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.
Are they hoping that, should Samsung fall, all the other Android phone manufacturers will immediately settle?
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!
That's it. I really don't have anything else to say.
I don't respond to AC's.
It's not the same, it's different.
Just because you own IP that's in a standard doesn't necessarily mean that you should have to give up your rights to use it defensively. In this case Apple brought this BS on themselves when they filed that questionable lawsuit that could best be reduced to Samsung's product having a similar shape to the one that Apple sells.
Also, Samsung is only targeting Apple at this time and there is no reason to believe that Samsung won't stop with Apple. Rambus OTOH, went way beyond using the patents as a defensive weapon and targeted more than just one company.
Do you believe it would be better if Apple won?
Don't know something? Look it up. Still don't know? Then ask.
Explain exactly how Samsung using its patent portfolio as defense against Apple's frivolous "rounded rectangle" patents is strongarming more money out of Apple. Apple is the one using the courts to block sales of its competitors products. They had the option of competing with a better product (like everyone else does), instead they are choosing to compete in the courts.
F/RAND stands for Fair, Reasonable and Non-Discriminatory. In this case, it seems pretty fair and reasonable to use an essential technology that Samsung owns to defend against Apple's bullshit.
Of course, that makes me an Apple hater and a Samsung cheerleader, so you can disregard my opinion entirely while you go circle jerk with the "fair" group of people that thinks that look-and-feel patents aren't ridiculous.
--Jeremy
Jesus was a liberal
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.
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.
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."
> 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.
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).