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."
Yay!! Patents are awesome!!!
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.
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.
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.
die by the sword
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?
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
As soon as 1 congressman's iPhone 5 pre-order isn't fulfilled, I guarantee you they'll do something about it.
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.
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.
It doesn't matter who fired first anymore.
none
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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!
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.
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?"
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
covering many different aspects of the system. In that case they may be fairly sure that at least one of them is being infringed.
So they would be seeking to ban the sale of a product that contains their own parts, thereby limiting their own sales?
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.
You seem to be responding to someone else or didn't actually understand my post.
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.
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.
Pathetic.
Think different. Think BETTER. Think Apple!
Let me guess, you own stock in Apple, don't you?
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
there is going to be a lot of urgent business that needs personal attention from congressmen in S korea and China real soon.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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."
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.
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, $.10ea/10,000,000) but allow private negotiation as well - like mechanical licensing fees but on a sliding scale for low production qty items.
Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
As I understand it the big fight between Apple and Samsung is about licencing fees.
Samsung owns a patent, that it licences out to other to use. It has a going rate of 2.5% I believe.
Apple's whole arguement is that it isn't fair becuase the 2.5% is based on the handset cost. Thus the Nokia POS, that costs 50$ 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! :)
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.
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.
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.
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.
I think there are laws against selling things with sharp corners. You know consumer lawsuits about dangerous products et all.
That's why we should call it fnord licensing.
Justice is the sheep getting arrested while an impartial judge declares the vote void.
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.
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!
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