Slashdot Mirror
Apple and Samsung Agree To Settlement Talks
tlhIngan writes "It looks like the Apple v. Samsung war might be over soon. Both parties have agreed to meet to attempt to reach a settlement. While they are not required to settle (Google and Oracle recently went through the same process), it could be a positive signal that Apple might be willing to license the patents under Tim Cook, versus fight it out in court under the late Steve Jobs."
Return of the King aside, the dead usually don't put up much of a fight.
I think someone forgot to take their meds this morning.
Flexible bare-metal recovery for Linux/UNIX
I still cannot understand why very technical inventions (such as 3G and GSM) can only be licensed under FRAND conditions, but fluff like 'slide to unlock' (have that in my toilet) or rounded corner ("they are everywhere!") yield massive license income.. I would really love to see this before a judge so we can finally get this mess cleaned up for good.
I hope that this is a sign that saner heads are starting to prevail now that they no longer have an ego-maniac at the helm. Steve Jobs definitely had a very good sense of aesthetics and industrial design, which led to excellent products and services. But by all accounts he was, to put it mildly, an asshole.
I really hope that under the current leadership, Apple will start learning to play more nicely with others without sacrificing the aspects that brought them to the point they're at now.
It always struck me as really weird how Samsung was a major supplier for parts for Apple products AND the target of lawsuits by them.
It just seems terribly terribly inefficient. Instead of haggling over an agreement to a suit, just haggle over the cost of the parts.
Sort of like Samsung saying "how about we do away with this lawsuit and just discount price of the massive amount of memory you're buying from us?"
The court ordered them to talk and try to reach an agreement; something a judge can do. However, that does not mean they have to settle. Since it is both CEOs and senior council at the talks, you'd think they could reach an agreement. Cook seems like a rational person, and I assume the head of Samsung is as well. My guess is some sort of cross licensing deal with maybe an agreement to keep talking to avoid food fights in the future. This is a classic case of both sides needing the other and to try to find a way to put away the gun they've pointed at each others head without losing face.
I'm a consultant - I convert gibberish into cash-flow.
I will be happy to see this situation come to a close. Would like it better if the whole patent system were reworked, but I will take a small amount of progress any day. It's a bad thing that corporations use bludgeons because if you don't you get beaten down. Restore some sanity in the process, please!
I believe that Samsung did try at one point to show that the "design features" of the iPad were actually obvious engineering features and so design patents were not applicable.
From scarped cliff or quarried stone she cries "A thousand types are gone, I care for nothing, no not one."
is a SUE-ANCE!
Confirms that Steve Jobs was an asshole.
Business as usual.
Amazing.
it could be a positive signal that Apple might be willing to license the patents under Tim Cook, versus fight it out in court under the late Steve Jobs.
Or it could be a sign that Apple realized they're fighting a losing battle so they're trying to salvage what little they can keep.
What do I know, I'm just an idiot, right?
Nobody forced anybody to license anything under FRAND conditions. The patent holders voluntarily committed them to FRAND licensing in order to get them included within a standard. That's how standards work. By the way, FRAND doesn't mean "free" as you seem to believe, some of those companies make a lot of money off of their FRAND patents. It means that you can't charge Apple more than you charge Toshiba--which is exactly what Motorola was trying to do.
Also, design patents != standard patents. Nobody is claiming that rounded corners is some kind of technical invention, that isn't the purpose of design patents--they are *by definition* aesthetic. They exist so that a competitor can't make a look-alike replica of your product and then sell it to confused customers--which is exactly what Samsung was trying to do.
All that said, I think Apple overstates their case sometimes by assuming every feature on another phone which is similar to an iPhone was copied from the iPhone. Sometimes there is a simpler explanation, like two people trying to solve the same problem came up with a similar answer, or the feature actually existed in an earlier product.
Intellectual property litigation attorneys weep
Apple offered settlement deals to both Samsung *and* Motorala before enteringlitigation. Yes, even with Steve Jobs at the helm.
Perhaps you ought to check your facts before speaking ill of the dead.
That's sweet. I heard both sides agreed to hug when the urge to file a motion arises. Samsung will get a custom plushie of Steve Jobs and Tim Cook gets a pony. Pffft! What is this namby pamby crap? I want my corporations FIGHTING! Fight, you pansies! Cook, take those damn chakrams back out of your briefcase and forge you some whoop ass! FINISH THEM!
Just because they have to sit down and talk doesn't mean they will arrive at any agreements. What it does mean is that they will likely help to narrow down a variety of issue such as what is mutually agreed upon and what is mutually disputed. As we saw in the Oracle vs Google situation, they also went into talks. What they ended up with was some narrowing down of things. There was no way Google was going to agree to give anything to Oracle.
I still see much potential to the idea that Apple vs Samsung vs Apple will help usher in the patent apocalypse we've all been waiting for.
..to say fuck the world and do what you think is best/right/beautiful/elegant/etc.
My God can beat up your God. Just kidding...don't take offense. I know there's no God.
You seem to believe standards work by several companies contributing patents to a pool and then those companies are the only ones who get to build to the standard. That is *not* how they work, and frankly that is a pretty stupid guess as to how they work.
Companies contribute patents to a pool as a condition of making that technology part of the standard under requirements to FRAND that technology for any and all who want to implement that standard (whether those future companies contributed to the pool or not). Companies then set licensing costs for everyone who wants to implement the standard--those costs have to be FAIR, REASONABLE, and NON-DISCRIMINATORY. Some companies choose to pay the licensing costs with a fair trade of intellectual property, others pay in cash.
Apple purchased chips from Qualcomm. Qualcomm paid those licensing costs, so Apple felt like they shouldn't have to pay the licensing costs twice--they considered their debt paid.
Meanwhile, Motorola (and others) approached Apple and said that they wouldn't accept cash from them anyway as payment for the FRAND technology, they would only accept in exchange Apple's non-FRAND patent portfolio--presumably so that they could make literal copies of iPhones.
I'm not a lawyer, but frankly I see Apple's side of this one.
that's the whole frickin point. That's what 'non-discriminatory' means.
Idiot.
Like it or not, that's how the world works. You can't make a contour bottle that looks exactly like Coca-Cola's bottle, with a similar color scheme and the name Cola-Cola, and then sell it. Why not? because of design patents.
There is no such thing as 'patent-pool' pricing. There is no difference in the licensing price for companies which contributed to a standards patent-pool vs. companies who didn't. That's not why patent-pools exist and you repeating it over and over doesn't make it anymore true. It is pure fiction.
Such a difference is specifically impermissable by the "non-discriminatory" requirement of FRAND, that's what the 'ND' stands for. Look it up.
Apple offered [wsj.com] settlement deals to both Samsung *and* Motorala before enteringlitigation.
Yes, and I'm sure Samsung and Motorola in turn offered settlement deals to Apple before entering litigation.
That is how the legal world works:
"Why don't you give me $20 per device?"
"No. Why don't *you* give *me* $20 per device?"
"See you in court"
The important detail is the terms of the deal that was offered, not the fact that a deal was offered in itself.
No matter how this turns out, Apple have lost.
I will never buy or RECOMMEND another apple product due to their asshatery.
Or rounded corners. No more than Coca Cola corp tried to patent curved glass, or a round top, or the color red. Design patents and trade dress cover the convergence of many aesthetic properties--each one independently wouldn't be unique but when combined in a particular way then they can constitute a design patent infringement. The problem is, in the legal filings, you can't just say "Hey, they made a bottle that looks just like a Coke bottle", you have to say "they combined several elements including a red label, curved bottle, beveled shape, round top, etc." Just like Apple had to list "rounded corners, black surface, etc. etc.". Of course, the smug tiny little brains on slashdot see that and say "Apple tried to patent rounded corners!!!!!"
By the way, in my example I didn't say the bottle would be called Coca Cola (that would be a trademark violation regardless of a design patent), I said "Cola Cola", but your brain pattern matched and turned that into "Coca Cola". Isn't it funny how that works?
But what they won't do is accept the same amount of money from Apple that they would from Qualcomm. Do you honestly think that if this was a matter of a couple of bucks per phone (like what they charge everyone else) that Apple wouldn't happily pay? Apple is a $500B corporation.
No, the stumbling blocks were (a) Apple felt like Qualcomm's license should extend to them, that's for the courts to decide, and (b) Moto wanted Apple's non-FRAND patent portfolio in exchange so they could make Motorola iPhones.