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

FRAND process

[msobkow]

The judge says Samsung didn't go through FRAND negotiations properly. I'm confused by this. Isn't it Apple that refused to negotiate? If so, it would seem Samsung has done their part to come to an agreement, rendering the judgement invalid.

There doesn't appear to be any question of whether Apple infringed the patents or not -- the article clarifies that the patents are for essential technology, which means you can't actually build such devices without infringing the patent.

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.

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

[gabebear]

It was on Slashdot a couple days ago. http://apple.slashdot.org/story/11/09/27/1748236/apple-says-samsung-3g-patents-violate-rand-requirements

Re:FRAND process

[msobkow]

Thanks. Sounds as bad as RAMBUS.

Re:FRAND process

[Anonymous Coward]

What stinks here is regardless of FRAND and negotiations is that one company can get another's products banned based on something utterly arbitrary and which took no amount of effort or imagination to produce (the concept of a rectangle with rounded corners) but that when that company tries to strike back using patents based on actual real solid research that cost real money to come up with and produce in the first place they're told they don't have a case.

There's something very wtf about that, Samsung's patents are based on real R&D, Apple's aren't yet Apple's warrant a ban from the marketplace and Samsungs don't? seriously?

I suspect the real issue here is that Apple is just as good at lobbying and giving backhanders to the right people as it is marketing, and Samsung, not so much.

I just simply struggle to see how this ruling is in any way fair relative to the ruling in Apple's favour, how can their ludicrous patent be upheld but Samsung's real actual patent not?

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.

Re:FRAND process

[Anonymous Coward]

I see this as because Apple, despite catching all the flack from people here and other places, isn't actually doing the evil people are painting it to be. They are going after Samsung directly becuase Samsung had access to exact specifications of the ipad and iphone ( since they were making a considerable number of their parts ) and were a very close business partner. Samsung basically stabbed them in the back. RIM, Dell, HP, Amazon, Sony, Motorola are all companies that genuinely made their own products through their own reaseach and development.

Re:FRAND process

[terminal.dk]

Italy makes lots of designer stuff. Stuff of same or lower value than competing products, but sold solely because how it looks. So it is important for the EU to protect designs.

EU does not recognize software patents.

BTW: Multitouch is a patent that Apple holds. So just prevent all competition from recognizing more than 1 finger would kill the competition.

Samsung is a company that had inside knowledge, producing to Apple, which is why they are in front of the competition.

Re:FRAND process

[UnknowingFool]

Samsung shifted nearly as many Galaxy S II's as Apple did iPhones last quarter, it was something like 16 million S II's vs. 17 million iPhone 4s. That's before you factor in Samsung's other offerings - Android and WP of course.

Er? I'm not sure where you got that information as Samsung just announced they have sold 30million Galaxy S phones total (S and S2 combined not each). The S2 has been available for 5 months and has sold 10 million with S making up the 20 million.

Apple doesn't want this story repeated in the tablet market too, it's hard enough for them to swallow in the phone market.

That premise relies on two things: (1)Your incorrect assertion above and that (2)Apple cares that they sell more smartphones than anyone else. I don't think Apple has really ever cared about having the most sales. They have always seemed concerned about having the best product first and making gads of money second. For instance, Apple might have 5% of the computer market but they are making tons of profit while other makers sell much more volume but make less profit.

Effectively Samsung could at any moment pull the rug out from under Apple - by not just producing a product that's succesful or at least almost so as the iPhone/iPad, but also by deciding to up their rates on production too leaving Apple more limited in it's ability to find a manufacturer for it's products.

Apple has already contracted TSMC to make the A5 which Samsung is the only supplier, the A5. You could say that the phone situation was the whole reason but TSMC offers a 28nm process whereas Samsung will move to a 32nm sometime in the next year. All other parts have multiple sources.

Really though what Apple should do if it wants out of this mess is not resort to suing, but to invest some of those many billions in cash it has lying around in pursuing it's own manufacturing base as a longer term strategy. . . Why pursue this route of a more stable manufacturing base if you can't be sure you're going to be able to produce products people want manufactured on such a scale forcing you to throw that investment down the drain?

Spending money on infrastructure when there is already a stable infrastructure in place? Take for instance, there are many companies that make flash memory. I would estimate that to get into the flash memory business would take 10 billion dollars just for Apple to make something which offers no advantage to their competitors and would cost more. Same thing for displays and plastics. That just doesn't make sense.

It's no coincidence that since Jobs mostly stepped down and Cook took over back in Feb that all we've seen is a half-arsed iPad update, a late and abysmal iPhone refresh, a pretty weak iOS update,

Everyone says that every time we get a new Apple product. The 3GS wasn't a huge improvement over the 3G. It still sold.

Re:FRAND process

[Hazel Bergeron]

Maybe Samsung are just great artists.

Re:FRAND process

[chrb]

Your quote doesn't say anything about a patent pool. There is no single patent pool that you can license that covers the 3G FRAND patents. You have to go to each patent holder individually and arrange a license agreement that covers their FRAND patents. From TFA it appears the judge has found that Samsung's patents should be covered by the FRAND agreement, and has sent them back to the negotiating table. This means that Apple still needs to get a license for those patents. This puts Apple in basically the same situation as they were with Nokia; expect to see a large cash settlement.

Re:FRAND process

[DJRumpy]

Before Apple came along and contracted with Samsung to build the iPhone and iPad pieces, Samsung's phones and pad's looked very different. After apple they are pretty much identical, down to the connectors, the hardware, and even the packaging. Google images on the before and after, even for the packaging. It just looks bad, and smacks of those fake Apple stores being busted up in Japan. Cloning for the sake of consumer confusion.

There is most likely a simple reason Samsung keeps loosing in every country they go to court in; the evidence is pretty damning. Each of the vendors mentioned above manages to make a distinct product that speaks to itself, has it's own flavor, look, and feel from a hardware/packaging perspective, yet Samsung ended up with a clone of Apple's, even going so far as to clone the OS GUI on their earlier smartphones, down to the 'dots' showing that more pages of icons were available, the icon images, etc.

There are also a few hardware patents in there in addition to the suit about copying product design but they never seem to get any play time with everyone so obsessed about that rounded corner nonsense.

Too bad

[aaaaaaargh!]

That's really a pitty---what an injustice! I think that all alleged patent violations should lead to an immediate stop of sales. Moreover, to serve justice, patent laws must be adjusted such that all patent violations have to be investigated and punished, no matter whether the patent holder wants to or not. For the sake of innovation and the protection of "intellectual property rights" all companies that violate any patent must pay hefty fines in the range of millions or billions!

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:spreading ...

[beelsebob]

Unfortunately for them – those suits rely on the exact same patents the dutch ruling was about, given that one court has already said Samsung is the one in the wrong, it's not likely to help them.

Re:spreading ...

[Zironic]

As a rule national courts do not care much about what other national courts rule.

Re:spreading ...

[peted56]

As ever it seems that apple can stop the sale of someone else's product while they fail to negotiate but other companies do not get the same deal, seems a bit cock eyed to me.

Re:spreading ...

[gabebear]

Samsung is claiming to own an international telecommunications standard(and they might)... Samsung could take every 3G capable piece of equipment off the market if this was allowed which is why patent's covering this technology are by law required to be fairly licensed to everyone.

Re:spreading ...

[gnasher719]

samsung should use the same thing against apple to get tab bans lifted, saying that they'd be willing to negotiate for the right to sell a rectangle..

The design case is not about "a rectangle". Apple's design patent is for a long list of design choices, and you need to copy them _all_ to get a tablet that looks like an iPad, and you need to copy them _all_ to get a tablet that Apple can sue you for successfully. If you look at many of Samsung's competitors, they had no problem at all creating tablets with rectangular screens and rounded corners where Apple doesn't have a chance in hell to sue successfully. These companies will also not be able to make customers think "it looks like an iPad, so it must be good". Instead they have to compete with Apple on their own merits, which is what competition is all about.

That said, Samsung can of course claim that they want to negotiate with Apple, and since this design patent is not _essential_ as shown by Sony, Toshiba, RIM, HP and many others, Apple can then just say "we are not selling any licenses" and that finishes the negotiations. Samsung's patents fall under the "essential patents" category so they cannot refuse license negotiations.

Re:spreading ...

[Dragonslicer]

The design case is not about "a rectangle".

Assuming that the design patent that I saw is the one that Apple accused Samsung of infringing (it was linked to on Slashdot, so that's a big assumption, I know), it really was just a rectangle with rounded corners and a screen.

After a quick Google search, I found this one - http://www.scribd.com/doc/61944044/Community-Design-000181607-0001. Of course, that's from Troll-of-the-Century Florian, so keep the grains of salt handy.

All your code are belong to us.

[andydread]

The real story here is that Apple and Microsoft are on a coordinated campaign to own all your code.

The notion that you cannot sit down in front of your computer and write code without needing a massive legal department to go up against the likes of Apple and Microsoft as they come to either ban products based on your code or demand a license from vendors based on your code is chilling to say the least

These companies rose on the backs of others. These companies became successful using ideas of others and writing lots of code that was unchallenged by patents for decades. Now they want to use software-patents to raise the barrier of entry so high that even Samsung is having trouble in the marketplace

The companies are also on a mission to use software-patents to make the use of open source software more expensive than their own.

The fact these companies are using the legal system against open source and free software shows that they can no longer compete in the marketplace based on the merits of their own products.

The sad thing here is that they will win and open source will lose and they will become the gatekeepers to all development in the future. The days of free software innovation are coming to an end.

Re:All your code are belong to us.

[andydread]

Sure. Software-patent on swipe to unlock. They sued Samsung in the Netherlands over this., software patent on scroll bouncing and other effects. Effects that have been around for decades. Software-patent on "a picture viewer that displays thumbnails and when clicked displays the picture in an image viewer" They got an injunction against Samsung in the Netherlands for this. I could go on and on and on but that should be enough.

Now let me break it down for you ok? Software is already protected by copyright. That means that if I write a feature and you write a feature and the features are similar they are protected by copyright. If I copy your code then that is a violation. however if I file a software-patent on what my code does and your code though completely different from mine solves the problem in a similar way then I can then claim ownership of your code by suing the shit out of you until you 1) pay me a license to use/distribute your totally different code or 2) you remove your code from the marketplace. get it?

Re:All your code are belong to us.

[gabebear]

Make sure you include Google and IBM in your list of opponents to free software.

In reality, this legal crap between Apple and Sumsung is how progress is made. What's awesome about the Samsung/Apple cases are they AREN'T SETTLING! Out of court settlements don't move law forward.

Re:All your code are belong to us.

[joh]

Sure. Software-patent on swipe to unlock. They sued Samsung in the Netherlands over this., software patent on scroll bouncing and other effects. Effects that have been around for decades.

Have these really been around for decades? I mean, it looks totally obvious when you see it (which is the point of implementing it this way) but very often what looks totally obvious and the only right way to do it with hindsight is everything else than obvious before that. And if you work hard to come up with great and totally intuitive ways of doing something you're not happy if others just copy it without any effort spent on it. Without protecting it in some way everybody could just copy it and nobody would ever bother to put much effort into coming up with own solutions. You'd get mediocre half-assed solutions all over the place.

Well, maybe this is wrong. But evidence seems to support that view. If you look at copies and ripoffs from China and elsewhere how often do you see products where someone intelligently and carefully picked the best ideas from the products he has stolen from? He should be able to afford this, or not? He doesn't has to pay licenses and can freely chose whatever he wants to copy. But what you invariably see is just badly ripping off from the currently best selling products, nothing else. Small wonder: it's much cheaper, it takes much less effort and it's much faster -- and if there is no protection, being on the market a few weeks earlier than others is imperative.

No, I think we've taken a long time to get us into that mess and we will have to take a long time and careful measures to get out of it again.

I hate to say it, but Mueller has this one right

[JAlexoi]

I hate to say it, but this time I have to agree with Florian Mueller... This decision, on it's own, is a win for the industry. Simply because it reaffirms the fact that you can't use FRAND'ed patents for an injunction.

Re:Nearly right

[andydread]

You're absolutely right with the first part but it is idiotic to assume that it's only MS or Apple

I did not say nor did I assume that they are the only ones running this campaign. They however are running a concerted anti-competitive campaign against open source software and even Microsoft has said that they will do this if they start to lose footing in the marketplace against open source software. They promised this years ago. And even without the honorable mention by Microsoft it is still transparently obvious what they are doing. And well if the big players are OKing this type of software-patent malfeasance then does anyone think the trolls are not going to want to join the party?

Additionally it's very questionable to assume that without patents and copyright and trademarks and so on anyone would bother to put much development efforts into anything.

I was directly referring to software-patents and the use of software-patents to take ownership of other people's code by using aggressive litigation in the marketplace. Microsoft and Apple rose to prominence rarely being threatened by software-patents throughout their early history. And they were both plenty motivated to create successful products back then without filing software-patents. Now they are using the last draw in order to push the software freedom genie back into the proverbial lamp. Software is authored works and is already protected by copyright along with books, music, movies etc. So should books be protected by patents too? If I come up with the idea in a book about wars in space should I be allowed to file a patent on that and go suing everyone that writes a book about wars in space? even if their wars in space story is completely different than mine? Authored works should not be patented and MS and Apple are abusing the patent system in the same ways they hate for it to be abused against them.

Re:I hate to say it, but Mueller has this one righ

[UnknowingFool]

Nothing says Florian can't own multiple accounts. I'm not saying that you're Florian but I find it interesting that you didn't deny it. On the other hand I find it interesting you didn't rape and murder a young girl in 1990. I'm just asking questions that's all.

no.

[unity100]

its because samsung's tablets started to outsell and eclipse ipads in europe.