Slashdot Mirror
US Judge Orders Apple To Share HTC Deal Details With Samsung
another random user writes with this news from the BBC: "A U.S. judge has ordered Apple to disclose details of its patent-sharing deal with HTC to its rival, Samsung. Apple and HTC signed a 10-year licence agreement earlier this month, but did not make the details public. Samsung, which is also involved in various patent disputes with Apple, asked the courts to tell Apple to furnish the information. It said it was 'almost certain' the deal covered some of the patents at the centre of its dispute with Apple. The court ordered Apple to produce a full copy of the settlement agreement 'without delay,' subject to an 'attorneys' eyes only' designation, meaning it will not be made public."
Let's start a pool for how long it takes for this "attorneys' eyes only" document to be "accidentally" leaked to the public. I'm going to take 3 days.
But folks still say this [closed] American judicial system "is the best!"
... when, instead of competing fairly and squarely with Samsung, they decided to drag Samsung's Galaxy products through the courts and get their sales banned in several different territories, including several European countries. Samsung's products are well priced, well designed, well manufactured and ooze a sense of "quality" overall, while Apple is more of an "electronics fashion brand" in its marketing approach, catering to i-fanboys and i-fangirls who'll buy anyhing branded "Apple". ------ Face it, Apple: You cannot compete with a behemoth like Samsung by trying to twist the courts/the law to your advantage. Put some proper innovation on the market before Samsung, which makes seriously good products, rolls right over you... Good luck to you, because Samsung are seriously good at product design...
Why did the chicken cross the road? Because Elon Musk put an AI chip in its head.
Truth is stranger than fiction...
http://imgur.com/gallery/Swtc9
I deny that I have not avoided attaining the opposite of that which I do not want.
Apple claims that patents in question are so valuable, that you can not price them in money. Therefore (according to Apple), Samsung products should be banned from the market. Samsung wants to prove that Apple sold those patents to HTC and therefore they have monetary price. If they have a price, Samsung products should not be banned. Even if the product is found to be infringing, Samsung would have to pay money instead of having banned product.
Eventually, make this whole patent/licensing/royalty an open market. The gov't grants you a patent. Fine. You get to decide what its worth. No problem. So, put up a 'For Sale' sign. You want $X per unit to use your technology. You accept that price from any buyers.
This would go a long way toward ending patents as a club to selectively beat competitors over the head. And once we put a stop to that nonsense, companies will be a lot less enamored with their patent portfolios.
Have gnu, will travel.
No, it's probably all about the actual terms - they want to know if Apple, in their previous negotiations, has been trying to get Samsung to pay significantly more than the value used when calculating the HTC-Apple agreements.
#DeleteChrome
erm.. you think maybe that Samsung are happy to get it dealt with in one single go, and not go on a patent rampage like apple are doing and being total fucking asshats about?
dealing with it like this Samsung can then find that Apple quite possibly extorted a deal from HTC based on patents they don't own.. that would not be HTC's fault but apples.
stomping around the universe.
Best not to be underfoot during this battle.
So the question remains, which one is Samsung, and which Apple ?
Why does it matter which is which? That was the whole point of the Dawn of the Third Age. Both "parents" were just as bad as each other.
Why would it matter to Samsung if the deal between Apple and HTC concerns some patents that are in dispute?
Apple has alleged that Samsung has caused them 'irreparable harm' by violating their patents, and has requested (and in somes cases gotten) injunctions against Samsung products in several cases now.
Samsungs counter argument is essentially:
(disputed assumption 1) Assuming your patents are valid, and (disputed assumption 2) Assuming we infringed those patents, then: its still not irreparable harm. Apple settled with HTC on those same patents which suggests that infringing those patents isn't irreparable, and that money can 'repair' the harm after all, and that therefore an injunction isn't needed.
Of course its all moot if Samsung is able to get assumption 1 or 2 invalidated, but they're fighting this case at every level.
See:
http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=2012112121031884 .
For those too lazy to follow a link, here is the gist:
"Earlier this month Samsung asked that the court force Apple to turn over its settlement agreement with HTC, and today US Magistrate Judge Paul S. Grewal granted that requested. According to Samsung, the document could play a vital role in determining whether it will need to take any of its products off the market in the wake of the $1.049 billion verdict Apple won back in August. If Apple licensed some of its unique user experience patents, Samsung argues, then Cupertino is clearly fine with competitors using that IP as long as it receives money in return â" and since Apple will be receiving a payout in connection with the verdict, the extra step of an injunction isn't justified."
In plain text: Apple: no injunctions for you and drop the damages you ask to what you can actually negotiate in the marketplace.
Want to bet that Apple isn't at all happy about this?
Since both to these companies issued publicly traded shares of stock, they should be legally obliged by the SEC to disclose the exact nature of these settlements to the shareholders.
So the question remains, which one is Samsung, and which Apple ?
Pretty obvious, really. Apple cares about being hip, "Who are you?", and Android is all about user choice, or "What do you want?"
Insert self-referential sig here.
It helps because there are patents apple states it cannot and will not license to others because of the harm it would cause them. If they licensed them to HTC then that proves at worst they were wrong, and at worst they lied to the court.
When you cant win, ad hominem.