Slashdot Mirror


Samsung Expected To Sue Apple Over iPhone 5 LTE Networking

An anonymous reader writes with this excerpt from Geek.com: "The courtroom battle between Apple and Samsung seems to be far from over, and come tomorrow Apple is in for a major headache as soon as it makes the iPhone 5 official. That's because Samsung is poised to sue the company over patents it owns relating to LTE connectivity the new smartphone is expected to use. All Samsung needs to confirm is that the iPhone 5 is shipping with 4G LTE and it can then apparently set its lawyers into action. As is typical with these patent lawsuits, Samsung will most likely seek an import ban meaning the iPhone 5 may not be able to leave its manufacturing plants and make it to the U.S. to fulfill pre-orders. If such a thing ruling was made, Apple would most likely do a deal that meant it no longer pursued Samsung product bans, and might even forget about that billion dollar payout." Samsung's not the only one hoping to gain some leverage: itwbennett writes, "Apple's iPhone 5 and iPad 3 may violate a pair of patents bought by HTC back in April 2011 that cover methods used in 4G devices for faster downloads. International Trade Commission judge Thomas Pender said it would take 'clear and convincing' evidence to renounce the U.S. patents."

283 comments

  1. Yay!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Yay!! Patents are awesome!!!

    1. Re:Yay!!! by ackthpt · · Score: 4, Funny

      Yay!! Patents are awesome!!!

      I have the patent upon First Posts - you'll hear from my lawyers; Dewey, Skruem & Howe

      --

      A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
    2. Re:Yay!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      I have the patent upon threatening people with lawsuits - you'll hear from my lawyers; Curly, Larry & Moe

    3. Re:Yay!!! by cellocgw · · Score: 4, Funny

      I have the patent upon First Posts - you'll hear from my lawyers; Dewey, Skruem & Howe

      beating the obvious to death: did Mr. Cheathem, Esq. retire, leaving a partnership to Mr. Skruem?

      --
      https://app.box.com/WitthoftResume Code: https://github.com/cellocgw
    4. Re:Yay!!! by Joce640k · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Those who live by the patent, die by the patent.

      --
      No sig today...
    5. Re:Yay!!! by postmortem · · Score: 1

      I have a patent on filling of patents. Thus your patent is invalid.

    6. Re:Yay!!! by Raistlin77 · · Score: 2

      It seems so. I've also heard rumors of Mr. Wen joining the firm.

    7. Re:Yay!!! by Lunix+Nutcase · · Score: 4, Informative

      So then why all the sympathy for Samsung? They have their own history of patent suits long before their current spat with Apple. They have also been part of cartels that have conspired in price fixing on DRAM chips and LCD panels, etc. Samsung is one of the companies least worthy of sympathy right up their with Apple themselves. Samsung has contributed to the patent idiocy and should have no sympathy when it is brought to bear on them.

    8. Re:Yay!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nah, law firms don't need a Mr. Wen, just Mr. Always

    9. Re:Yay!!! by coinreturn · · Score: 1

      So then why all the sympathy for Samsung? They have their own history of patent suits long before their current spat with Apple. They have also been part of cartels that have conspired in price fixing on DRAM chips and LCD panels, etc. Samsung is one of the companies least worthy of sympathy right up their with Apple themselves. Samsung has contributed to the patent idiocy and should have no sympathy when it is brought to bear on them.

      Because Apple are evil! Kill!

    10. Re:Yay!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I have a patent on lawyers.

    11. Re:Yay!!! by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Can you give an example where Samsung has used patents to block competitor's products from being sold on the market before that whole showdown with Apple?

    12. Re:Yay!!! by hairyfeet · · Score: 2

      Probably because of the rounded corners bit, along with Jobs threatening to go nuclear on Android. You don't threaten anything Google around here, even though their company is built on ripping others off from YouTube piracy to wholesale book theft, but since they use Linux internally you aren't allowed to mention that.

      Personally i think ALL these megacorps are spoiled backstabbing little shits and hope the lawyers bleed the whole damned bunch dry. i'll kick back with the popcorn and laugh and laugh as they blow fortunes trying to fuck each other over.

      --
      ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
    13. Re:Yay!!! by The+Grim+Reefer · · Score: 1

      I have the patent upon threatening people with lawsuits

      I have a feeling you're going to go broke trying to defend that one.

    14. Re:Yay!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Sure can would you like more? This one also references Samsung suing Fujitsu as well in 2003. Samsung is just as much complicit in patent madness as anyone else. They are hardly innocent bystanders. There are more that can be found with additional searching.

    15. Re:Yay!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Personally i think ALL these megacorps are spoiled backstabbing little shits and hope the lawyers bleed the whole damned bunch dry. i'll kick back with the popcorn and laugh and laugh as they blow fortunes trying to fuck each other over.

      And they will raise the prices of the products that you buy to cover cleaning up the popcorn mess that you made and to recover from being stabbed. I'm really not understanding how transferring all of our funds to lawyers is a good, funny, or entertaining idea.

    16. Re:Yay!!! by AliasMarlowe · · Score: 1

      I have the patent upon First Posts - you'll hear from my lawyers; Dewey, Skruem & Howe

      beating the obvious to death: did Mr. Cheathem, Esq. retire, leaving a partnership to Mr. Skruem?

      I believe the learned Mr. Ripem succeeded the mild-mannered Mr. Cheathem in that partnership. Mr. Skruem is a member of a different partnership: Dewey, Twistem, Skruem, & Howe.

      --
      Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities. - Voltaire
    17. Re:Yay!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

      Samsung didn't start the fight against Spansion.

      Samsung discloses in the complaint that on November 17, 2008, Spansion filed a complaint with the ITC alleging that Samsung and others import, sell for importation, or sell after importation into the U.S. products that allegedly infringe four of Spansionâ(TM)s patents. Samsung states that the ITC instituted an investigation in response to Spansionâ(TM)s complaint, which is now pending as Inv. No. 337-TA-664. Samsung notes that the investigation was stayed on March 12, 2009, but that the ALJ issued a new procedural schedule on June 30, 2009. See our March 13 and July 1 posts for more information.

      Samsung also discloses in the complaint that on November 17, 2008, Spansion filed a patent infringement suit against Samsung in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware, alleging infringement of six Spansion patents. Samsung states that it filed counterclaims against Spansion in the district court, alleging infringement of the two patents listed in the present section 337 complaint (and three others). The litigation was stayed on March 31, 2009, but the court recently scheduled a status conference for August 11, 2009.

      Samsung didn't start the legal action against Kodak either.

      Thirteen different Kodak models are accused of infringement and Samsung alleges that all of these models are made outside the U.S. Samsung based, in part, its importation allegations on a November 17, 2008 ITC Complaint filed by Kodak that stated that it does not presently manufacture its digital cameras in the U.S. As a result of the Kodak complaint, which named Samsung as a proposed respondent, in addition to LG, the ITC instituted an investigation (337-TA-663 â" Certain Mobile Telephones and Wireless Communication Devices Featuring Digital Cameras, Components Thereof ), which is currently pending at the ITC.

      Samsung tried to reach an agreement with Matsushita before filing a lawsuit.

      Samsung has accused Matsushita's Panasonic subsidiary of violating nine plasma display panel patents it holds, and today filed lawsuits with the US District Court in Los Angeles and Pennsylvania, South Korean news sources report.

      Samsung's PDP division, Samsung SDI, said it had held talks with Matsushita on nine separate occasions during the past 12 months, but was unable to negotiate a deal amenable to both parties.

      Samsung was willing to settle with Fujitsu out of court through cross licensing.

      Both firms have a history of display-related litigation. In 2003, Samsung sued Fujitsu, accusing it of infringing its PDP patents. In April 2004, Fujitsu counter-sued, though the two companies eventually settled out of court by signing a cross-licensing agreement.

      Apple has been far more of a pompous dick than Samsung ever was. They aren't even willing to reach any kind of settlement, unlike Samsung.

    18. Re:Yay!!! by Kartu · · Score: 1, Flamebait

      Besides, note the difference between Samsung's patents and Apple's "rectangle with rounded corner"... PS Mod parent up.

    19. Re:Yay!!! by KDR_11k · · Score: 1

      Maybe that works with necessities but raising the price on luxury goods results in fewer sales.

      --
      Justice is the sheep getting arrested while an impartial judge declares the vote void.
    20. Re:Yay!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I know round corners seems obvious and silly thing to patent, but before the iPhone no one made a phone that looked like that. After iPhone EVERY phone looked like the iPhone.

    21. Re:Yay!!! by SimonTheSoundMan · · Score: 2

      "rectangle with rounded corner" was made up by Samsung and the press never bothered to read the patents in the case. Pure spin and hyperbole on Samsungs part and due to lazy journalism it stuck.

    22. Re:Yay!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So then why all the sympathy for Samsung?

      Samsung unlocked their bootloaders! I can run whatever I want on my hardware. This alone is reason to want Samsung to beat Apple. Your argument is mostly valid though. Samsung should not be "loved" at this point. Just loved more than Apple.

    23. Re:Yay!!! by GeckoX · · Score: 2, Informative

      Before the first car, no one had ever made a car with 4 wheels!
      After the first car though, 4 wheeled cars everywhere!!!

      Besides, that is just BS to start with. Every phone I have ever owned has had rounded corners (I'm talking cells before smartphones came on the scene). And I'm on my 3rd smart phone, none of which have been iPhones, and only one of which could even remotely be considered to have corners rounded even similarly to an iPhone. Even that one could not be confused with an iPhone.

      But that's all beside the point anyways. It's a freaking Phone. It has a screen and maybe some buttons. They all look very similar. Just like every tv I've ever had has looked similar to the rest. And every laptop. And every car. And every ....

      If it's not at least a technically novel patent, it's a fucking retarded patent. Period. Fuck ALL of the patent trolls, may they sue each other into oblivion!

      --
      No Comment.
    24. Re:Yay!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I know round corners seems obvious and silly thing to patent, but before the iPhone no one made a phone that looked like that.

      No one that is, except LG, HTC, Sharp, Toshiba and a little Korean company called Samsung.

    25. Re:Yay!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "rectangle with rounded corner" was made up by Samsung

      Now that's an interesting claim, a shame they didn't bring it up in defense against Apple's design patent of the same.

    26. Re:Yay!!! by Spaseboy · · Score: 1

      I'm not sympathetic to Samsung but Apple employees are so busy rimming each other with delight over the sheer fact they work for Apple, that the smell of shit is such a part of their daily life they have no clue when the service they are giving is shitty.

      I don't know anyone who has a positive experience about going to the Apple store with a problem. Apple is so busy fellating iOS, they have sold the same basic OS to desktop customers 4 times now and no one is calling them on it. I didn't really think an iOS-style launcher was worth paying $29 for nor do I believe waiting an hour after my "appointment" at an Apple Store is acceptable, so I stopped using my mid-2010 Core-i5 MacBook Pro and bought a Samsung Series 7 Slate. Problem Solved

      --
      "I don't want more choice, I just want nicer things!"
      -Jennifer Saunders as Edina Monsoon
  2. Fuck it. by i+kan+reed · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Let's just have an official monopoly on cell phones. Then the government could suppress competition directly and completely, instead of this piecemeal price raising done through patents.

    1. Re:Fuck it. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Time to break out the popcorn and watch some mutual self destruction through the courts.... we will all lose, except for the lawyers.

    2. Re:Fuck it. by NSN+A392-99-964-5927 · · Score: 1

      Let's just have an official monopoly on cell phones. Then the government could suppress competition directly and completely, instead of this piecemeal price raising done through patents.

      Or drone strikes

      --
      All cows eat grass!
    3. Re:Fuck it. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      s/self/assured/, dimwit.

    4. Re:Fuck it. by History's+Coming+To · · Score: 1

      Can anyone recommend a company which doesn't engage in this kind of nonsense on a regular basis? I'd like to be able to buy a phone knowing that I'm not funding innovation suppressing lawsuits and inter-company marketing/distribution battles. This is nothing to do with patents, it's to do with companies threatening the competition and trying to make life difficult for them.

      --
      Please consider this account deleted, I just can't be bothered with the spam anymore.
    5. Re:Fuck it. by Ashenkase · · Score: 2

      Yep, here you go. A little self assembly is required:

      Tin Can Phone

    6. Re:Fuck it. by Lunix+Nutcase · · Score: 5, Insightful

      No, there are no mobile phone companies that don't hold patents and use them either as weapons or as barriers to entry for potentially new competitors, This is why it's silly when people take sides in these fights since neither side is some angelic cmoany. Fanboism overrides logic every time.

    7. Re:Fuck it. by sl4shd0rk · · Score: 1

      Let's just have an official monopoly on cell phones.

      That's precisely why all of this is happening. The outcome of all the litigation will eventually determine who you can legally buy a phone from.

      --
      Join the Slashcott! Feb 10 thru Feb 17!
    8. Re:Fuck it. by nighthawk243 · · Score: 4, Funny

      An extruded geometric shape with non-sharp edges? You're just asking for Apple's lawyers to file a lawsuit against you.

    9. Re:Fuck it. by Dishevel · · Score: 1

      Let's just have an official monopoly on cell phones. Then the government could suppress competition directly and completely, instead of this piecemeal price raising done through patents.

      Or drone strikes

      Or Vagina

      --
      Why is it so hard to only have politicians for a few years, then have them go away?
  3. By all means, bring on the lawsuits. More, more! by Sydin · · Score: 5, Informative

    With any luck, this tangled web of patent wars will go on for so long, and reach such an intensity, that legislatures will finally recognize the problems with current patent laws. If our court system has to be tied up into a knot who's density rivals that of dark matter in order to get the point across, then so be it.

  4. ABM Treaty for Tim Cook by Spy+Handler · · Score: 4, Insightful

    now that Steve Jobs is dead, there is no reason to continue his personal thermonuclear war. Tim Cook should get together with Samsung, Google, HTC et al and sign the equivalent of ABM treaty and cross-license all patents like all normal industries.

    1. Re:ABM Treaty for Tim Cook by Missing.Matter · · Score: 1, Insightful

      now that Steve Jobs is dead, there is no reason to continue his personal thermonuclear war

      Isn't the reason obvious? Apple is not a well-diversified company; they make a small number of shiny gadgets from which they derive the vast majority of their massive profits. Their personal computer division, software sales, and app-store/itunes sales are peanuts by comparison. Android, and Samsung in particular threatens those massive profits. That Tim Cook would not do everything in his power to destroy Android is completely counter to his role as CEO (to ensure those massive profits).

    2. Re:ABM Treaty for Tim Cook by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Wouldn't that just hurt the little guys?

    3. Re:ABM Treaty for Tim Cook by slashmydots · · Score: 2, Insightful

      That's how they've done business for 20 years and Jobs only hired people exactly like him. Every single division in his company is in have a monopoly or act like you do mode.

    4. Re:ABM Treaty for Tim Cook by Githaron · · Score: 4, Informative

      That is why we need major patent reform. The current system seems to favor the big dogs. The little guys can't spend resources defending their patents and the big dogs can use patents to fight each other and squish little guys.

    5. Re:ABM Treaty for Tim Cook by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      That would be horrible and abuse of what the patent system was meant to do. We'd have an oligarchy, the companies would only compete against each other and lock out newcomers. When they have their small eco system why would they invite even more competition?

    6. Re:ABM Treaty for Tim Cook by Sydin · · Score: 1

      Steve Jobs is like a Japanese Emperor. Just because he's dead doesn't mean he isn't still considered the supreme ruler of his domain.

    7. Re:ABM Treaty for Tim Cook by UnknowingFool · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Without iPhone/iPad, Apple would still makes lots of money. Apple would make an estimated $30B in revenue instead of $140B (based on Q3 estimates). Profit margin might be in the 30% range instead of the 40% though.

      --
      Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
    8. Re:ABM Treaty for Tim Cook by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      To apple, everybody else's patents are with $0 and their patents are priceless and not worth licensing at all. Thats their main problem with frand licensing, everybody else dont' pay anything for the patents since they cross license enough to cover it. Apple won't cross license and then think they can get the patents for peanuts, or free.

    9. Re:ABM Treaty for Tim Cook by icebike · · Score: 2

      now that Steve Jobs is dead, there is no reason to continue his personal thermonuclear war. Tim Cook should get together with Samsung, Google, HTC et al and sign the equivalent of ABM treaty and cross-license all patents like all normal industries.

      Tim Cook needs to get his product blocked and his patents invalidated before he will see the light. The Samsung verdict is 90% sure to be overturned on appeal if for no other reason than Jury Misconduct, and the patents Apple relied on were trivial UI features (software patents).

      But as long as Cook's lawyers keep dragging in billion dollar judgements for million dollar expenditures Cook will not stop.

      Maybe if Cook spent the Lawyer money improving the iPhone's user interface the man who's campaign chest he is filling could actually figure out how to use it.

      --
      Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
    10. Re:ABM Treaty for Tim Cook by Missing.Matter · · Score: 1

      Sure, they would still make boatloads of money. But why have one boatload when you could have two boatloads (corporate shareholder logic)? Just imagine the board meeting, where the board points to Android sales skyrocketing, and iPhone sales (and Apple's profits) falling proportionally, then asking Tim Cook what he's doing about it. His answer of "Well, we still make lots of money selling other things, there's enough to go around" isn't going to be particularly compelling.

      Then again Android sales have skyrocketed and Apple's profits haven't fallen... which I think is what you'd expect in a marketplace that is still growing. I think Apple with their lawsuits are anticipating a time when sales are a zero sum game, and any Android sale necessarily means no iPhone sale (which is not the case yet).

    11. Re:ABM Treaty for Tim Cook by goombah99 · · Score: 2, Informative

      Another rational for not cross licensing patents in this case is that Apple's patents are design patents and Samsungs are methods implementations for standards. Design patents are intended to distinguish a product so licensing them makes no sense. Standards are intended to unify operations so licensing their methods for money in non-discriminative ways makes sense.

      --
      Some drink at the fountain of knowledge. Others just gargle.
    12. Re:ABM Treaty for Tim Cook by goombah99 · · Score: 1

      Without iPhone/iPad, Apple would still makes lots of money. Apple would make an estimated $30B in revenue instead of $140B (based on Q3 estimates). Profit margin might be in the 30% range instead of the 40% though.

      Apple's wife has been piling that cash up in a rented foreign storage locker. She can't figure out how to launder it all back to the US to dividend to stock holders without paying taxes on it.

      Maybe apple will realize it has enough money and see the danger of trading patents with Tuco Samsung-manca.

      --
      Some drink at the fountain of knowledge. Others just gargle.
    13. Re:ABM Treaty for Tim Cook by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You probably missed the part where most of patents in those lawsuits are utility patents (mostly on multitouch and gestures, though some are on topics like "search in multiple locations")

    14. Re:ABM Treaty for Tim Cook by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      now that Steve Jobs is dead, there is no reason to continue his personal thermonuclear war

      Isn't the reason obvious? Apple is not a well-diversified company; they make a small number of shiny gadgets from which they derive the vast majority of their massive profits. Their personal computer division, software sales, and app-store/itunes sales are peanuts by comparison. Android, and Samsung in particular threatens those massive profits. That Tim Cook would not do everything in his power to destroy Android is completely counter to his role as CEO (to ensure those massive profits).

      The reason is obvious. The two companies need to get sticking drunk, fall into a night of white hot passion and just fuck each other's brains out. There is some long running tension between those two, and they just need to fess up and get it on. For all our sakes.

    15. Re:ABM Treaty for Tim Cook by medcalf · · Score: 2

      A large part of my parents' retirement is in Apple stock, not by design but because the other stocks they hold are basically worthless. (And before you start calling my parents the 1%, my father was enlisted military, then a GM auto assembler, and my mother was an accountant for the Air Force.) So tell me, why would they accede to a change that would cost them nearly 80% of the largest portion of their available savings for retirement as the stock crashes back to reflect the change in earnings? And why for that matter would any shareholder accept losing 80% of their investment if it could be avoided? The GP is correct.

      --
      -- Two men say they're Jesus. One of them must be wrong. - Dire Straits
    16. Re:ABM Treaty for Tim Cook by DickBreath · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Good luck trying to get an ABM treaty after you've just fired a bunch of nuclear weapons and some of them have even exploded.

      For a long time there was uneasy peace. Nobody was stupid enough to pull the trigger on a full scale patent war. Not even Microsoft. Even dancing monkey boy was willing to merely extort money.

      For mutually assured destruction (MAD) to work, all players have to be rational and sane.

      Enter Apple.

      By Steve Jobs own words, and Apple's continued actions, this won't end until Apple is pounded into the ground and nothing but dust is left.

      I for one will be laughing myself silly once a patent nuclear weapon lands in Apple's back yard. And it will happen. Then we will hear a chorus of whining like nothing ever heard before from the fanboy reality distortion field cult.

      The good thing that will come of it will be to draw attention to the broken patent system and how it is seemingly designed for abuse.

      --

      I'll see your senator, and I'll raise you two judges.
    17. Re:ABM Treaty for Tim Cook by wfolta · · Score: 1, Informative

      You do realize that Steve Jobs himself offered this kind of cross-licensing to Samsung and Samsung refused? They wanted to use their FRAND technology patents to force Apple to give them its design patents. And it looks like Samsung is about to try to use their LTE FRAND patents against the iPhone 5.

    18. Re:ABM Treaty for Tim Cook by DickBreath · · Score: 1

      Like Centauri Emperor Turhan asking the Vorlon "how will this end?"

      Answer: in a permanent injunction.

      --

      I'll see your senator, and I'll raise you two judges.
    19. Re:ABM Treaty for Tim Cook by UnknowingFool · · Score: 1

      (1) Shareholder value is not proportional to revenue. Apple not having the iPad/iPhone would not mean 80% loss of your parent's investment. It would be more because (2) Shareholder value is based on expectation and perception. Before iPad/iPhone, Apple stock was rated as a buy. Between the low point of 1997 and 2007, your parents would have made a lot of money on Apple stock.

      --
      Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
    20. Re:ABM Treaty for Tim Cook by UnknowingFool · · Score: 3, Funny

      The problem is that you think that Apple's sole motive is profit and sales and these lawsuits are about hurting competitors. Apple's belief has been that their competitors are copying them. You can disagree with that assessment or not. I don't think Apple cares if they are the #1 company in terms of size or marketshare. Their primary focus has always been making the best products they can while making profits. MS however has always been concerned with being #1.

      --
      Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
    21. Re:ABM Treaty for Tim Cook by alexo · · Score: 2

      That is why we need major patent reform. The current system seems to favor the big dogs. The little guys can't spend resources defending their patents and the big dogs can use patents to fight each other and squish little guys.

      Be careful of what you wish for.

      The only people in a position to institute a reform are the "big dogs".
      And I highly doubt that the reformed system will be better for the "little guys" in any way.

    22. Re:ABM Treaty for Tim Cook by aristotle-dude · · Score: 2

      You probably missed the part where most of patents in those lawsuits are utility patents (mostly on multitouch and gestures, though some are on topics like "search in multiple locations")

      Right, but you missed the part where even those are not part of established standards. They are utility patents on something that has not been standardized whereas LTE patents are supposed to be licensed under FRAND terms since they are essential for implementing LTE.

      --
      Jesus was a compassionate social conservative who called individuals to sin no more.
    23. Re:ABM Treaty for Tim Cook by Missing.Matter · · Score: 1

      The problem is that you think that Apple's sole motive is profit and sales

      Apple is a corporation, and like all for-profit corporations, they have no motivations other than to make profit. End of story. In fact, if their efforts to "make the best product they can" demonstrably results in a loss of money, or not making as much money as they could have, as a shareholder I could have a claim against them. Not sure what MS has to do with this discussion at all, but they're in the same boat as Apple: make as much money as possible. They are ostensibly more concerned with market-share since their profit model depends on selling many units at low margin rather than few units at high margin. But to claim that one or the other corporation doesn't care about maximizing profits of all other directives is plainly ludicrous.

    24. Re:ABM Treaty for Tim Cook by Dishevel · · Score: 1

      Design patents are intended to distinguish a product so licensing them makes no sense

      While absolutely correct, you should add that since No one has bought a Samsung phone thinking it was an iPhone that suing over the design patents equally makes no sense.

      --
      Why is it so hard to only have politicians for a few years, then have them go away?
    25. Re:ABM Treaty for Tim Cook by Missing.Matter · · Score: 1

      they have no motivations other than to make profit

      Maybe I'm a bit strict in this statement, but what I mean is, the Raison d'être of a for-profit corporation is to make money. A corporation may have other motivations (to help the environment, to promote local development, to realize personal dreams), but the undertone to all of them is to generate cash.

    26. Re:ABM Treaty for Tim Cook by BronsCon · · Score: 2

      You do realize that Samsung tried to cross-license their patents and Apple refused. This was long before Apple put on a presentation for Samsung's BoD titled "Samsung Copies Apple", a slap in the face to a Korean company, ensuring that no negotiations would actually take place, before Apple offered to license their patents. In other words, Samsung made a good faith effort to license the patents and Apple turned around and put on a derogatory presentation in order to garner bad-will from their competitor, before their in-bad-faith effort to do the same.

      --
      APK quotes people (including myself) without context and should not be trusted. Just thought you should know.
    27. Re:ABM Treaty for Tim Cook by UnknowingFool · · Score: 1

      There are corporations whose primary motivation is not profit. They want to be profitable, yes, it's not the only thing. Google wants profits; I don't think that they care about crushing Bing is why they do search. I mentioned MS because that is an example a corporation that does have the motivation that you ascribe to Apple.

      --
      Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
    28. Re:ABM Treaty for Tim Cook by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You do realize that Steve Jobs himself offered this kind of cross-licensing to Samsung and Samsung refused?

      Citation please. Never heard of this.

      Have heard they 'offered' to licence FRAND patents from Motorola, eventually (and only in Germany), which Moto was pretty much required to accept or face anti-trust inquiries. But haven't heard of any offer made to Samsung - let alone an actual cross-licence deal. Apple has done their best to avoid such a deal in all circumstances - so you really are going to need to cite that statement.

    29. Re:ABM Treaty for Tim Cook by Missing.Matter · · Score: 1

      Google wants profits; I don't think that they care about crushing Bing is why they do search.

      Google/Bing is very different from iOS/Android. In the former, you're comparing the dominate player with 70-80% of the market with the newcomer rival who can barely compete. If Android and Samsung had 10% of the market and only sold a few million phones a year, do you seriously think Apple would have pulled this lawsuit? Of course not, which is why they didn't pull it until now. After all, most of the phones involved in the suit were last generation models. If Apple were so concerned about its image and protecting its brand, they would have sued when these phones were in their prime.

      Now consider, if Bing started rising meteorically in popularity (as Android has) and the tables were turned, how long do you think Google would stick to its "Do no evil" feel-good philosophies. Recall, Google derives 96% of its revenue from search-related sources.

    30. Re:ABM Treaty for Tim Cook by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And I even missed the part where argued point suddenly became "Samsung must license it because it's standard essential" - which is true and is not relevant to this lawsuit, as it's not about agreeing to license but about conditions of licensing - instead of "Apple shouldn't crosslicense it because it's design patents and part of their image". Please, ramp up your reading comprehension.

    31. Re:ABM Treaty for Tim Cook by evilRhino · · Score: 1

      Don't worry Skylar, there's a holiday coming soon.

    32. Re:ABM Treaty for Tim Cook by gnasher719 · · Score: 1

      By Steve Jobs own words, and Apple's continued actions, this won't end until Apple is pounded into the ground and nothing but dust is left.

      No, that's not what he said. I think this will end when Samsung as a whole figures out that copying Apple is too expensive. Or when the VP for electronic parts beats up his collegues selling mobile phones because they cause him to make less profit.

      Or guess what would happen if Apple took five or so of its billions and builds a search engine that does what people actually want: Give them the things that they are looking for instead of serving up paid for websites. That would do wonders for Google's business.

    33. Re:ABM Treaty for Tim Cook by Algae_94 · · Score: 1

      Why would Apple care if they were being copied if their primary motive is not to make money? They could still make quality products and be copied.

      Apple is a publicly traded company. This means it is owned by numerous shareholders. The majority of those shareholders want Apple to make them lots of money. If that money is made with quality products, that's great. If Apple made quality products and not much money, those shareholders would be quite upset about that.

    34. Re:ABM Treaty for Tim Cook by Algae_94 · · Score: 1

      I'm not making a judgement on Apple'stock one way or the other, but you should really push your parents to re-balance their portfolio. It may seem like a good idea to keep riding the horse that's getting it done, but there are too many people that have had their retirements ruined by being overly invested in a single companies stock.

    35. Re:ABM Treaty for Tim Cook by Algae_94 · · Score: 1

      Maybe the verdict will be overturned and maybe it won't, but it definitely will incite counter suits just like this one.

    36. Re:ABM Treaty for Tim Cook by chakan2 · · Score: 0

      According to that report, look at the bottom, if I'm reading that right...

      Macs are only $4B of the $35B Apple made over that reporting period.

      86% of Apple's revenue over the reporting period was iPhone, iPad, and related services.

      (If I read that right).

    37. Re:ABM Treaty for Tim Cook by pig_man1899 · · Score: 1

      Diversify my good man. If your parents made a killing in AAPL, great, but they should think about spreading the risk around. All the more so the closer they are to retirement.

      --
      The manifest absurdity of it is too obvious to require explanation
    38. Re:ABM Treaty for Tim Cook by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      Your parents should remortgage their house and buy more Apple stock. Cash in the grand-kids college funds and buy more Apple. What can go wrong?

      Don't listen to the diversify people. They're just jealous.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    39. Re:ABM Treaty for Tim Cook by Issarlk · · Score: 1

      Google must have a lot of patents covering search engines. Why would they allow Apple to license them?

    40. Re:ABM Treaty for Tim Cook by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >The good thing that will come of it will be to draw attention to the broken patent system and how it is seemingly designed for abuse.

      It wasn't designed for abuse - it was designed to benefit society. Come in the c**** from Congress and the lawyers and completely f***** it up. Not unlike Disney, who re-wrote history.

      Society needs to take back the original INTENT of patents - to benefit society, not corporations or lawyers. These guys are PUBLIC ENEMY #2 (after the people who attack our freedoms).

      Oh yeah, f**** you to the Apple fanboys who defended Apple's actions against Samsung AND society.

    41. Re:ABM Treaty for Tim Cook by medcalf · · Score: 1

      They are diversified. It's just that the other stocks are underperforming (not worthless; that was rhetorical hyperbole), for the most part. But my point wasn't about my parents' retirement per se, but that their judgement, and that of all the other stockholders, would make it impossible for Apple to forego such a large part of their income stream.

      --
      -- Two men say they're Jesus. One of them must be wrong. - Dire Straits
    42. Re:ABM Treaty for Tim Cook by medcalf · · Score: 1

      They are diversified. It's just that the other stocks are underperforming, for the most part.

      --
      -- Two men say they're Jesus. One of them must be wrong. - Dire Straits
    43. Re:ABM Treaty for Tim Cook by medcalf · · Score: 1

      Uh, they are diversified. The large amount of their retirement in Apple stock isn't because they overbought Apple, but because AAPL has performed so well.

      --
      -- Two men say they're Jesus. One of them must be wrong. - Dire Straits
    44. Re:ABM Treaty for Tim Cook by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      Then they should sell all other stocks as well and buy more Apple.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    45. Re:ABM Treaty for Tim Cook by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Didn't Apple throw some absurd 30$+ per unit cost at Samsung? I think this was just for the use of 1 patent, the bounce back at end of page scroll.

      I for one am running Android but I wouldn't consider myself a fanboi in any sense. I just ask for Google to add 'something' to indicate EOP

      I observed that in gallery, when you reach the end scroll, the pics start to flip in a 3D manner. Why can't Google implement this technique for Chrome, Gmail , etc.

      I preferred Maemo to all but Nokia f'd themselves. Sad state for OSS in the mobile space. Android is not a Maemo replacement.

      It amazes me that Apple appeals to the Rich technoignorant user and people mindlessly follow and throw their money and freedom of choice away. Even people I respect for their true wisdom on tech subjects irk me. On Twit.tv's Security Now, Steve Gibson says he would gladly pay Apple the 30$ for the ability to add eop bouceback to his Nexus 7. Gimme a break Apple supporters! A few years back in High School, the VP punished the entire class for a M80 toilet incident. This involved after school detention for all. Many, including myself, disagreed and to this the VP responded "If you're not part of the solution, then you ARE part of the problem"

        I'm agreeing with his philosophy more every day...

  5. Apple is going to reap what they have sown by raitchison · · Score: 0

    Full Disclosure: I'm a bit of an Android enthusiast though I'm not sure if I rise to the level of fanboy as I don't own any android themed toys, stickers or clothing :)

    Regardless of the merits of this case (or any of the other cases) one can only hope that these lawsuits call attention to the huge flaws in our patent system and how they stifle innovation. Of course realistic me knows that lobbyists will prevent any real reform from happening but anything that slows the tide of stupid patents being issued would be a good thing.

    1. Re:Apple is going to reap what they have sown by Sydin · · Score: 2

      Lobbyists only really flourish because of how divided the public is on most major issues; they can be shouted down when people are coordinated and loud enough. Remember that SOPA and PIPA had a many lobbyists, and a LOT of lobby money behind it. The problem right now is that your average person isn't concerned about the problems with patent law, either because they don't recognize the problem, or they consider the topic too difficult to invest time into. Let's just imagine, for a second, that Samsung wins this upcoming patent battle, and the iPhone 5 gets an import ban in the US. THAT will move the common man to action, and if it is explained to them that our broken patent laws are responsible, there will almost certainly be enough of an outcry for congress to do something that they'll do it, even if they have to step on a few lobbyist toes to do so.

    2. Re:Apple is going to reap what they have sown by icebike · · Score: 1

      Regardless of the merits of this case (or any of the other cases) one can only hope that these lawsuits call attention to the huge flaws in our patent system and how they stifle innovation. Of course realistic me knows that lobbyists will prevent any real reform from happening but anything that slows the tide of stupid patents being issued would be a good thing.

      Actually there are really only three big problems with patents that need immediate fixing, the rest could wait:

      1) In spite of them being ruled illegal three times, the patent office insists on issuing software patents.
      2) Patents are overly broad for trivial things.
      3) Patent trolling is allowed.

      If I had to pick ONE thing to get solved first it would be Trolling.

      By trolling I mean:

      Patent trolls can be individuals or companies, and they have no intention to manufacture or sell whatever the patent describes. In fact, their entire business model relies on buying patents, and finding companies to threaten (with the goal of settlement) and sue.

      The simplest change would be a "Use it or Lose it" restriction on any patent.

      You must License it or Manufacture it within 2 to 4 years or you lose the patent all together, and it becomes public domain (yet remains in effect to prevent someone else patenting the same thing).

      After all, the idea of patents was to serve society, not one person's bank account. We allow the inventor to make money, as long as society gets the patent. But if only half the bargain is enforced its hardly fair.

      Forced licensing at fair rates is long overdue. There also needs to be some attention to what is "fair" in licensing terms so that entire products don't bet banned or made uneconomic because of a simple tiny patent that the troll wants an arm and a leg for.

      When Apple wants to ban something as complex as a cell phone simply because it has rounded corners that is simply obscene.

      --
      Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
    3. Re:Apple is going to reap what they have sown by Ixitar · · Score: 1

      The simplest change would be a "Use it or Lose it" restriction on any patent.

      You must License it or Manufacture it within 2 to 4 years or you lose the patent all together, and it becomes public domain (yet remains in effect to prevent someone else patenting the same thing).

      The problem with this is that they would just create another shell company and license the patent to that company.

    4. Re:Apple is going to reap what they have sown by Overzeetop · · Score: 1

      Require manufacture in commercial quantities. If you invent something that doesn't make it to market in some fashion for more than 4 years, you really have no leg to stand on, imho. The conditions where this would exist are so marginal as to be academic.

      Even if you're a little fish, you would be able to play the big operators against one another. License to one of them for a dollar, then the rest will be 20 years our or have to pay up. It's all a game. Few companies are so patient to wait four years, betting that none of the other guys will go behind their backs and screw them.

      I'd even be in favor or statutory licensing based on number of units produced - choose your basic rate that covers 99.9% of items ($10,000ea/1, $2000ea/10. $400ea/100, $80ea/1000, $16ea/10,000, $3ea/100,000, $.45ea/1,000,000, $.10ea/10,000,000) but allow private negotiation as well - like mechanical licensing fees but on a sliding scale for low production qty items.

      --
      Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
    5. Re:Apple is going to reap what they have sown by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How do you "manufacture in commercial quantities" for software product? Biggest gripes with patent trolls are over software patents, and manufacturing a product implementing one of those is comparatively very easy (and incidentally infringing on them is very easy as well). If I design a site that employs my novel technique of "changing certain properties of hyperlink in an electronic document in response to user's actions", is it "manufactured in commercial quantities" enough?

    6. Re:Apple is going to reap what they have sown by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Patent trolling is illegal in theory, but its impossible to prove. There is a rule that requires patent seekers intend on pursuing the invention.

  6. Live by the sword by tokul · · Score: 1

    die by the sword

  7. This is not possible by slashmydots · · Score: 3, Interesting

    There is no way in hell this is possible. They made a phone centered around an entire transmission technology that another company owns and they didn't have a license for? THAT ISN'T POSSIBLE. No company is that stupid. You don't assemble an entire product and then cross your fingers and hope Samsung licenses it out to you AND THEN sue them for 1 billion dollars and win. Surprise, no LTE for you. What is really going on here? How legitimate is the patent(s) Samsung holds? I'm going to take a guess they don't own LTE itself in its entirety at least, right?

    1. Re:This is not possible by aaarrrgggh · · Score: 1

      The question is if Samsung (and Apple) are negotiating in good faith on FRAND terms. By this type of action on Samsung's part, I would tend to argue they are not.

    2. Re:This is not possible by Godai · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Most of the patents all around are pretty stupid. It sounds like Samsung doesn't have a patent on LTE, but on connecting to LTE networks that it would probably be impossible for Apple not to violate. Much in the same way that designing a phone that's not ugly violates patents from Apple. Its pretty obvious that Samsung's been waiting in the tall grass for an LTE iPhone to give Apple a little bit of karma; that its happened so close the other trial just makes the comedic possibilities that much more salivating.

      --
      Wood Shavings!
      - Godai
    3. Re:This is not possible by Zironic · · Score: 4, Insightful

      As far as I can tell, LTE patents were never made FRAND, and it's unlikely that the telecommunications industry will do FRAND again. Apple pissed in the FRAND pool and now noone is interested in being friendly anymore.

    4. Re:This is not possible by gutnor · · Score: 4, Interesting

      That is not a patent that you violate or license, that is a web of patents specifically designed to cover as much of technology as possible so that any implementation, no matter how different from the competitor will violate at least one. Why do you think Samsung is so confident that they do not even to see the iPhone5 to be sure it violates their tech, just the spec: 4G LTE - we got that cornered ? Maybe they even sell the ships to Apple that Apple will be sued to use.

      In the past we had the cold war between tech giant through cross-licensing, behind doors agreement and patent blackmarket. At least it seems we now enter regular patent war. Hopefully it will be quick and mean, so that we get at last a profound reform of the patent system.

    5. Re:This is not possible by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative
      Apple doesn't make their own comm chips, they buy them from Qualcomm. Qualcomm licenses the patents from Motorola, Samsung, etc. So, yeah. (Some of the earlier iPhones didn't use qualcomm chips and Motorola successfully sued over them).

      That said, Motorola and Samsung have both told Qualcomm that they can no longer re-license the patents to Apple (non-discrimanatory much?). To which Qualcomm said: go fuck yourself. And so far, the courts have agreed.

    6. Re:This is not possible by Andy+Dodd · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Apple's definition of FRAND is (in typical Apple fasion) vastly distorted.

      Apple's claim: Samsung wanted more for their patents than any other company has asked Apple in licensing fees. Note: This is NOT a violation of FRAND. Licensing fees for patents are proportional to the value of those patents. Apple said the fees were too much and chose not to pay.

      Samsung's claim: Samsung asked Apple for the same amount of money they have asked from other licensees. This is the very definition of the "Non-Discriminatory" part of FRAND. If Samsung gave Apple any sort of discount that was not given to other licensees as Apple wanted, this would have been fundamentally discriminatory in favor of Apple. Note that Samsung doesn't seem to be suing any other companies - most likely because those companies are paying Samsung FRAND licensing fees that Apple refuses to pay. In general, most manufacturers are happily cross-licensing patents to each other - Apple is the exception. They refuse to license their patents, and also refuse to pay people for the patents they use.

      --
      retrorocket.o not found, launch anyway?
    7. Re:This is not possible by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The think is a little more complex, in the 3G and LTE technology there are related patents that are not essential and then they can be excluded from the FRAND terms, those patent boost performance in various ways but is possible to made a 100% compliant device without those patents. Apple is trying to made those patents look like they are essential but they are not, normally the companies don't sue over those patents as exist a de facto crosslicense.

    8. Re:This is not possible by noh8rz10 · · Score: 1

      Thats cool, then no more standards. Win for everybody! Not.

    9. Re:This is not possible by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Motorola and likely Samsung ass well already offered Apple the same deal that all the licensees of their respective FRAND portfolios get. Apple did not take out a license. They think rounded corners and the same number of icons acrossed a screen that has been common since before little computing gadgets had cellular radio antennas in them (that apple didn't invent) is worth $24 per device. Hey apple how well would your well marketed crappy(but pretty) toy sell if it was just a round cornered tiny little computer that did not connect to jack shit.

    10. Re:This is not possible by Noughmad · · Score: 1

      That's because things like "bounce when scrolling to the end of the list" are more important to the general public than a patent for the technology that makes the phone work.

      --
      PlusFive Slashdot reader for Android. Can post comments.
    11. Re:This is not possible by mk1004 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Apple is the exception. They refuse to license their patents, and also refuse to pay people for the patents they use.

      [citation needed]

      And no, I own an Android phone, so don't go there.

      I agree with you that FRAND doesn't mean that you have to charge everyone the same amount to use the patents you contributed to a standard. If someone doesn't bring any patents to the table, they should be charged more than someone else who did contribute.

      What got Samsung last time was that the patents they tried to use against Apple were considered to have been paid for by the IC manufacturers who incorporated the use of those patents into their ICs. That's commonplace and allows IC manufacturers to sell to customers without those hundred or thousands of customers to each have to pay for those patents individually. Sadly, I suspect these LTE patents are the same type and their claims won't be upheld.

      --
      I can mend the break of day, heal a broken heart, and provide temporary relief to nymphomaniacs.
    12. Re:This is not possible by beltsbear · · Score: 0

      Your statement is wrong. The ND in FRAND is non-discriminatory. It is against FRAND to ask for more from Apple then from others. Samsung has asked for many times more from Apple then from others and is also (even worse) going after exhausted patents.

    13. Re:This is not possible by UnknowingFool · · Score: 1

      There aren't enough details to tell. One possibility is that this is similar to the Motorola situation where they are suing Apple and MS for 3G patents. Apple's defense in that case is that they bought 3G chips from Qualcomm which grants them a sublicense according to the Qualcomm-Motorola agreements and Motorola cannot charge them separately.

      --
      Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
    14. Re:This is not possible by Lifyre · · Score: 2

      You're reading it wrong. He is saying Apple objected because they were asked to pay more for Samsung's FRAND patents then other FRAND patents (from other companies) not that Samsung was trying to charge them more than they were charging other companies.

      The post was not worded as clearly as it could have been.

      --
      I'll meet you at the intersection of "Should be" and "Reality"
    15. Re:This is not possible by Theaetetus · · Score: 4, Informative

      Apple's definition of FRAND is (in typical Apple fasion) vastly distorted.

      Apple's claim: Samsung wanted more for their patents than any other company has asked Apple in licensing fees. Note: This is NOT a violation of FRAND. Licensing fees for patents are proportional to the value of those patents. Apple said the fees were too much and chose not to pay.

      Samsung's claim: Samsung asked Apple for the same amount of money they have asked from other licensees. This is the very definition of the "Non-Discriminatory" part of FRAND.

      "In his cross-examination, Teece was presented with a letter from Samsung dated July 25, 2011 where the company proposed Apple pay a 2.4% royalty rate to license technology from any of 86 patents. Since the patents in question are deemed standards-essential, they should be licensed under fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory (FRAND) terms, but the 2.4% rate was never before levied to a licensee."

      And: The lawyer showed Teece a July 2011 letter from Samsung to Apple proposing the iPhone maker pay the 2.4 percent rate to license any of 86 patents. Samsung had never published the rate, and “you have no evidence that Samsung has ever asked any other company for such a rate,” Mueller said.

      So, do you have a citation for your claim that "Samsung asked Apple for the same amount of money they have asked from other licensees"?

    16. Re:This is not possible by jo_ham · · Score: 1

      I see you have no idea what FRAND means, but on /. that isn't unusual.

    17. Re:This is not possible by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Maybe the trial was leverage against samsung for apple. They knew they had to license LTE and a win allows them to negotiate with Samsung on better footing. It might explain the massive delay getting LTE after most other smartphones have had it for a year.

    18. Re:This is not possible by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't have a link and I don't recall exact numbers. I read an article where someone did a per unit breakdown on the patents in question here. According to Apple, essential patents which allow devices to globally communicate are worth something LESS than $0.02 per device. Whereas round corners are worth something over $2.00 per device. Pretty easy to see why Samsung believes Apple basically told Samsung to go fuck themselves.

      For full disclosure, I want to stress again, I do not remember the exact numbers. I am, however, confident the numbers provide above accurately represent the massive and unjustified ego of Apple in these dealings. Likewise, I believe the numbers to be accurate in the order of magnitude of their significance.

    19. Re:This is not possible by afidel · · Score: 1

      They don't have to. ETSI is the main standards body for GSM related technology including LTE and
      As ETSI states in its Guide on Intellectual Property Rights: “Specific licensing terms and negotiations are commercial issues between the companies and shall not be addressed within ETSI.”

      IE unlike most standards bodies ETSI does not mandate FRAND terms, only disclosure.

      --
      There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. Starting now.
    20. Re:This is not possible by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Don't bet on it. They've been scuffling with Apple over their patents versus the patent pool on mobile telecom tech for years now.

      Apple's unwilling to pitch in their stuff into the pool, and the pool's not willing to give them the rates THEY think is fair, not what the pool thinks is so.

    21. Re:This is not possible by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 3, Informative

      Wasn't the reason why that 2.4% rate "never before levied to a licensee" because all other licensees have entered patent cross-licensing agreements instead?

    22. Re:This is not possible by Theaetetus · · Score: 1

      Wasn't the reason why that 2.4% rate "never before levied to a licensee" because all other licensees have entered patent cross-licensing agreements instead?

      Sure, but that directly contradicts the statement that Samsung asked other licensees "for the same amount of money."

    23. Re:This is not possible by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And Apple's NOT? Multitouch? Shape of the phone? Seriously?

      Quit defending EITHER of them.

    24. Re:This is not possible by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 2

      Why would it? They could have asked for that exact amount of money, and then immediately offered a cross-licensing deal as an alternative. So long as they also offer the same choice to Apple, it sounds like they're all set as far as "non-discriminative" part goes.

      On the other hand, if they didn't actually ask for money from anyone, but only for patents, wouldn't that make it worse for Apple? That would imply that a cross-licensing deal would be the only option for them, and if they refuse it they can't complain about FRAND at all, no?

    25. Re:This is not possible by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Citation on Qualcomm saying shit?

    26. Re:This is not possible by nosferatu1001 · · Score: 1

      Except the patents have a cash value you can apply to them.

    27. Re:This is not possible by Splab · · Score: 1

      I think Apple can pad themselves on the back for that. For ages mobile producers have done the FRAND and played nice. Suddenly a new kid is in town, decides he wants all the shiny toys but doesn't want to share his; result being everyone decides to leave the new toys at home, and only lets the other kids play with it when they are on their own turf...

    28. Re:This is not possible by Grizzley9 · · Score: 2

      That is not a patent that you violate or license, that is a web of patents specifically designed to cover as much of technology as possible so that any implementation, no matter how different from the competitor will violate at least one. Why do you think Samsung is so confident that they do not even to see the iPhone5 to be sure it violates their tech, just the spec: 4G LTE - we got that cornered ?

      Then they should already be suing over the latest iPad which has LTE and not waiting for the iPhone release? This article is all FUD anyway as Qualcomm is the chip provider and has the right to pass on the license.

    29. Re:This is not possible by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      but the 2.4% rate was never before levied to a licensee

      Yeah I see that line in both articles - but as far as I can see that was said by Apple. I can't any verification of that at all.

      For fairness sake, lets hear Samsungs opinion from the very same article:

      Samsung countered in its own filing that long before Apple announced the release of any of its products using Samsung’s technology, Samsung offered a “fair and reasonable” royalty rate on its patents to “virtually every major player in the mobile phone industry,” including Apple.

      Samsung’s offer is “consistent with the royalty rates other companies charge for use of their standards-essential patents,” Samsung said in its filing. Apple “simply rejected Samsung’s opening offer, refused to negotiate further and to this day has not paid Samsung a dime for Apple’s use of Samsung’s standards-essential technology.”

      Tells a very different story - so without a better citation (i.e. one with some facts in it, not just Apples opinion that Samsung disputes), your argument still hold no weight.

    30. Re:This is not possible by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So, do you have a citation for your claim that "Samsung asked Apple for the same amount of money they have asked from other licensees"?

      Since Apple is the one claiming that Samsung is charging them more, shouldn't they be the ones required to provide proof?

    31. Re:This is not possible by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Because Apple sued Samsung, Samsung has canceled the license agreement with Qualcomm.

      The agreement was to cross license patents unless each party was sued. When Apple sued, out went the license.

    32. Re:This is not possible by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I can make a phone without bounce scrolling. I can't make a phone without, well, the phone.

    33. Re:This is not possible by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's not about the type of patent, it's about the contract.

      Under patent law, everyone involved with a patent-infringing device is liable for damages. That includes you, the end-user. Of course, consumers don't get sued because it's too expensive compared to the negligible damages, but large end-users (like a bank, say) are at risk. That's why companies like Microsoft give third-party patent guarantees (basically, if someone sues you for a patent infringement in an MS product you use, MS will defend it at no cost to you).

      It doesn't matter jack-shit if an IC manufacturer has licensed a patent. What matters is the license terms. And you can be sure as shit that Samsung have made the terms very explicit in every contract they've signed with an IC manufacture since the Apple lawsuit you mention above.

    34. Re:This is not possible by vakuona · · Score: 1

      I agree with you that FRAND doesn't mean that you have to charge everyone the same amount to use the patents you contributed to a standard. If someone doesn't bring any patents to the table, they should be charged more than someone else who did contribute.

      That is wrong. That would be a charter for incumbents to lock out challengers. A standard should have a patent pool. Everyone should pay the same amount to license the patents required to implement the standard. If you have contributed to the standard, you receive a proportion of that fee based on the relative value of your patent.

    35. Re:This is not possible by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Maybe they even sell the ships to Apple that Apple will be sued to use.

      I think you meant CHIPS. But Samsung is so fucking big, I could be wrong:

      Samsung heavy shipbuilding

    36. Re:This is not possible by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Let's say you're married (and straight, bear with me here...). Your neighbor gets his hair cut like yours, starts buying the same clothes you wear, and then when you're at work, he fucks your wife. Are you cool with that?

    37. Re:This is not possible by jrumney · · Score: 1

      Samsung has only asked for more from Apple if you accept Apple's overvaluation of their own patents.

      Apple was offered the same deal as everyone else - cross licensing of patents and call it even, but refused, claiming that their small handful of patents on trivial UI interactions were worth $30, and Samsung's substantially larger number of patents on 3G technology and mobile networking were worth only $6(since that is the fair value that 3GPP has put on the ones included in the FRAND pool. But not all Samsung's patents are for implementing the 3GPP standards, even if they have been offering those patents to other companies willing to play cross-licensing ball. As a result, Apple's position is that Samsung should pay them $24 per smartphone and Apple should pay Samsung nothing.

    38. Re:This is not possible by jrumney · · Score: 1

      They think rounded corners and the same number of icons acrossed a screen that has been common since before little computing gadgets had cellular radio antennas in them (that apple didn't invent) is worth $24 per device

      Actually, they think their patents (not the design one above which they defend more like a trademark, but the multitouch ones they are willing to license out) are worth $30 per device. And Samsung's patents are worth a total of $6 per device, which is where the $24 came from. But the summary is basically that Apple overvalues its own patent portfolio compared with industry norms. Unfortunately, they are allowed to do that, and the only defense companies like Samsung have is to keep patents outside of FRAND pools.

    39. Re:This is not possible by jrumney · · Score: 1

      The problem for Apple is that the Qualcomm agreements got torn up when Apple came along refusing to cross-license patents like everyone else in the industry had agreed after the 3G wars in the mid 2000's. That is why Apple quietly switched supplier from Qualcomm to Intel as came out in the Samsung case - Qualcomm had sent them notice that the patent licenses were no longer included in the price of the chips they were buying and they had to go out and negotiate licenses by themselves. The FRAND terms were never intended to enable the sort of behavior we are seeing from Apple today, they were supposed to allow access to the market for small players that did not yet have anything to contribute to the cross-licensing pool.

    40. Re:This is not possible by terjeber · · Score: 1

      I have no problem with a neighbor following my fashion sense. That's just cool, and you know, I would probably not notice. I don't care enough about what people look like. I am also not at all worried about him fucking my wife? You know why?

      Because he has refused to license my patented dick, that is why. He is as pretty as me, but he has no function. So, yes, Apple could be a bit creeped-out at Samsung copying the good looks (though there is plenty of prior art, Apple isn't innovative). Who cares? I'd pay more attention to the fact that Apple is trying to steal Samsung's dick to fuck Samsung's wife.

  8. The only winners here by ackthpt · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The only winners here are the law firms. The customers suffer limited feature availibility rather than a enjoy a robust market of the best each manufacturer can produce. It's a pretty rotten system. "You can only buy what our lawyers and patent portfolio will allow you to from out competitors" Really makes the patent system look like a tool of would-be monopolists.

    --

    A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
    1. Re:The only winners here by DoofusOfDeath · · Score: 4, Funny

      Really makes the patent system look like a tool of would-be monopolists.

      The point is patents is precisely to grant monopolies. Everyone using patents is, in some sense, a monopolist.

      Patents are a lot like chemotherapy. When they're limited in scope and duration, they can be a net-positive. Unfortunately, today's patent regime is more like a big dose of polonium.

    2. Re:The only winners here by DigiShaman · · Score: 1

      The majority of US politicians often have a legal background. Many whom have worked at a law firm. They are (by design) an entirely different class of people. So of course they are the winners. What politician would have it any other way?

      --
      Life is not for the lazy.
    3. Re:The only winners here by ackthpt · · Score: 1

      The majority of US politicians often have a legal background. Many whom have worked at a law firm. They are (by design) an entirely different class of people. So of course they are the winners. What politician would have it any other way?

      And when it doesn't work in their favor, they find ways to deregulate or subsidize which ultimately works very, very well for them later.

      --

      A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
    4. Re:The only winners here by Joce640k · · Score: 1

      The problem isn't the patent system, it's the patent office getting paid for every patent they grant, not for how many they reject.

      --
      No sig today...
    5. Re:The only winners here by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      More than that, some use "number of patents granted over a given period" as a metric of countrie's technological advances and innovation friendliness.

    6. Re:The only winners here by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The only winners here are the law firms. The customers suffer limited feature availibility rather than a enjoy a robust market of the best each manufacturer can produce. It's a pretty rotten system. "You can only buy what our lawyers and patent portfolio will allow you to from out competitors" Really makes the patent system look like a tool of would-be monopolists.

      I really hate to break it to you, but the law firms win even without these cases. My spouse is actually involved in the smartphone wars and my spouse's firm have no issues telling the clients that it is absurd and that they should settle - there is so much other business out that they are turning away because of a lack of capacity that it wouldn't hurt their bottom line by even a penny if all of this went away. As long as the bills are paid on time, they are just going to keep going until the corporate executives that hired them have had enough. If you ever have the unfortunate need to hire a lawyer, that is exactly what you should demand.

    7. Re:The only winners here by cpu6502 · · Score: 2

      >>>And when it doesn't work in their favor, they find ways to deregulate or subsidize which ultimately works very, very well for them later.

      You mean the politicians find ways to REGULATE to give themselves favorable market and/or make it more difficult for the competition. For example: A requirement that all sellers (even kids with lemonade stands) must have a $10,000 license. The existing large corporation can afford it, but not brand new businesses. So the new business owner just quits before he even starts.

      --
      My AC stalker: " I personally agree with your posts most of the time, but that won't keep me from modding you troll"
    8. Re:The only winners here by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, its both in certain situations. Deregulation allows for them to do sneakier things, regulation allows them to lock out the little guy. Big business will push for either under whatever circumstances help them the most.

      If little guys are a problem, they scream for regulation, if they have already wiped out the little guys they scream for deregulation. Either way they are NOT doing it for the benefit of their customers, or employees. They do it only to better the bottom line going to the investors.

    9. Re:The only winners here by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They get paid whether they reject patents or not. Although they do get maintenance fees for accepted patents.

    10. Re:The only winners here by bill_mcgonigle · · Score: 1

      The only winners here are the law firms

      The only winning move is not to play.

      --
      My God, it's Full of Source!
      OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
    11. Re:The only winners here by evilviper · · Score: 1

      <blockquote>
        The only winners here are the law firms. T

      Apple, getting $1bln from Samsung, while stiffling their competitors, seems like a big winner to me.

      The lawyers are big winners, too. And worst of all, they win no matter who loses, a lot like IBM consultants...

      --
      Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
    12. Re:The only winners here by Joce640k · · Score: 1

      They get paid whether they reject patents or not. Although they do get maintenance fees for accepted patents.

      Isn't that the same as getting paid for accepting patents?

      --
      No sig today...
  9. Re:By all means, bring on the lawsuits. More, more by slashmydots · · Score: 2

    As soon as 1 congressman's iPhone 5 pre-order isn't fulfilled, I guarantee you they'll do something about it.

  10. Patent Exhaustion? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Since Qualcomm is a major holder of LTE patents I'd assume that they have already covered the licenses for the chips they are selling. This was how Apple avoided issues with Motorola's 3g patent suit for the CDMA iPhone 4 and 4s.

  11. Just waiting for the mushroom cloud by gtirloni · · Score: 4, Funny

    It doesn't matter who fired first anymore.

    --
    none
    1. Re:Just waiting for the mushroom cloud by Sydin · · Score: 2, Insightful

      It doesn't matter who fired first anymore.

      Not to you, but it does to Apple. They fired first, and now instead of taking the usual potshots at one another, all the other companies are just firing on Apple. At the very least, they seem determined to reduce Apple to a cinder before turning on each other.

    2. Re:Just waiting for the mushroom cloud by Mabhatter · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Not really. Steve claimed patents on iPhone from day one. No other phone ad ALL the features iPhone did when it was released. In fact, when Google was designing Android, they LEFT OUT certain features like the pinch to zoom because Apple had a patent on those feataures from 2000 era Fingerworks multitouch devices.

      Google had inside information because their boss sat on Apple's board. Samsung had inside information because they were selling the parts. They brazenly chose to copy and lost that bet.

      The Dyson Vacuum commercial is a perfect example of Apple's position. Apple put a lot of effort in to be unique and they want the dollars for that. If it wasn't such a big deal, why did Samsung's own documents point out how important it was to not lose market to iPhone?

    3. Re:Just waiting for the mushroom cloud by mhsobhani · · Score: 1

      It doesn't matter who fired first anymore.

      it does... People remember who started it. Just like any other war.

      --
      Trust me, I'm an engineer.
    4. Re:Just waiting for the mushroom cloud by macbeth66 · · Score: 2

      Not really. Steve claimed patents on iPhone from day one. No other phone ad ALL the features iPhone did when it was released. In fact, when Google was designing Android, they LEFT OUT certain features like the pinch to zoom because Apple had a patent on those feataures from 2000 era Fingerworks multitouch devices.

      I had forgotten about that pinch thing. I though you couldn't patent the obvious. Years ago, when I tried my first touchscreen with Windows, I tried to do a zoom in using the same technique that all the smartphones had. Does that mean that I would be considered Prior Art, if I had written about how I had envisioned it working? I might never have gotten a patent, but this whole pinch thing is bloody obvious.

    5. Re:Just waiting for the mushroom cloud by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      [Samsung] brazenly chose to copy

      Why is it so hard for most that argue against Apple's position to accept this singularly proven and undeniable fact? Samsung set out to mimic the specific qualities of Apple's product. They were warned by Apple, who, out of character, offerred a licensing deal to make their product legal... Samsung ignored. They were warned by Google, the heir-apparent rival of Apple... Samsung ignored. Apple sued and Samsung lost... didn't just lose... Samsung was creamed in court. And still the debate goes on. Don't like Apple? Fine. Don't like patents? Even better. But what do thes idiots have against the TRUTH??

    6. Re:Just waiting for the mushroom cloud by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      Claiming patents is not what started this round of patent armageddon. It was using those patents to block competing devices from being sold, and refusing to license them out entirely (as opposed to collecting fees like everyone else in the market did).

    7. Re:Just waiting for the mushroom cloud by arose · · Score: 1

      Because competitve analysis, I mean come on, every time a company worries about a competitor there is something wrong? The difference between Dyson and Apple is that Dyson made an effort to be distinct both from generic forms and other vacuums. Apple wanted to be the every-phone, to rule the market of touchscreen phones, so they created a very generic, if highly polished, product that encapsulated the design estetic of the time (yes, really, just because people whip up silly examples of featurephones morphing into iPhone "clones" overnight doesn't mean that's how things actually went). LG was actually ahead of the design curve, the iPhone 4 looks more like the LG Prada that was released alongside the iPhone than an iPhone.

      --
      Analogies don't equal equalities, they are merely somewhat analogous.
    8. Re:Just waiting for the mushroom cloud by Overzeetop · · Score: 1

      That would make it obvious to a practitioner skilled in the art, which seems to be the most often missed exception to the patent review process.

      --
      Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
    9. Re:Just waiting for the mushroom cloud by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Apple put a lot of effort in to be unique and they want the dollars for that.

      How much effort did they put in to fail so miserably? Anyone with a memory reaching further than a few years ago can EASILY find all the prior art about iDevices. I've seen several articles that demonstrate this fact, and no Apple fanboi can argue against it.

    10. Re:Just waiting for the mushroom cloud by evilviper · · Score: 1

      <blockquote>
        No other phone ad ALL the features iPhone did when it was released.

      Hell, I had PDAs long, long before the iPhone came out, which had damn near all the features of the iPhone. Pinch-to-zoom wasn't one of them, but only because resistive touch screens still ruled the world.

      Just try to name some PATENTABLE features the iPhone had, which weren't already existing in some phone or PDA, somewhere.

      The triumph of the iPhone was that they put together the top of the line technology at just the right time. They waited until everyone was carrying around a cell phone already, they waited until capacitive touch-screens were available, they convinced Corning there would be a market if they resurected Gorilla Glass, they waited until 3G was available, so internet speeds were fast enough to stream music, and comfortable web browing speeds, instead of 2G's fax-modem speeds. They waited until WiFi had become common, and blluetooth was available. They waited until flash was cheap enough that you could store a music collection. They waited until memory and CPU were cheap and fast enough that a non-cripped web browser on mobile devices was practical. They waited until LCD DPI had gotten high enough that you could squeeze a decent amount of text on a PDA screen, and people wouldn't mind reading it. They waited until LiIon batteries had gotten cheap and high capacity enough that you could have a PDA that keeps running for a full day on a charge with just the screen turned off (where PDAs actually suspended when you hit the power button), etc.

      Apple came along, and put the top-of-the-line components, that had been advailable to everyone, from off the shelf, into their device, at just the right time when all the stars were aligned. I commend them for seeing the opportunity that others had missed, and jumping into the written-off PDA market after all others had tried and failed to make a go of it. But they didn't have any revolutionary technology from in-house which made it all possible. Their contribution was to figure out the best mixture of primitive POS touch UIs, and the PocketPC method of a full desktop UI squeezed into a PDA, picking the best tech to throw in, and a bit of good luck with Corning, that other companies may not have had.

      And let's not forget that Apple was only too happy to copy good UI elements from Android, like the notification bar/tray.

      --
      Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
    11. Re:Just waiting for the mushroom cloud by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Their contribution was to figure out the best mixture of primitive POS touch UIs, and the PocketPC method of a full desktop UI squeezed into a PDA

      I would like to humbly suggest that you are an idiot. Not just for this, but this is the festering glob of stupid which really stood out from the rest. Apple explicitly rejected squeezing any part of their desktop UI into a PDA. Anybody who believes otherwise clearly has not been paying attention. (That would be you.)

    12. Re:Just waiting for the mushroom cloud by squiggleslash · · Score: 1

      If it wasn't such a big deal, why did Samsung's own documents point out how important it was to not lose market to iPhone?

      I'm sure, over the years, more than one memo has circulated around Culpertino about the risk about losing the market to Microsoft, and even occasionally documents by engineers (albiet rare) comparing Mac OS features to Windows features and deciding Microsoft has a better approach.

      I still don't see how my Galaxy Nexus resembles an iPhone, except possibly in that they both have attrocious battery lives.

      --
      You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
  12. Re:By all means, bring on the lawsuits. More, more by gstoddart · · Score: 4, Insightful

    As soon as 1 congressman's iPhone 5 pre-order isn't fulfilled, I guarantee you they'll do something about it.

    But I doubt it will take the form of fixing the patent system.

    Likely just calling in favors to be sure he gets his phone first.

    --
    Lost at C:>. Found at C.
  13. Lawsuit will fail...again by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Just as Samsung's failed 3G (UMTS) lawsuit..this one will fail too.
    There is a tiny but mighty detail : patent exhaustion.

    Apple, well all phones, uses transceiver chips by Qualcomm or a competitor of them. Qualcomm/whatever has licensed all relevant patents to make those chips. Any buyer of such a transceiver is automatically covered by that license.
    Patent exhaustion will thereby nullify any lawsuit. It's simply an empty threat by Samsung.

    Even worse. Both, the EU and the SK government are investigating Samsung for FRAND patent abuse. It will get only worse for them now as it is evident that Samsung is not playing by the rules.

    1. Re:Lawsuit will fail...again by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Any buyer of such a transceiver is automatically covered by that license.

      Or not - maybe Qualcomm have a license to manufacture products using those patents, but they might not have the ability to pass onwards to their clients a license to use those patents, which may have to be negotiated with the patent holder. Yeah, it's stupid isn't it - but as a B2B situation it may be the situation.

      In addition the Samsung LTE patents are new or specific enough that they won't come under FRAND - maybe in a year or two when the standard is well established like 3G.

    2. Re:Lawsuit will fail...again by UnknowingFool · · Score: 3, Informative

      That would be rather stupid legally for Qualcomm to manufacture chips and not have the ability to pass the license forward to clients. Why would anyone buy from Qualcomm then? It would be like saying that a standard ARM chip from TI, Samsung, nVidia requires the manufacturer to negotiate with ARM separately for licensing. Now if Apple had Qualcomm custom design a 4G chip for them, that's different. As far as I know, Apple uses a standard chip.

      --
      Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
    3. Re:Lawsuit will fail...again by robmv · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Like the MPEG licenses that allow someone to manufacture a camera that compress to MPEG-4 but if you stream that contents you have to pay again? or force the manufacturer to add a message that the video could not be used for commercial purposes, go check your camera annexed documents http://www.freshdv.com/2010/05/mpegla-licensing-nightmare.html

      After seeing the MPEG licenses I believe everything is possible

    4. Re:Lawsuit will fail...again by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If Apple makes the software that interfaces with the chip, patents would easily come into play that Apple would have to license.

    5. Re:Lawsuit will fail...again by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It is completely irrelevant if they are "new". That's just the angry,baseless Samsung FUD.

      If these patents are part of the LTE standard, and it is a regulated standard, just like 3G, they ARE FRAND. Period.
      Otherwise they would not be part of the standard and thereby worthless as LTE would have been designed to circumvent the Samsung patents and Apple wouldn't even have to use them.

      And no. No sane transceiver producer would manufacture such chips without proper licensing. (and that includes license transfer)

    6. Re:Lawsuit will fail...again by UnknowingFool · · Score: 1

      That is different in that you the user is doing something different than the manufacturer after you used the device. In this case, Apple is merely using the chips. If MPEG licensing required you as the consumer to obtain a separate license to compress that would be analogous.

      --
      Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
    7. Re:Lawsuit will fail...again by UnknowingFool · · Score: 1

      Then, again, Qualcomm licenses would be useless to any mobile manufacturer.

      --
      Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
    8. Re:Lawsuit will fail...again by JDG1980 · · Score: 2

      Apple, well all phones, uses transceiver chips by Qualcomm or a competitor of them. Qualcomm/whatever has licensed all relevant patents to make those chips. Any buyer of such a transceiver is automatically covered by that license.

      If this is true, then why did the Raspberry Pi Foundation have to negotiate separate licenses with MPEG-LA to enable H.264 decoding (and then extra optional licenses on top of that for MPEG-2 and VC-1)? By your theory, those fees should already have been covered by Broadcom when they manufactured the SoC used in the Pi. Common sense would indicate this, but as with many other things it appears that the law doesn't correspond with common sense.

    9. Re:Lawsuit will fail...again by arose · · Score: 1

      Why would anyone buy a camera that spits out H.264 video, but doesn't give you a license to commercially distribute said video?

      --
      Analogies don't equal equalities, they are merely somewhat analogous.
    10. Re:Lawsuit will fail...again by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why would anyone buy from Qualcomm then?

      Because they're the only ones with an LTE chipset that works?

  14. OMG! by SternisheFan · · Score: 1

    So if I read this right, this one Samsung patent could completely negate the recent Apple-Samsung patent U.S. court case. Why didn't these two companies realize this and come to some kind of truce before it ever got to court. Seems to me they may have wasted a whole lot of time, money and resources that could've gone toward better things. Maybe they were absent from their kindergarten class when they taught about 'cooperating' with their fellow classmates.

    1. Re:OMG! by Sydin · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Why didn't these two companies realize this and come to some kind of truce before it ever got to court?

      Because Apple made the stupid move of suing Samsung in the first place. The telecommunications and technology companies were previously in a sort of Mutually Assured Destruction scenario: where everybody held patents that they could sue almost any other company for, but they kept quiet so long as those other companies didn't sue in turn. It wasn't a good system by any means, but it more or less worked. Apple suing Samsung was the equivalent of throwing MAD out the window and jamming their finger on the big red button, and praying everybody is dead before they get a chance to fire back. Surprise surprise: Samsung is still alive, they also have a big red button, and they're pissed.

    2. Re:OMG! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Regardless, the lawyer that said "push the button" is still going to make a lot more than any lawyer that said "don't".

    3. Re:OMG! by Mabhatter · · Score: 1

      The samsung patent is a FRAND patent. It's part of an industry specification (supported by the FCC) and they have to license at a reasonable rate. Samsung's actions are a completely unrelated legal issue.

      I think if this is a real threat, Apple already has an initial shipment in the air right now. They will have SOMETHING on the ground before Samsung's lawyers can get to court.

    4. Re:OMG! by na1led · · Score: 1

      It's a game of Chess. You never reveal you plans to your enemy. Apple knew they needed LTE for the iPhone 5, that is part of the reason they took so long to release it. They had to play head games with Samsung so they could put them in a stalemate.

      --
      -- By all means let's be open-minded, but not so open-minded that our brains drop out.
    5. Re:OMG! by SternisheFan · · Score: 1

      I think if this is a real threat, Apple already has an initial shipment in the air right now. They will have SOMETHING on the ground before Samsung's lawyers can get to court.

      Then Samsung can sue for a large multi-billion settlement too. There would be a bit of irony if they did. "There is no 'good' karma. There is no 'bad' karma. There is just karma."

    6. Re:OMG! by jo_ham · · Score: 0

      Why was it a stupid move?

      So, you think Samsung should just have carte blanche to copy the iPhone 3GS (the issue that set this whole thing off) with no repercussions?

      Samsung blatantly copied the iPhone 3GS and iOS at the time (the later nonsense with the Galaxy Tab was not valid in my opinion, but such is life) and Apple were within their rights to sue over that. A large number of independent reviewers at the time (including pro-Android sites) mentioned the uncomfortable resemblance to Apple's current flagship phone at the time of the Galaxy's release, unlike any other Android phone that shipped around that time. They were all vaguely rectangular in similar shades of black with big touch screens, but Samsung went a little too close to "copying".

      It was not surprising at all that they were sued, and the idea that they could get a free pass because they could "sue back" was clearly what they were banking on.

    7. Re:OMG! by Sydin · · Score: 1

      So, you think Samsung should just have carte blanche to copy the iPhone 3GS (the issue that set this whole thing off) with no repercussions?

      Do I think that? No, but this is the way these companies have chosen to operate over the years. They all copy from one another, and nobody says anything so long as everybody agrees to keep quiet. Samsung gets to copy the iPhone's design, and Apple gets to use transmission protocols that Samsung has patents on. Again, I think this this is an incredibly ass-backwards way of conducting business. I wasn't saying it was stupid from a moral standpoint. I'm saying it was stupid from a business-relations standpoint, because now Apple has made itself the target of every patent holding tech-firm. If Apple is willing to sue Samsung, they're willing to sue anybody else, right? So all the other companies are dog-piling Apple in the hopes that they back down out of fear of their business being crippled.

    8. Re:OMG! by DickBreath · · Score: 1

      > Why didn't these two companies realize this and come to some kind of truce before it ever got to court

      Samsung is learning the lesson that for real negotiations to take place all of the parties must be sane and rational.

      --

      I'll see your senator, and I'll raise you two judges.
    9. Re:OMG! by DickBreath · · Score: 5, Insightful

      You're seeing the little picture. Step back and see the big picture.

      This is not and never was about any particular issue that Apple is suing anyone over in any particular court.

      The recent Samsung case is not about Trade Dress (eg, Rounded Corner rectangles, etc). Other Apple lawsuits are not about the specific claims Apple is complaining about (eg, bouncy scrolling, pinch to zoom, searching more than one database at a time, etc).

      For example, Samsung specifically designed a phone (Galaxy S 3) to avoid any kind of trade dress lawsuit. So what did Apple do? Sue over some other equally trivial issue.

      What this is really about is that Apple doesn't want any competition. Apple feels like the entire Smartphone industry is God's Exclusive Gift to Apple by Divine Right. Apple should never have to license others' patents, even at standard rates, because Apple is special. Never mind that others have been in the business for decades. Apple should have it all now because Apple wants it all.

      This is not your dad's Apple Computer anymore. This is a monopolist wannabe monster that is as bad or worse than Microsoft ever was.

      I wouldn't care if Apple just wanted to have their walled garden, sell lots of toys, make boatloads (and more boatloads) of money, and leave me alone. But no, Apple wants to force me to buy their product and only their product. I can't have one of the over 4,000 Android devices that come in every size, shape, color, style and price from lots of manufacturers and on ever mobile network. So now that Apple wants to affect me, I suddenly care passionately, just like I did once with Microsoft.

      How much is enough Apple? What do you want? Blood? Would that satisfy you? Aren't you successful enough to just leave everyone else alone?

      --

      I'll see your senator, and I'll raise you two judges.
    10. Re:OMG! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's a stupid move. Insane, actually. (The analogy of pushing the Big Red Button, hoping that everyone else buys it before they can respond is an APT one here)

      If any of the players (Google/Moto, Qualcomm, Samsung, LG, etc...) decide to basically be assholes, then Apple's TOAST on the mobile front- those other players hold 3G/WiMax/LTE patents that Apple has no hope of gaining a license to otherwise. And...FRAND doesn't mean that you can't have your plug pulled on a license if you choose to sue one of the players- they typically have verbiage for mutual NON-suing over patents as part of the terms. It's also not a violation of FRAND terms if you opt to not extend licensing to a litigous prospective licensor that's suing you or other participants in the pool elsewhere.

      It's ultimately arrogant on their part- and it's risky to say the least considering that they don't have very solid patents in light of In re Bilski- the trade dress stuff's the only thing that they got and it's...iffy...to say that Samsung actually violated that. Jury said so- but there's solid evidence of Jury Misconduct going on there.

    11. Re:OMG! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why didn't these two companies realize this and come to some kind of truce before it ever got to court?

      Because Apple made the stupid move of suing Samsung in the first place. The telecommunications and technology companies were previously in a sort of Mutually Assured Destruction scenario: where everybody held patents that they could sue almost any other company for, but they kept quiet so long as those other companies didn't sue in turn. It wasn't a good system by any means, but it more or less worked. Apple suing Samsung was the equivalent of throwing MAD out the window and jamming their finger on the big red button, and praying everybody is dead before they get a chance to fire back. Surprise surprise: Samsung is still alive, they also have a big red button, and they're pissed.

      So Apple is the Iran of the telecommunications and technology companies ?
      A non rational actor that would destroy the world for the sake of a fucking smartphone ?
      Clever, pretty clever. Oh the day when that mushroom cloud will come over Cupertino will be a celebration day for all.

    12. Re:OMG! by guttergod · · Score: 1

      The problem isn't that they got sued. If they hadn't played the patent card things would never have gone out of proportion like this. They should have just sued and said "this phone looks too much like ours" and be done with it. Instead they said "this phone looks like ours" AND included the alleged "theft" of all kinds of things they lie about having invented. The only reason they played the patent card is because if they win, it will put the *entire* smartphone industry years behind because it would mean all their baloney patents would be validated. What better way than to hide it within a obvious case. I'm almost ready to put on a tin foil hat and consider this whole thing a made up plot by Samsung and Apple. Apple builds the smartphones, Samsung builds the components. All competition are ridiculously gimped by idiotic, and because of this obvious "simple case", now legally valid patents. Seems like a good deal for both Apple *and* Samsung in the end, right?

      --

      Apple built a platform for their ideas, Google built one for everyone's.

    13. Re:OMG! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      This is not your dad's Apple Computer anymore. This is a monopolist wannabe monster that is as bad or worse than Microsoft ever was.

      Apple has always been a "monopolist wannabe monster". They just never before successfully cornered a market.

    14. Re:OMG! by RyuuzakiTetsuya · · Score: 1

      I'd hate to point this out to you but this isn't the first time Samsung got sued for what they did.

      RIM vs Samsung is very conveniently swept under the rug. Samsung settled. For a bundle. This wasn't at RIM's downfall either, this was near their peak, in 2006.

      I'm guessing a lot of people just weren't paying attention at the time.

      --
      Non impediti ratione cogitationus.
    15. Re:OMG! by RyuuzakiTetsuya · · Score: 1

      Also, this.

      Easy to forget when things fall down the memory hole.

      --
      Non impediti ratione cogitationus.
    16. Re:OMG! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So now that Apple wants to affect me, I suddenly care passionately, just like I did once with Microsoft.
      How much is enough Apple? What do you want? Blood? Would that satisfy you? Aren't you successful enough to just leave everyone else alone?

      I couldn't have said it any better; it's amazing that people can't just seem to understand this; once your pissing contest starts affecting me, then I become involved.

  15. If Samsung can sue over LTE, then what about iPad? by SuperKendall · · Score: 1

    The thing that leaves me confused is this. If any use of LTE means Apple has violated Samsung patents, where was Samsung when the iPad 2012 was released earlier this year? That includes LTE support, and it's been shipping for quite some time.

    It sure seems like Apple would simply be using Qualcom chips, and Qualcom would not be happy about the potential for any vendor using said chips to be sued by Samsung....

    How would a judge accept a ban on Apple LTE phones when an iPad has been shipping for a while without complaint?

    --
    "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
  16. Re:By all means, bring on the lawsuits. More, more by icebike · · Score: 3, Insightful

    There is some indication this is already happening. The Congressional Research Service released a report about it, and the report even used the word "Trolls" in the title.

    Still the report is weak on actual recommendations, and spends a portion of its content defending trolls. Its encouraging for an arm of congress to even use the term Trolls, but with no clue as to a recommended solution there is a long way to go.

    --
    Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
  17. The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly? by onemorechip · · Score: 1

    Somehow I'm picturing HTC, Apple, and Samsung in a 3-way shootout. Hmm, I wonder which one will end up arguing with a chair 40+ years from now?

    --
    But, I wanted socialized health insurance!
    1. Re:The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly? by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      A chair?

      Um... Microsoft?

  18. I am not a lawyer... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Wouldn't suing immediately over technology, (without any engineer doing any reverse engineering to verify the violation) because there is only one proper way to do something, be an admission that your patent probably isn't "non obvious to someone skilled in the art"

    ?

  19. Frand? by noh8rz10 · · Score: 2

    The big difference for me is that there are many ways to design the look and feel of a tablet, but few ways to make a 4g lte device. Based on Samsung and htc patents, is it even possible to design around them? I thought that was the purpose of frand licensing, to prevent monopolistic behavior.

    1. Re:Frand? by Samalie · · Score: 1

      I'm not sure the 4G LTE patents in question are FRAND-based.

      If they are....well then Samsung is just being an asshole, and while their claims would be held up in court, it is of minimal effect to Apple - they just pay the proper FRAND terms.

      If they're not....then Apple is going to get faceraped, and justly so.

      --
      09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0
    2. Re:Frand? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If they've found to be willfully infringing, it doesn't matter if they are FRAND or not. They can still be liable for treble damages.

    3. Re:Frand? by The+Grim+Reefer · · Score: 1

      They can still be liable for treble damages.

      It's better than the liability for bass damages I suppose.

    4. Re:Frand? by squiggleslash · · Score: 1

      If they are....well then Samsung is just being an asshole,

      Not if Apple is refusing to pay the FRAND rates, which generally they've been refusing to do.

      --
      You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
  20. Re:If Samsung can sue over LTE, then what about iP by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The patent in question probably specifically relates to phones and not to tablets.

  21. Re:By all means, bring on the lawsuits. More, more by macbeth66 · · Score: 1

    The only way that Congress will ever start fixing things is when they come to a head. Brinksmanship. I so hope this screws up everyones' desires for the iPhone 5 and the public outcry becomes deafening.

    I've showed folks some of the various artciles regarding the case and they had no clue there was even a case in the courts.

    "Rounded corners? Really? You can patent those?"

  22. Apple finally managed to piss off Samsung by blind+biker · · Score: 2

    It should be fun to watch, especially since I live in a country where Apple doesn't dictate what can and cannot be imported.

    --
    "The agriculture ministry is not in charge of Gundam" - Japanese ministry official.
    1. Re:Apple finally managed to piss off Samsung by Sydin · · Score: 1

      Can I come live in your country?

    2. Re:Apple finally managed to piss off Samsung by blind+biker · · Score: 1

      Actually yes, you can. Finland welcomes you.

      --
      "The agriculture ministry is not in charge of Gundam" - Japanese ministry official.
    3. Re:Apple finally managed to piss off Samsung by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It should be fun to watch, especially since I live in a country where Apple doesn't dictate what can and cannot be imported.

      That's because you live in a country that doesn't have Californians. Consider yourself lucky.

  23. Re:If Samsung can sue over LTE, then what about iP by Minderbinder106 · · Score: 1

    How did Apple not sue Samsung over patents like slide to unlock and rectangle with rounded corners until after Samsung phones with these magical features had been out for a year?

  24. Leading job requirement by onyxruby · · Score: 1

    I'm starting to think the leading job requirement for designing a cell phone is soon going to be the patent attorney. Once upon a time products were designed by engineers, not attorneys.

  25. Payback is a bitch by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    As the title says, Payback is a Bitch. I sincerely hope Samsung wins. I'm tired of seeing Apple play the part of the big bully by litigating to remove the competition. I pity Apple fans who'll be stuck at 3G but this won't likely happen. Instead Apple will probably come to a deal with Samsung, reverse the $1B lawsuit and drop any current suits.

  26. apple wants special treatment by Chirs · · Score: 4, Informative

    Samsung and HTC both have standard FRAND licensing rates. However, generally everyone just cross-licenses patents instead of paying cash royalties.

    Apple doesn't want to cross-license, but also complains that the (standard, charged the same to everyone) cash royalty rates are too high.

    1. Re:apple wants special treatment by jo_ham · · Score: 3, Informative

      Samsung and HTC both have standard FRAND licensing rates. However, generally everyone just cross-licenses patents instead of paying cash royalties.

      Apple doesn't want to cross-license, but also complains that the (standard, charged the same to everyone) cash royalty rates are too high.

      Actually, in the lawsuit where that was discussed (Nokia vs Apple), Apple claimed that Nokia was undervaluing the patents Apple held, not that the licensing rate for the FRAND patents was too high. It's a subtle difference.

    2. Re:apple wants special treatment by Dog-Cow · · Score: 3, Informative

      When has Apple made such a complaint? They have an issue with Motorola, who is provably trying to charge Apple more than other companies. IOW, ignoring the ND portion of FRAND.

    3. Re:apple wants special treatment by R3d+M3rcury · · Score: 3, Informative

      Depends.

      I have a patent. You wish to use my patent. I will charge you one million dollars to use my patent. Now, cash is fine, but what I really want is access to a couple of your patents. I figure those two patents are worth $999,999.97. So let me use those patents and pay me 3 cents and we'll call it even.

      Apple now comes along and says, "No, you can't use our patents and paying one million dollars isn't fair because other people are only paying 3 cents."

    4. Re:apple wants special treatment by bennomatic · · Score: 1

      If these patents are covered under FRAND, then by definition, the patent owner has to offer similar licensing terms to all comers. They can't charge Apple more just because they think Apple can afford it.

      That being said, I don't know the details, so it's entirely possible that the patents in question are not covered under FRAND, in which case Apple may have to pony up or use slower wireless data speeds.

      --
      The CB App. What's your 20?
    5. Re:apple wants special treatment by nosferatu1001 · · Score: 2

      They ARE charging the same - $1m, just accepting goods in kind (patent cross license) for all but 3 cents

      Apple doesnt want to cross license, but doesnt want to pay the actual cost of $1m, as others only get to "pay" 3 cents

      Essentially it ignores the value of patents....

    6. Re:apple wants special treatment by tlhIngan · · Score: 1

      If these patents are covered under FRAND, then by definition, the patent owner has to offer similar licensing terms to all comers. They can't charge Apple more just because they think Apple can afford it.

      That being said, I don't know the details, so it's entirely possible that the patents in question are not covered under FRAND, in which case Apple may have to pony up or use slower wireless data speeds.

      Funny thing is, Apple owns a bunch of LTE patents as well that they bought from Nortel. In the end, it'll all end up cross-licensed with no change of money (Apple acquired the LTE patents so they'd have to FRAND those to get access to all the other FRAND patents. An interesting one of those is nano-SIM which was approved and Apple also has to FRAND that.)

      This one is more interesting because it's FRAND patents versus FRAND patents.

      Perhaps for 5G the 3GPP should just set up a patent pool like the MPEG-LA and be done with it. Pay one fee per phone and you're legally licensed on all the patents. And everyone pays the same fee. Then they can spend years arguing over the splitting of the fees collected, but that's it.

  27. Re:This is an outrage. by macbeth66 · · Score: 1

    I was laughing hysterically at this and was about to laud a mod point on the post. Then I saw that it was an AC. Wait a sec...

    This AC isn't being funny, he's serious. Oh Lord! We're really screwed.

  28. Apple's plan all along by na1led · · Score: 1

    I believe it was Apple's plan all this time with suing Samsung, so they would make a deal in the end to allow the iPhone 5 to use LTE, and drop all existing lawsuits.

    --
    -- By all means let's be open-minded, but not so open-minded that our brains drop out.
    1. Re:Apple's plan all along by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That would be the best for everyone ...and it would quell the whines of many Apple fanboyz.

  29. they may have a bunch of patents by Chirs · · Score: 1

    covering many different aspects of the system. In that case they may be fairly sure that at least one of them is being infringed.

  30. Doesn't Samsung provide critical iPhone parts? by unimacs · · Score: 1

    So they would be seeking to ban the sale of a product that contains their own parts, thereby limiting their own sales?

    1. Re:Doesn't Samsung provide critical iPhone parts? by Lifyre · · Score: 1

      Apple has been steadily decreasing the number of Samsung parts. Also is Samsung has to stop selling a few parts in order to sell a few phones (which I suspect are higher margin AND higher revenue) it makes perfect sense.

      --
      I'll meet you at the intersection of "Should be" and "Reality"
    2. Re:Doesn't Samsung provide critical iPhone parts? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      [Posting as AC as I used mod points in this thread]

      I doubt Samsung's revenue has to do with iPhones actually being sold - they probably just collect after they provide the parts/technology for manufacturing.

  31. Re:This is an outrage. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    How outrageous. This is basically an admission by Samsung that they got NOTHING. Suing Apple for patents on shit that everyone uses is a fucking outrage.

    No different than what Apple did to Samsung.

    I hope Apple lays the smackdown on Samsung AGAIN and shows them who owns their asses. First thing is they need to drop ALL Samsung components from every Apple product

    Do you honestly think Apple will delay the once-a-year release of its new flag-ship product by SEVERAL months and lose substantial revenue just so it can hurt another company. HaHAHAHAHA!

    Fuck Samsuing, you losers cant compete in the market so you use lawsuits.

    Hmmm. This sounds really familiar. Oh, right. That's exactly what I said about Apple when they sued Samsung. Have a good cry for me, crybaby and let me taste your sweet Apple tears.

  32. Not Raisonnable by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    As usual, it a little more tricky.

    Apple own many valuable non standard essential patents. No one can force Apple to licence them.
    On the other hand all other manufacturers have been in the cellphone business for ages and own standard essential patents.

    So, for other manufacturers, it makes sense to do cross-licensing agreements and noone actually pays the requested price for a cash-only license.

    Now, it has already been established by judges all around the globe that FRAND patents should be able to be licensed in a cash-only fashion and this is the one Apple is seeking. Apple does not want to cross license its multitouch usability patents.

    Samsung offering the same cash-only rate as anyone is indeed compatible with the ND (non discriminatory) part of FRAND.
    However, the F stands for F and the R stands for Raisonnable. So forcing a cross licensing agreement is not fair. And the amount requested for the cash-only license is not Raisonnable.

    So here it is highly propable that Samsung is not meeting its FRand commitment.

    1. Re:Not Raisonnable by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If everyone complained about the pricing since Samsung has agreements with all the other manufactures I would believe you. The unfortunate thing is that Apple is the only one that thinks it isn't fair. You can't negotiate a price that way. Further, giving them the bird and using the patents without an agreement should get them intentional violation fines. Apple should have gone to court first and sought relief in the negotiations.

    2. Re:Not Raisonnable by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      OTOH Apple didn't make a counteroffer, FRAND doesn't mean that you just let them use it if they don't want to negotiate.

    3. Re:Not Raisonnable by Andy+Dodd · · Score: 1

      Exactly. Apple is the ONLY manufacturer claiming that Samsung is being unreasonable. In addition to this, they've gone for willful infringement when they chose not to license the patents using non-discriminatory terms that the rest of the industry seems to feel are perfectly fair and reasonable (since no one else is bitching).

      --
      retrorocket.o not found, launch anyway?
    4. Re:Not Raisonnable by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Exactly. Apple is the ONLY manufacturer claiming that Samsung is being unreasonable.

      So what? You're taking that to mean Apple is actually the unreasonable party, but it could equally well mean Apple's the ONLY manufacturer being charged discriminatory prices by Samsung. Couldn't it? How is that not an equally logical explanation?

      I personally don't know whether that's the case, but Apple's willingness to go to court indicates that's probably how Apple sees it. (What other grounds could they hope to win on?)

      By the way, the number 2.4% has been thrown around here. I don't know whether this is really what Samsung asked. However, if it is, that's a pretty good sign that it actually is a discriminatory price. 2.4% doesn't sound like a lot, but it's almost certainly way too much. There are many fingers in the LTE patent pie. You probably have to license patents from 5 to 10 different organizations with patents as significant as Samsung's. If 2.4% is reasonable for Samsung's patents, Apple would be looking at 10-20% just to license everything needed for LTE. And LTE is only one of many heavily patented radio standards which must be licensed to make a reasonably competitive smartphone. Given that background, do you really think it's normal to charge 2.4% of each unit sold for a (very) partial set of patents for just one radio standard?

      In addition to this, they've gone for willful infringement when they chose not to license the patents using non-discriminatory terms that the rest of the industry seems to feel are perfectly fair and reasonable (since no one else is bitching).

      "Non-discriminatory" means Apple must actually get the same terms as anybody else, not the "screw you Apple how dare you sue us for blatantly copying your design language" price.

      Also, I might add, how do you even know nobody else is bitching? Are you just assuming that's so because you hate Apple and you want to find reasons to believe they're going to fail here? (hint: that is how you come across)

      Speaking of your wet dreams of Apple failure, I doubt wilful infringement megadamage penalties are going to be in play. Not when the Samsung suit against Apple is inevitably going to be combined with an Apple countersuit claiming the asking price was not actually F, R, and ND, and not when it appears to be uncontested that Apple made a good faith effort to license the patents. The result of the trial (or settlement, or arbitration) will be a decision on what the fair rate actually is, and a payment of that fair rate.

      Wilful infringement judgements are mostly for cases like that one you may remember where Samsung blatantly copied non standards essential IP (so much so that Google, their operating system partner, warned them they were being too obvious), knew said IP needed to be licensed if they were going to use it, knew the owner had no legal or customary obligation to license it, knew the owner had no intention of licensing it, was asked to stop by the owner, and kept doing it anyways.

    5. Re:Not Raisonnable by Andy+Dodd · · Score: 1

      "So what? You're taking that to mean Apple is actually the unreasonable party, but it could equally well mean Apple's the ONLY manufacturer being charged discriminatory prices by Samsung. Couldn't it? How is that not an equally logical explanation?"
      No, because that would absolutely kill Samsung in court. They're not stupid enough to pull something like that - Apple has been offered the SAME licensing choices as other manufacturers, they're the only ones bitching.

      "Also, I might add, how do you even know nobody else is bitching? Are you just assuming that's so because you hate Apple and you want to find reasons to believe they're going to fail here? (hint: that is how you come across)"
      Because Apple is the only one getting sued. Which means they're the only ones refusing to pay Samsung's licensing fees.

      In the patent world, lawsuits are the exception and not the norm. Most companies try their hardest to avoid litigation (Apple is the exception). You can be sure in a situation like this that Samsung HAS entered licensing agreements with many others.

      --
      retrorocket.o not found, launch anyway?
    6. Re:Not Raisonnable by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Learn to use quote tags, please. Fixed them for you.

      So what? You're taking that to mean Apple is actually the unreasonable party, but it could equally well mean Apple's the ONLY manufacturer being charged discriminatory prices by Samsung. Couldn't it? How is that not an equally logical explanation?

      No, because that would absolutely kill Samsung in court.

      Why yes, it would! I nearly believe that was my point.

      What I want you to tell me is why that scenario is any less likely to be true than the one you're pushing, where Apple is going to get itself absolutely killed in court by refusing to license standards essential FRAND patents after receiving a fair, reasonable, and nondiscriminatory offer from Samsung.

      The problem for your argument is that you give no reason to believe Apple is any more or less likely to set itself up for a fall than Samsung. To you, it's axiomatic that Apple is in the wrong, and you use that to argue that Apple is in the wrong.

      They're not stupid enough to pull something like that - Apple has been offered the SAME licensing choices as other manufacturers, they're the only ones bitching.

      So you have all the contracts Samsung has signed to license these patents to other companies, and the offers discussed by Samsung and Apple? You've gone over everything with a fine toothed comb and are confident a jury would agree Samsung made a fair and reasonable offer to Apple?

      Of course you haven't. You merely assume it must be true, because if it is true then Apple will get a comeuppance, and you really want that to happen. You're pretty transparent, dude.

      Also, I might add, how do you even know nobody else is bitching? Are you just assuming that's so because you hate Apple and you want to find reasons to believe they're going to fail here? (hint: that is how you come across)

      Because Apple is the only one getting sued. Which means they're the only ones refusing to pay Samsung's licensing fees.

      First, as I already told you, you haven't even established whether "Apple is the only one getting sued". Not seeing a big splashy headline about it doesn't mean it's not happening!

      But that was more of a rhetorical point to try to get you to see how circular all your argumentation is. I'm perfectly willing to stipulate Apple is the only one getting sued, because that probably is true, though I don't know it to be. The more important thing is that Apple refusing to pay the fee is equally well explained by either Apple or Samsung being in the wrong!

      Boiled down, your argument amounts to "well, the fact that this is happening at all automatically means Apple is guilty". Guess they might as well not bother with a trial then, eh?

      In the patent world, lawsuits are the exception and not the norm. Most companies try their hardest to avoid litigation (Apple is the exception).

      You're a fool if you really believe that nobody but Apple gets into patent litigation. I'm sure that what you're doing is taking the nuclear war / MAD analogy much too far. The thing you need to remember is that unlike a nuclear exchange, the consequences of patent war tend to fall just a tad bit short of actual mutual destruction, even in a commercial sense.

      You can be sure in a situation like this that Samsung HAS entered licensing agreements with many others.

      OF COURSE THEY HAVE. Nobody ever suggested anything to the contrary.

  33. Re:If Samsung can sue over LTE, then what about iP by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Simple...The judge would ban IPads too.

  34. bad for consumers by goombah99 · · Score: 0

    Samsung said that Apple's patents were bad for consumer choice. Since Sansun is Pro-choice, I'm quite sure Samsung would feel that denying 4g to apple would be a bad thing to do. Ergo Samsung will not sue apple. Riiiight.

    The interesting thing here is that the counter argument that apple applied does not hold for 4G. Apple said that, well there's lots and lots of ways to shape the look and feel of a smart phone, we explored many ourselves and so did samsung. So by forcing samsung out of copying our style and design, the consumer actually will get innovative new stylings solving the same interface problems. all good for consumer choice and innovation and patents.

    But unlike style and design, 4G is a standard. You might be able to innovate around the edges of the implementation, but it would not be consumer freindly for everyone to have to reinvent an non-work-alike 4G.

    I would therefore guess 4G patents are for sale at non-discrimiantory pricing and apple may need to pay. But it won't be a trial judgement.

    --
    Some drink at the fountain of knowledge. Others just gargle.
    1. Re:bad for consumers by Lunix+Nutcase · · Score: 1

      You seem to be responding to someone else or didn't actually understand my post.

    2. Re:bad for consumers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well I thought I was using sarcasm to agree and amplify with your point, then I added some nuance.

    3. Re:bad for consumers by Cinder6 · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Wasn't Apple's argument regarding the 3G patents that, since they bought the chips from Qualcomm, who did pay for the FRAND licensing deal, they were already licensed? (Which makes sense, honestly. Is it reasonable that a FRAND patent holder should be paid twice for the same product?) As I recall, this argument was accepted by the court. I'd like to look it up, but my school internet is absolutely awful.

      --
      If you can't convince them, convict them.
    4. Re:bad for consumers by Splab · · Score: 2

      Well there are lots of ways to get your data across the air: light, smoke, ultrasound, you name it - but the LTE design is Samsungs and they think that innovation helps consumers. Rectangular, round corners have been the defacto way of doing mobile phones the last 15 or so years, therefore it should be a free standard for all to use... Or does it only work when Apple doesn't get it's candy?

    5. Re:bad for consumers by gnasher719 · · Score: 1

      Well there are lots of ways to get your data across the air: light, smoke, ultrasound, you name it - but the LTE design is Samsungs and they think that innovation helps consumers.

      Well, no, the LTE design isn't Samsung's. LTE is covered by about 6,000 patents, of which Samsung owns many hundred, and Apple owns several hundred as well. So if Samsung could stop Apple from selling an LTE phone, then you could be one hundred percent sure that LTE is _dead_.

      And that's why standards come with FRAND licensing conditions. Because otherwise there would be many, many parties that could kill the standard by refusing to license their patents.

    6. Re:bad for consumers by cheesybagel · · Score: 2

      So Apple claims but that is not standard industry practice. There are people attempting to make patent pools around cellphone technologies but they are mostly unsuccessful. Qualcomm is actually one of the major offenders since they refuse to join any patent pools.

    7. Re:bad for consumers by cheesybagel · · Score: 1

      I think there are laws against selling things with sharp corners. You know consumer lawsuits about dangerous products et all.

    8. Re:bad for consumers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Really? Please show me the phone that looked like an iPhone in 1997... or before 2007 for that matter

  35. Patent exhaustion by the+computer+guy+nex · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Qualcomm already licenses the necessary 4G/LTE patents when making their wireless radios. Samsung has tried, and failed, in the past to also charge those who are purchasing the radios (in this case Apple). This is nothing but FUD.

    1. Re:Patent exhaustion by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Umm - I think the patent in question is likely to be a software implementation patent which means Apple is the one writing the code to implement it. Qualcomm probably only needs the patents related to the hardware to manufacture the chips.

    2. Re:Patent exhaustion by sethmeisterg · · Score: 1

      Good luck with that argument. The court will throw out this ridiculous abuse of FRAND by Samsung and hopefully sanction them for absuing them.

  36. Re:This is an outrage. by SternisheFan · · Score: 1

    Pathetic.

    Think different. Think BETTER. Think Apple!

    Let me guess, you own stock in Apple, don't you?

  37. a real funny about Firms for you by RobertLTux · · Score: 1

    you need to be very very careful with calling a firm a bunch of MoFos since there actually is a firm by that nickname.
    the Formal name is of course Morrison and Foerester.

    --
    Any person using FTFY or editing my postings agrees to a US$50.00 charge
  38. Re:By all means, bring on the lawsuits. More, more by berashith · · Score: 1

    there is going to be a lot of urgent business that needs personal attention from congressmen in S korea and China real soon.

  39. Re:By all means, bring on the lawsuits. More, more by DickBreath · · Score: 1

    The congress critter won't care about calling in favors to get his iPhone "first". We're talking about a situation where there is an import ban. None. Nada.

    Any congress critter worth the name would be calling in favors to illegally circumvent the ban. And get some for his friends in exchange for votes (congress speak for "support on an issue").

    Secretly breaking the law, while passing more laws that the rest of us are supposed to abide by. It's what congress critters do best.

    --

    I'll see your senator, and I'll raise you two judges.
  40. Re:By all means, bring on the lawsuits. More, more by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    That'd be some mighty bad luck. The legislatures made this mess to start with.

    Doubt it will come to that, though.

  41. heheh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Listen to the little whiny Apple fanboyz cry. Isn't that cute.

    1. Re:heheh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Listen to the little whiny Apple fanboyz cry. Isn't that cute.

      You misspelled Fandroids. This story is FUD and nothing but a place for Apple haters to vent over the iPhone's success and Apple's recent court victory.

      FUD - Fandroid's Upset Diatribe.

    2. Re:heheh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Another sulking Apple fanboy. Nice try, but Apple users comprise the original, one-and-only fanboyz of consumerist cultism. For years, Apple fandom has been compared by critics to religious cults. And there's a Church of Apple in nearly every mall...its called the Apple Store.

    3. Re:heheh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Another sulking Apple fanboy. Nice try, but Apple users comprise the original, one-and-only fanboyz of consumerist cultism. For years, Apple fandom has been compared by critics to religious cults. And there's a Church of Apple in nearly every mall...its called the Apple Store.

      You misspelled Fandroids. Blinded by hatred of anything Apple they are still reeling over their recent lawsuit loss although it doesn't directly affect them. Go cry to your Samsung momma some more. You're just mad b/c Apple will be releasing another great phone tomorrow and everyone will want it over your plastic toy phone. Yet somehow you still care what others think. You must be what, early 20's late teens? Thought so.

    4. Re:heheh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Amen, brother!

    5. Re:heheh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Another sulking Apple fanboy. Nice try, but Apple users comprise the original, one-and-only fanboyz of consumerist cultism. For years, Apple fandom has been compared by critics to religious cults. And there's a Church of Apple in nearly every mall...its called the Apple Store.

      You misspelled Fandroids. Blinded by hatred of anything Apple they are still reeling over their recent lawsuit loss although it doesn't directly affect them. Go cry to your Samsung momma some more. You're just mad b/c Apple will be releasing another great phone tomorrow and everyone will want it over your plastic toy phone. Yet somehow you still care what others think. You must be what, early 20's late teens? Thought so.

      Whaaa whaaaa whaaaaaaa. The Galaxy s3 shits all over the iphone 4s and it will shit all over the iphone 5. It shits all over the iphones from a hardware and software standpoint. Get it into your thick apple fanboy skull : the competition is here and it already has surpased Apple.
      Apple is a one trick company, milk your single product to death and then litigate instead of innovate because innovation is damn hard.

  42. Collateral damage by realinvalidname · · Score: 1

    I bet carriers like Sprint, AT&T, and Verizon -- all of whom have invested heavily in building out their LTE network and also are heavily reliant on iPhone to attract and retain customers -- are going to be in love with Samsung after this.

  43. Tactics by DaMattster · · Score: 1

    I'll bet Apple is really wishing it didn't lobby so hard for software and hardware patents. It's funny to watch these companies try and sue each other out of existence over what really should be open standards. LTE should be open and patent unencumbered.

    1. Re:Tactics by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Something tells me they actually aren't too disappointed with the patent process. Oh yea, a billion dollars. Putz. Can't believe you got modded up.

  44. No, you would not by Kupfernigk · · Score: 1
    I keep seeing this meme. It's based on a misreading of, ffs, a 19th century Irish judgement!

    You would have enormous trouble claiming against a company for "not making as much money as they could have". It was hard enough to get Conrad Black locked up, and he was treating his company as a personal piggy bank.

    Every company in it for the long haul turns down the opportunity to make money today by investing for tomorrow. Making "the best product they can" and selling at a loss - that's building the brand image to ensure future revenues, or helping raise the perceived value of the rest of the product range. Been there, done that.

    You don't like the Board's policies, you try to get elected to the Board. If you were ill advised enough to try to sue, you would almost certainly get squashed in the circumstances you describe.

    --
    From scarped cliff or quarried stone she cries "A thousand types are gone, I care for nothing, no not one."
  45. Equivocation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    To which Qualcomm said: go fuck yourself. And so far, the courts have agreed.

    Why not?

    I can't re-license my games on steam or my music on itunes, so why does Qualcomm get to re-license? I can't just say the legal equivalent of 'fuck you' and start selling my licensed software or hardware. This may be the difference between customer (Qualcomm) and consumer (us).

  46. Re:This is an outrage. by SternisheFan · · Score: 1

    Who am I? I'm a man who doesn't get so angry with someone posting their opinion on /. that I lower myself to replying with derogatory comments. Really now, "freetard"? Did your level of maturity not grow past the fifth grade? And btw, it's spelled "investors", not investers. FTFY.

  47. Easy Solution! by DarthVain · · Score: 1

    As I understand it the big fight between Apple and Samsung is about licencing fees.

    Samsung owns a patent, that it licences out to other to use. It has a going rate of 2.5% I believe.

    Apple's whole arguement is that it isn't fair becuase the 2.5% is based on the handset cost. Thus the Nokia POS, that costs 50$ pays a licencing fee of 1.25$. However because Apple's phone costs 800$ the fee is 20$. So they have to pay 20x what someone else pays for the same technology.

    Clearly the easiest solution would be for Apple to stop charging so much for their phones! :)

    1. Re:Easy Solution! by gnasher719 · · Score: 1

      Apple's whole arguement is that it isn't fair becuase the 2.5% is based on the handset cost. Thus the Nokia POS, that costs 50$ pays a licencing fee of 1.25$. However because Apple's phone costs 800$ the fee is 20$. So they have to pay 20x what someone else pays for the same technology.

      An iPhone, like many other phones, is much more than a phone. It's a music player, a games console, a video player, and lots and lots of other things. While it may be fair to ask for 2.5% of the phone part, Samsung wants 2.5% of the music player, the games console, the video player, and so on. The iPhone comes with 16, 32, or 64 GB of memory with some price difference. Samsung wants 2.5% of that price difference as well.

  48. Samsung owns 819 LTE patents by charnov · · Score: 1

    This is very different from 3G where Qualcomm was the major developer. QComm still has a ton of LTE patents, but Samsung hold 819 of its own. Apple owns 434 patents (44 they developed themselves, the rest they own either through Freescale or in a consortium with Microsoft when they bought out Nortel). Because of all of the litigation over 3G, none of the developers are allowing cash only deals (Qualcomm is famous for this stance... they're an IP company). They all require cross licensing to stop the lawsuits. So far, Apple is the only major to refuse. They have a gigantic bullseye painted on them because of their actions in the OEM market. Basically, they are Microsoft in the 1990's. Pure, vicious, evil. Shame... they make a hell of a good product.

    --
    [RIAA] says its concern is artists. That's true, in just the sense that a cattle rancher is concerned about its cattle.
  49. Apple is on the way to nuke herself by darkat · · Score: 1

    Maybe Apple will win and will rule them all using the "rounded corners" of the power. As a consumer I think that this is the last thing that we need and fortunately I have high hopes that this won't happen. Apple is going against the entire industry, against the consumers, against the policy makers (well, those of them that are not yet bribed :-) ) and maybe more. She can't succeed mostly like Hitler and the Nazi Germany couldn't win. Apple is rich and powerful but can't win if everybody will join forces.

  50. Re:By all means, bring on the lawsuits. More, more by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Apple would lobby to KEEP the patent laws and so would the biggest players. This keeps competition out of the marketplace. The little guy could not win against their lobbying powers.

  51. Re:By all means, bring on the lawsuits. More, more by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    As soon as 1 congressman's iPhone 5 pre-order isn't fulfilled, I guarantee you they'll do something about it.

    But I doubt it will take the form of fixing the patent system.

    Likely just calling in favors to be sure he gets his phone first.

    He'll then be one of the cool kids that gets has the new iPhone when nobody else does. It's then in his favor to see it held up in court for a long time so that he can show it off for quite a while.

  52. Re:This is an outrage. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Oh jesus, I'd be selling my Apple stock right now just from reading that comment if I hadn't already dropped that shit when Saint Jobs kicked the bucket.

  53. Re:By all means, bring on the lawsuits. More, more by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Apple and Samsung are not trolls. Apple being a dick is not the same as being a Troll. Trolls Don't make hardware.

  54. Re:Fnord? by KDR_11k · · Score: 1

    That's why we should call it fnord licensing.

    --
    Justice is the sheep getting arrested while an impartial judge declares the vote void.
  55. Re:By all means, bring on the lawsuits. More, more by icebike · · Score: 0

    Apple doesn't make hardware either.

    --
    Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
  56. And as usual, the consumers pay... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    All of this court fighting only results in higher prices for consumers. Obama ought to simply write an executive order nationalizing all of these silly patents so consumers don't have to pay $800 for a tablet computer that is half as useful as a $300 laptop that isn't encumbered by billions worth of patent litigation.

  57. Oh please Oh please Oh please Oh please by Gumbercules!! · · Score: 1

    You reap what you sew, Apple. I sincerely hope the iPhone 5 does get banned for a period of time - maybe then Apple might start to back down on all this ridiculous "litigate not innovate" garbage and start trying to compete on their own merits, once more.

  58. Re:This is an outrage. by Issarlk · · Score: 1

    Yeah, Samsung is going to be bought by APPLE. They are just a small shop in one of them shitty country on that third world chinese continent after all.

    APPLE! APPLE! APPLE!

  59. Payback is a bitch! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If you start a war you better get ready to get kicked in the nuts now and then...

  60. Re:By all means, bring on the lawsuits. More, more by Crayon+Kid · · Score: 1

    With any luck, this tangled web of patent wars will go on for so long, and reach such an intensity, that legislatures will finally recognize the problems with current patent laws.

    The courts have already been swamped with stupid laws and rigid applications of stupid laws and all kinds of parties insisting to reach trial instead of settling things outside the court. It still hasn't made Americans review their approach and turn to mediation instead of litigation.

    In other countries they do what they can to keep the courts for really important stuff. In Japan they teach street cops to mediate disputes between people so they don't end up in court -- stuff like "his dog pees on my lawn" gets solved right at the source this way. In the EU they have national organizations protecting consumer rights so people will call on them when they have a problem with a product or service they bought instead of, again, ending up in court. And so on.

    I don't believe the US doesn't have any mediation options, so I suspect they're either not very well known, not effective, or there's some cultural bias preventing people from using them.

    --
    i ate crayons when i was a kid and now i have two braincells and the blue ones taste nicer
  61. Again? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Will it never end?