HTC, my money is that they're holding onto the patent for defensive purposes. In other words, there's no special reason to assume Samsung is going to go after other manufacturers until, well, they do. If I'm wrong, lawyers will get a little richer.
Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
You can only design register things that have no function and are not needed for compatibility. The German case has to be based on design features that are not a necessary part of a tablet. In fact, Apple will need to prove that their design features add no value beyond aesthetics.
From scarped cliff or quarried stone she cries "A thousand types are gone, I care for nothing, no not one."
Take the garment industry. For generations designers have come out with new designs each season and the mass market copies these new styles. The designer still makes her money on the real thing and the mass market producers satisfy demand for the style. Without the mass market producers making new styles available to the masses, new styles can't become popular. If new styles don't become popular the rich won't wear them either so the designers will lose their customers also. In the garment industry, protecting rights to designs hurts everyone including the designer. Not protecting designs keeps a healthy garment industry constantly renewing itself. When there is too much protection in the market place, no one can sell anything. The EU has opened that door and law suits are about the flood through it. Everyone will be protecting whatever they make and trying to stop everyone else from making the same thing. Everyone will be suing everyone else and the market place will come to a complete stand still. It is starting in electronics with phones and tablets but will quickly move to fashion and every other portion of the market. It won't take long, it just takes one company to start doing it and everyone will have no choice but to follow.
For others it's like pirate code, more of a guide line. Apples claim that Samsung injected its patents into standards is ridiculous. That's what all members of standard organizations do and that's why members have agreed heed by FRAND.
The words Free, Reasonable, Non-Discriminatory oblige them to not single out Apple for any reason, especially one so vindictive as a countersuit.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair,_reasonable,_and_non-discriminatory_terms
Its FAIR, not FREE. As in a FAIR price, offered to anyone who wants to license it.
If you don't pay, you can still be sued.
"You want to know how to help your kids? Leave them the fuck alone." -George Carlin
It was a registered design that Apple filed in 1994 and has a little more to it than a shape. Not saying it is a good idea.
Using a FRAND patent defensively is discrimination and I believe a fraud against the standards body.
The words Free, Reasonable, Non-Discriminatory oblige
There is no word "Free" in FRAND - "F" stands for "Fair".
Fair doesn't mean free. Unless Samsung is asking more from Apple than from others who license the patent from them, it's perfectly fair.
Do you think Samsung is saying, "hey, we got $10M worth of IP in exchange for this license from other licensees--please give us $10M or the equivalent"? Because that's not what is happening.
Samsung is asking for IP which Apple values in the billions (i.e., the rights to make iPad copies) in exchange for a license to technology which Samsung previously agreed to offer under F/RAND terms as part of an industry standard, Apple wants to pay the same in absolute value as the other licensees.
and that places the value of Apple's products in the billions. It doesn't matter if you disagree.
Here's a question, yes or no. Should Samsung be allowed to make literal copies of Apple products in exchange for Apple licensing technology built into an industry standard?
It doesn't matter who started it
Like hell it doesn't matter. I think we all know that if it were not for Apple's shameful patent trolling, Samsung would not be taking legal action.
> Even patent trolls start out with one victim
Oh please. Apple is no "victim."
Apple is a scummy patent troll, and I hope they sued out of business.
Its FAIR, not FREE. As in a FAIR price, offered to anyone who wants to license it. If you don't pay, you can still be sued.
The difference is Apple and all the other players license their RAND patents, those the submitted as standards in a non-discriminatory way. Everyone pays about the same fee for use. Nokia is saying Apple can't pay that same fee because Nokia refuses to grant the license under non-discriminatory terms. Instead Nokia told Apple they had to give up their own patents in order to get the same license as everyone else.
Uhhh I dunno. Isn't Apple and Lodsys the ones suing everyone else too? I mean seriously. This Apple can do no wrong attitude is really sickening. I don't see Samsung suing HTC, Motorola, etc.
Why would they sue anyone else? Apple attacked them, they're countersuing. They're under no obligation to sue anyone else and from their history there's no reason to assume they will.
Actually, they do have a long history of suing people and companies that didn't sue them.
Fandroids hate facts.
Of course it does - the reason it exists is to facilitate useful standards. What's the point of a standard if one company can dictate its use? This is why things like GSM and 3G that are required for a standard communication system have RAND terms applied to them - so that if a company wants to put forward a patented tech for the standard, they can't do so for anti-competitve reasons; everyone who wants to build a cellphone that works on the GSM system pays the same amount to use the patents that went into the GSM spec.
In this case, anyone who wants to build a device with 3G capability has to pay the same amount of money (or equivalent if cross licensing) as anyone else. If Samsung are claiming that *only* Apple are not covered by the 3G RAND licensing that they have already paid, then they are not playing by the RAND rules. In other words, if they are arguing that the patent in question that they are accusing Apple of violating is a necessary part of the 3G standard and that the current RAND agreement for 3G patents doesn't cover it then everyone else who makes a 3G compatible device is also not covered so Samsung would be obligated to either sue (or negotiate) with all of them to pay the same price or agree that it was already covered under the licenses already paid for.
When it applies to a standard like this, the terms apply to all of the players involved. If Bob Smith decides to make a cellphone, he pays the same as Apple, HTC, Microsoft, Sony etc for the right to use the GSM/3G standard.
Samsung can't selectively enforce a patent with a single party and simultaneously claim that patent is a part of a standard covered under RAND terms - it's either not an essential part of the spec, or they have to sue everyone for violating (or settle with everyone for the same amount).
I say we wait for them to do that before accusing them of doing so.
yeah and this and this among others.
Sorry but it's true. This is 100% Apple's fault. I think we all know that Samsung would not have sued Apple, were it not for Apple's shameful patent trolling.
Thieves generally don't sue if they get away with stolen property either.
Jesus was all right but his disciples were thick and ordinary. -John Lennon
Well this was much further ahead in 1994 than the registered drawing that Apple patented.
You're misinformed. Apple must pay more than the other licensees because unlike them, Apple holds no patents relevant to the 3G specification.
The discounted rate only works for contributors of patents to the spec.
Apple owns nothing of value therefore they pay the same as every other non-contributor.
This is exactly what FRAND was designed to enforce but Apple is trying to steal from every phone maker that played a part in establishing the standard.
More than that, they're plain not paying AT ALL, at any rate. That's theft.
Of course it's paying - Apple has a licence to the 3G patents under the RAND terms via Intel.
Why would they need to contribute to a finished standard? The purpose of fixing it as a standard is so that manufacturers can make devices that all interoperate with each other. Just because a particular manufacturer didn't put a patent "into the hat" when the standard was created doesn't mean they can be kept out of the market - that's the entire point of the RAND terms!
Uhhh I dunno. Isn't Apple and Lodsys the ones suing everyone else too? I mean seriously. This Apple can do no wrong attitude is really sickening. I don't see Samsung suing HTC, Motorola, etc. ...YET (ftfy)
I agree many people are in love with Apple for no actually discernible reason. I would like to see Samsung prevail. My point was that IF Samsung prevails over Apple, the other manufacturers are going to want to strike a deal as they would most likely be vulnerable to the same type of suit.
What I'm really sick of is companies (trolls or actual productive establishments) using IP law to make up for a lack of innovation, or a failure to do R&D, or just because of a plain old "buggy whip manufacturer" mentality.
You have the right to remain sentient. If you give up the right to remain sentient, you will be elected to public office
That's not the issue here - the issue is that Samsung seemingly wants to use a FRAND-covered patent selectively.
Apple has already paid to use the 3G patents (they're covered via Intel), so for Samsung to claim that they are in violation of this particular patent (which they themselves claim is essential to 3G) then everyone else is also in violation, and they must also be sued (due to the RAND terms).
Either everyone is in violation, or no one is, or the patent is not an essential part of the 3G spec. One of those three things must be true. It is not possible for Apple *alone* to be in violation - RAND terms (if the patent is essential to 3G) mean that Samsung cannot selectively enforce the patent.
Hate Apple as much as you like, but Samsung is trying to play outside the rules.
Let me put it differently. I didn't know for sure who started it, and it doesn't matter to me personally. But glad to hear Apple might be getting a little payback, rather than Samsung acting the patent troll.
Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
3 companies is hardly "everyone" in Apple's case. And there's a pretty big difference between companies suing based solely on patents they own, and suing based on patents that protect products that they actually make and sell.
Unfortunately, banning the munition as you describe would have the opposite effect that you desire. It would allow anybody anywhere to outprice, outmarket you before you have a chance to develop the new tech sufficiently. Patents were created for good reasons, despite the fact that they (like much of the legal system) have been messed up. I don't know if change for the better will occur, and I'm not even sure what the better would be in detail, but banning patents would not be better.
It's easier to be a result of the past, but more fun to be a cause of the future! http://www.spacefinancegroup.com/
We were sued at my work over an obviously (to any one familiar with the problem and technology) junk patent about something that we were using in a totally different way than it was even patented for.
The same thing is still used by every major automotive and engine controls system company, so we were sued for interfacing something we purchased from GM to something else from Motorola, (but not by either of those two btw!)
They never had the balls to go after the big boys that actually still make what we used, even through we were not even producing the product that way any more by the time of the lawsuit!
They just pick and choose who they wanna mess with based on estimated ROI.
They abuse the patent system for financial gain. If you don't think blocking all sales of tablets of a competitor over rounded corners is abuse then we're just going to have to disagree. Competition form within the law isn't a problem, it's when they use the law as a weapon when things get messy.
oh... wrong thread..
If what apple says is true, i.e., the patent was inside a standard and later Samsung raised it to claim money, there is precedent that the case will get thrown out. In an earlier case of QCOMM vs BRCM, the Qualcomm patents were disqualified as they were patented prior to the standard and were introduced into the standard without revealing that they have a patent on that topic.
So much hypocrisy in this forum... No, Apple is not going after Samsung just because of the round corners. There are many other tablets with round corners, after which Apple is not going, for some reason. I can't remember ever going to a nearby BestBuy store and thinking "wow, this iPad looks weird..." about something that upon closer inspection turns out to NOT be iPad, until I saw the Galaxy 10.1. Only a blind person will argue that it's not "inspired" to a very high degree by iPad. And if you consider other things Samsung has done (a Galaxy phone power adapter being nearly 100% identical copy of Apple's iPhone adapter, using Apple App Store and Safari icons in its brick and mortar stores being the latest publicized examples) - it does make one wonder what's going on here.
As far as the tablet designs are concerned, isn't that curious that only after the iPad came out all these "there's no other way to make a tablet" arguments begun? Of course there's isn't, now that Apple has shown it! It's how it's always been: right as soon as someone comes up with a brilliant idea - "it's so obvious!" - and yet, nobody came up with that obvious idea before. Curious, isn't it? Yet, Microsoft had some interesting ideas about a tablet design that's nowhere near iPad's (which never realized, I might add). Their recently shown Mango UI is completely different from iPad's. It's weird for me to say so, but Microsoft really did innovate there, instead of going the easy way, as Samsung did.
HP's Touchpad and RIM's Playbook are two other examples - both different from iPad. Both had great potential, but lacked the polish that Apple has put in their iPad and iOS. They both failed, but not because they were bad - they failed because the companies that made them were being lazy.
I love my iPad. But I also LOVED both the Playbook and the Touchpad, and was considering buying one of them (although couldn't quite make my mind up which one :) ). I was leaning more towards the Playbook, being somewhat familiar with the QNX, but it's lack of an email client was a deal breaker for me (as well as pretty poor developer support). And that's one of the reasons it's failing. And HP's decision to abandon the Touchpad was a bummer as well. So both of them failed because of one or another stupid decisions made by the companies that produced them. And neither of them were imilar to the iPad to a degree to which Samsung's Galaxy Tab is.
So we now have at least _three_ different tablet approaches, clearly indicating it's not just about the "round corners". Two of them failed for reasons NOT related much to how they look or work. Another may or may not succeed. And then we have Samsung Galaxy Tab. Not a bad tablet, mind you - in fact the best Android tablet (and I wanna say "the only one worth looking at") by any means. But a copycat nonetheless.
That is the main thing here, the RAND patent "licensing" is mainly for those who developed the cell network technologies, Apple did none of this and wants protection under the same terms, even after they refused to license the patents (like everyone else who wasn't involved). Also, what makes you think that Apple truly developed anything? They brought together several technologies that were new and put them together. Do I develop something new when I build a Lego set into something new? Is it innovation, or just taking the next logical step?
APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
The other manufacturers license the patents in question (HTC) or were part of the development of the technology, and have cooperative cross licensing (Moto)
Apple decided that they should be part of the RAND terms, when they didn't have anything to do with the development of GSM/4G/EVDO/whatever else. RAND was an agreement between the stakeholders and developers of these techs that they wouldn't sue each other, unless first sued by that other, which Apple did...
APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
Such as? Apple doesn't own the patents on GSM, Moto, Samsung, and many others own the patents. RAND was an agreement between those patent holders that they would not sue each other (as it would stifle the adoption of GSM) as long as the were not sued first. Apple broke the RAND agreement, and is now complaining that they are getting smacked down by the same agreement. The whole reason this hornet's nest is happening is that Apple sued Samsung, and over something so dead obvious, that it is pretty much a joke.
APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
Except that the design was in use by Samsung well before Apple, and they are just continuing the design in their phones and tablets that they used in their TVs, Picture frames, Monitors, Etc. Apple wasn't using the design patent before Samsung, which is a requirement to sue on a design patent. Also, the RAND terms specifically have a "you sue me, I sue you" clause, which allows all RAND companies to sue the one who sued one of their members, Apple asked for this, and they will learn that they are new to the cell phone industry, and very very small.
APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
RAND is an agreement that says "I won't sue you for using this technology, as long as you don't sue any of us" (the ones who invented the technology) This whole thing is because Apple sued first, they broke the RAND agreement, and are now getting smacked hard by it.
APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
Perhaps how they lost their licensing was by breaking the terms of the agreement and suing Samsung in the first place. Not all terms of an agreement are financial, some of them are of the don't sue variety too.
APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
Part of the licensing is a no-sue clause. So once Apple started suing everyone under the sun, they lost their non-discriminatory licensing.
APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
No, Apple cannot break that agreement - they are not a signatory to it. The RAND terms that cover the 3G patents apply to corporations that have patents in the standard - Apple does not. Its relationship to the 3G patents is as a licensee, ie, a vendor who makes a device that cannot function without using the RAND-covered patents.
Apple cannot do anything to "break" that agreement other than "not pay", and they have paid.
The summary is misleading, Samsung's patents are not fundamental to 3G, they merely detail technology designed to make more efficient use of it. Lower power, better signal quality, faster etc. Apple used to get a lot of tech from Samsung and it came with a license to use the patents, so when they stopped buying from them they lost the license too.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
Nobody has ever invented anything. Everything is just a refinement or combination of existing technologies.
Seriously, name one invention by any company ever.
You are too stupid to understand what I was trying to explain to you.
IEEE-1394 is a standard which exists with some Apple patents thrown in under FRAND terms. Anyone can build using IEEE-1394 and Apple doesn't insist on reciprocal access to all of the licensees intellectual property as a condition. That's how things are supposed to work.
The agreement is the one they signed saying they would pay X for the rights to use a GSM chip. Not the RAND agreement between the patent holders directly. The agreement they signed includes a no sue clause, therefore when they sued, they became no longer licensed to use the GSM patents.
APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
The GSM patents are separate - the 3G licences are in addition to the GSM ones, since not all cellular devices are 3G.
You'd have to be living under a rock to think Apple never develops anything (BTW, ever heard of Geico? Just wondering).
Rather than chasing after your red herring about RAND, my comment was a response to the accusation of patent troll. The classic patent troll enforces patents for things that they don't manufacturer or have no intent of manufacturing. Hence my facetiousness in the comment. If you choose to think of a troll more generically, then that's up to you, but that's not what I was referencing.
http://www.reddit.com/tb/kr14a
No, of course they aren't copying Apple!