DoJ Investigating Samsung For Patent Abuse

sl4shd0rk writes "Good news for Apple, bad news for Samsung. Yesterday, Apple filed legal papers with the International Trade Commission citing a Department of Justice investigation into whether Samsung is misusing its 'Standards essential' patents in ways which violate antitrust law. Apple claims Samsung has violated commitments to license its essential patents to competitors on fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory terms. Or, more specifically, Samsung is 'using certain patents as a basis for improper legal actions that seek to block the sale of competitors' products.' The article says Google (because of its recent acquisition, Motorola Mobility) is under the same scrutiny."

Comments

Says Apple?

[Terry Pearson]

Nothing like the pot calling the kettle black!

Re:Says Apple?

[AmiMoJo]

Just another move in the on-going patent wars. Apple must ultimately lose, or we are all screwed.

Re:Says Apple?

[Jeng]

I feel like there should be a drinking and smoking robot somewhere repeating "Bite My Shiny Metal Ass"

Re:Says Apple?

[Cederic]

So for the record, Apple really isn't abusing standards essential patents like Samsung/Motorola.

I wasn't aware that Samsung were abusing standards essential patents at all.

My understanding is they're willing to licence them on fair and reasonable terms. Apple on the other hand insist on using them without licencing them.

charging absurd rates

So Samsung want $6 (per phone) for patents essential to the very nature of a device, while Apple want $30 (per phone) for patents that should never have been fucking granted in the first place.

While you're right about absurd rates, I'm not sure you realise just who is trying to charge them.

Re:Says Apple?

[Cederic]

Samsung however did agree to license certain patents at a fair price

I'd say 2.4% is a very fair price, especially when being asked to pay up to 40% for far less valuable patents.

I'm not emotionally attached, beyond being fucked off with Apple's bullshit behaviour. I just happen to swear all the fucking time.

Re:Says Apple?

[GoatCheez]

Samsung however did agree to license certain patents at a fair price, and they are trying to charge some vendors (who compete more aggressively and charge them a lot for patents, e.g. Apple) significantly different terms than others

I was under the impression that the vendors that got lower prices did so because of cross-licensing agreements.

Samsung: "Oh, you want this FRAND patent but don't want to pay $6? Okay, well how about you license us the technology for your patent xxxxx, and we'll lower the rate to $1"

Normal Vendor: "That sounds reasonable. Patent xxxxx is trivial compared to your standards essential patents. Deal."

Apple: "NO WAY! We don't want to pay a dime!"

... what?

[ZiakII]

Samsung is 'using certain patents as a basis for improper legal actions that seek to block the sale of competitors' products.'

Can Apple sue Samsung for using Apples business plan?

Where's the same scrutiny for Apple?

[dclozier]

Yes their patents may not be under FRAND but it looks like they *should* be.

Apple's Licensing Offer To Samsung Raises Questions About FRAND Rates and What's Behind the Attacks on Google

not even

[poetmatt]

This is almost comedy - apple is going to try to claim what samsung proved *apple* did in the lawsuit against samsung which it has now basically lost? Talk about trying for a third attempt to stop your competition through abusing the legal system. Outlined here: http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20121022054044954

summary is that Apple:
sued samsung, claiming samsung abused patents ("charging too much!") while simultaneously abusing patents and encouraging people to use windows phones (hello antitrust!) and anyone other than google. This should set the DOJ off onto investigating *apple/ms/oracle*.

Not only is that hilariously pot -> kettle, but also it doesn't mean the DOJ is investigating anything.

Re:not even

[viperidaenz]

A Patent Troll will buy them and sue everyone else all over again. That's how the system works.

Re:not even

[Anonymous Coward]

Now turn your iphone 5 on. See if the maps still works.

Re:not even

[tlhIngan]

What determines a patent on a standard requiring RAND licensing? It would seem that 'pinch to zoom' and 'slide to unlock' have become de-facto standards for touch-screen devices. How is it that trivial patents like those can be used to block sales of a device when a patent that controls the basic functioning of a device must be licensed to precisely those competitors that are abusing the trivial ones? And you can't even block sales of the devices when the infringer refuses to strike a RAND deal...

Easy.

A standards body, like IEEE, 3GPP, etc., decide they want a new standard. Ethernet (yes, there are patents on all parts). WiFi (plenty to go around). 5G, Codec. whatever. They get together industry to help them produce the new standard. Industry presents their technology, and they hash out what will make it and what doesn't. As a condition for having the technology included in the new standard, all related patents to use that technology must be FRAND licensed. Otherwise you get a really broken spec where competitors cannot implement the standard because the companies refuse to license.

It's also a big game of political football - technologies that are great may be shunned and inferior ones used because the company with the inferior technology greased more palms. It's pretty lucrative.

Basically a patent is FRAND licensed if it's used in a standard for that standard only, because you can't implement the standard without that patent.

Apple needs ot license Samsung patents in order to produce a phone because Samsung put their technology into the celluar spec, probably LTE or 3G, and you cannot build a phone without those patents (implementing the standard automatically violates the patent).

However, the other things like pinch-to-zoom and slide-to-unlock (if valid), are not part of a standard (there's no standard for "smartphone" that everyone has to follow). You could tap a sequence of numbers to unlock (say, entering a PIN code). You could require the user press the power button three times to unlock, etc.

An de-facto standards aren't standards - Microsoft doesn't have to license you the Office patents to implement something that reads Office documents (which they provide), even though Office is a defacto standard in business. Well, they do for their XML standard (because they submitted it as a standard), but not for say, the .doc format.

TiVo's got the same thing - they have a bunch of core DVR patents that if you implement one, you pretty much have to license it, but they don't have to.

As an aside, a lot of standards also have licensing bodies where you can acquire a license to every patent for one fee without having to talk to any of the participants - MPEG has MPEG-LA to license you all the patents used for a video codec, I think the IEEE has one as well for Ethernet and WiFi. 3GPP doesn't (which means if you want to build a phone, you have to talk to everyone).

Re:not even

[Elldallan]

From what I read the problem is that the typical negotiations on FRAND patents is that I want to license patent X and in return u get to license patent Y plus $Z(or the other way around). This is of course fine but then Apple comes along and wants to license some FRAND patents but refuse to include any of their own patents in the deal but they still expect to pay only $Z. Samsung tells Apple no way thats completely unreasonable, either you agree to license us some of your patents or you pay a lot more than $Z... Apple does not like that and instead decides to whine to the Department of Justice and the ITC.

That's Funny, the ITC Sees it Completely Different

[Chibi Merrow]

According to the ITC judge reviewing Apple's complaints about Samsung's standards essential patents, Apple didn't avail themselves to any of the existing remedies when they felt Samsung wasn't offering them a fair licensing deal. They essentially said "You're asking for too much, so we're not paying anything."
If Apple really felt the prices were too high, there are processes in place to force Samsung to the negotiating table. They didn't use any of them. There's no evidence they even made a counter-offer.
Seems more like Apple just doesn't care about other people's patents than Samsung is offering an unfair deal.

Re:That's Funny, the ITC Sees it Completely Differ

[Chibi Merrow]

Oh but it's completely different.

Apple wants the product banned because it has rounded corners and lets you search for stuff.

Samsung wants the product banned because it uses an international communication standard that cannot be implemented without a technology that Samsung invented.

I mean, c'mon, can't you see how much better Apple's case is? ;)

Re:Samsung's no angel.

[Drathos]

These aren't submarine patents, like what Rambus did.

This is Apple pulling double standards. Lots of companies have licensed Samsung's standards-essential patents, but Apple refused to. Just because it's FRAND, doesn't mean that Apple can ignore the need to license them. There is some question of patent exhaustion (I think that's the right term), but the courts seem to be inconsistent in dealing with it (see CSIRO vs Buffalo Technology).

Apple has a long history of ignoring other people's/companies' IP, but crying foul over their IP, which is largely questionable.