Dutch Court Rejects Samsung Patent Claims Against Apple

angry tapir writes "A judge at the district court in the Hague has rejected claims that Samsung had made against Apple regarding four patents. Samsung wanted Apple to pay for licensing the patents in question, and the court to issue an injunction banning the import and sale of Apple's iPhone 3GS, iPhone 4, iPad, iPad 2, as well as upcoming products, until licensing terms are in place. But the latter won't happen at this point. The ruling came in the in the same week that an Australian court blocked sales of Samsung's Galaxy Tab 10.1."

Comments

Re:FRAND process

[beelsebob]

No, Apple negotiated, and indeed owns a license for the 3G RAND patent pool. Samsung's patent that they're now saying apple doesn't have a license for is required to implement 3G, because of this, they were legally obliged to put it into the patent pool. That's where they failed at negotiating –they didn't disclose the existence of the patent, and tried to submarine the whole 3G standard.

spreading ...

[TESTNOK]

Samsung is not backing down because of that Australian ruling: here's an article that they have now also filed suite against the iPhone 4s in Australia and Japan (following existing cases in France and Italy)

Re:FRAND process

[JAlexoi]

FRAND != patent pool. Those are totally different things.
Since 3G patents aren't actually in a pool, Apple owns no such thing. Remember the issue with Nokia? Same thing.

Re:FRAND process

[msobkow]

From the article:

The patents are standards-essential, which means they are incorporated in internationally accepted technology standards -- in this case 3G. Standards-essential patents are licensed under so-called Fair, Reasonable, and Non-discriminatory (FRAND) terms, which is what Samsung has to offer Apple.

Not that it means the article or the judge were necessarily using the right terminology.