Slashdot Mirror
Apple Claims New Infringement After Being Ordered To Tell Samsung HTC Secrets
An anonymous reader writes "Ordered to tell Samsung all of the company's HTC secrets, Apple throws a tantrum and adds a bunch of new products to the never-ending list of products Samsung has infringed on. Apple's tantrum stems from a ruling on Thursday that could have a large effect on the Apple lawsuit. The Apple lawsuit, which was filed in February, alleges that Samsung violated Apple patents related to user interface, technology and style. The first decision was found in favor of Apple to the tune of $1 billion, but Samsung is trying to get that ruling thrown out. But as the Apple lawsuit has gone on, the Apple lawsuit has gotten fiercer, and because of a ruling on Thursday, Apple throws a tantrum and is trying to add even more products into the lawsuit."
I completely agree. Apple certainly is not adding more devices because Samsung just did the same. That could never be the cause, it has to be they are throwing a fit.
Biased summary much?
Any value Slashdot once had as a source for tech news is entirely gone now. Sensationalistic crap for the win.
Meh.
FTA: "So, most likely in response to that judge's ruling..."
No evidence, no reasoning, just one persons unsubstantiated opinion that these two items are connected. Combine that will biased language like "tantrum" and you get a content free piece of click bait. Congratulations.
What is actually happening can probably be better summarized something like this: highly paid legal teams in huge patent lawsuit continue to jockey for position with miscellaneous legal moves.
10 PRINT CHR$(205.5+RND(1)); : GOTO 10
Are you trying to say that Apple threw a tantrum?
I would agree it is written by a 9 year old based on the sensationalism and redundancy. Because of redundancy in the summary, along with sensationalism, I agree that it was written by a 9 year old.
Apparently wizard is not a legitimate career path, so I chose programmer instead.
Wouldn't the HTC settlement help Apple's case? If HTC will settle patent claims with Apple, why doesn't Samsung do so on similar terms? Why does Apple have to sue Samsung when Apple is this big reasonable company that just wants to cross-license its patent portfolio at a reasonable price?
If I used a sig over again, would anyone notice?
The legal term is argumentum tantrum. It translates to argument by tantrum and refers to the legal technique of making additional arguments based on rulings that are not made in the lawyer's favor. It's a seldom-used term since it's basically a trait of all lawyers.
Well, if Apple thinks their frivolous lawsuits will win them new customers or get old customers back, they'll be in for a surprise in 5-10 years from now.
From 3 days ago, "Now Samsung has responded in kind, adding the iPad mini, 4th generation iPad and 5th generation iPod touch to the mix."
"Samsung’s additions shouldn’t come as a surprise; when a judge ruled that Apple was indeed allowed to add Android 4.2 Jelly Bean as it pertains to the Samsung Galaxy Nexus, as well as the Galaxy Note 10.1 and Galaxy S III to the proceedings, he specifically warned that in granting that alteration, Apple should be prepared for return amendments from Samsung. Specifically, he said that the iPad mini and latest iPad were likely additions."
"Samsung had previously moved to have the iPhone 5 added to the filing, and that motion was successful."
And back. And forth. And back again.
Any sect, cult, or religion will legislate its creed into law if it acquires the political power to do so.
I don't believe this article made it through whatever review process slashdot uses to decide if a story should be posted or not.
Would it help Apple, no, at best it is neutral to this case. The issue Samsung is trying to make is that Apple allowed licensing of their patents to HTC, but refuses out of hand to do the same for them. I'm not sure how much that helps Samsung even if true though, as patent law confuses me greatly probably because it is so broken at the moment.
The slashdot of today is a pale comparison of the slashdot of 3-5 years ago.
Back then it was worth reading daily, there were well thought out, reasoned, and articulated articles.
Now its become a place I come to once a week, and seeing articles like this piece of crap makes me wonder if that is too often.
Bye slashdot, I will remember your good days fondly and are deeply saddened at what you have become.
I guess you can take solace in knowing digg beat you there.
Wouldn't the HTC settlement help Apple's case? If HTC will settle patent claims with Apple, why doesn't Samsung do so on similar terms? Why does Apple have to sue Samsung when Apple is this big reasonable company that just wants to cross-license its patent portfolio at a reasonable price?
Well, Apple doesn't _want_ to cross-license its patents. However, the fact is that Samsung used these patents without permission, and Samsung sales have gone up, while HTC sales have gone down. So here is what most likely happened:
Someone at the negotiation table said, look, HTC isn't really Apple's enemy, Samsung is. And Apple isn't really HTCs enemy, Samsung is. So much better to join forces, license these patents to HTC, and to Microsoft, and to anyone other than Samsung. And do their best to f*** Samsung together. Samsung shouldn't be too surprised if there will be some HTC lawsuits following.
Getting goosebumps at all the innovation this is spurring?
I don't know the meaning of the word 'don't' - J
But if Apple can license their patents to HTC, Samsung can ask the courts for a license at the same amount. It is possible that the court will grant that, as Apple clearly thought it was fair for a very similar competitor.
Peter predicted that you would "deliberately forget" creation 2000 years ago...
Because Apple wants to drive Samsung out of the smartphone/tablet business. If HTC licensed the same patents for a reasonable price, Samsung would have some leverage to get the same deal and stay in the market.
Only if said patents are FRAND. At which point they MUST. But for non-FRAND patents, they don't have to.
If they aren't, then it's perfectly fine for Apple to not license to Samsung at all - because the "ND" part doesn't apply. Hell, the "F" part doesn't have to apply as well.
And Samsung has stated clearly they are NOT willing to form any sort of agreement.
Heck, Microsoft has licensed patents with Apple (cross-licensed). Apple doesn't have to charge HTC the same rates that Microsoft is paying.
For the FRAND patents, Microsoft and Apple are arguing the rates specified by Samsung and Motorola are unfair. Unfortunately, the big issue there is no one really said what fair was as a lot of the rates include cross-licensing. And Samsung wants injunctions because Apple's violating their FRAND patents, while Samsung's arguing that since Apple licensed patents to HTC, Apple cannot force an injunction on Samsung products (the problem being that Samsung is, by FRAND forced to license, so they can't argue that they deserve an injunction for licensable patents while Apple doesn't for other potentially licensable patents).
Of course, the business case may be that it's very helpful to license it because if HTC is paying, and Samsung is paying, so should LG, Motorola/Google, ZTE and everyone else (who may include Amazon and B&N).
"Samsungâ(TM)s additions shouldnâ(TM)t come as a surprise; when a judge ruled that Apple was indeed allowed to add Android 4.2 Jelly Bean as it pertains to the Samsung Galaxy Nexus, as well as the Galaxy Note 10.1 and Galaxy S III to the proceedings, he specifically warned that in granting that alteration, Apple should be prepared for return amendments from Samsung. Specifically, he said that the iPad mini and latest iPad were likely additions."
I see what Apple is trying to do, here: they're concentrating their fire onto Samsung because it's the most successful Android company. Apple thinks that by "teaching these guys a lesson" they'll instill fear in all the rest of the Android companies, and steer them to crappier alternatives (like Windows Phone, Windows RT) that could never compete with iDevices. Like the biggest bully beating up the guy that could pose the biggest threat to his hegemony. But Apple is making a mistake, I think, for two reasons:
- The guy Apple decided to bully is proving to be a tough nut to crack, and that might, instead of discouraging, actually encourage the other vendors. If for no other reason, then because Apple is being distracted by this huge war they got themselves into.
- There are Android companies that won't stop making Android devices, regardless of what Apple does to Samsung. Win or lose, these companies will continue making Android devices, and enjoy their small profits. I am talking about all those nameless Chinese companies that are more than happy to make cheap Android tablets or phones for the masses. Yes, Apple probably doesn't much care about those, since they aren't even catering to the same market as the iDevices are, but moreover, these are nimble companies working in the gray areas that are mostly out of bounds to Apple's lawyers. But their combined effect may very well make Android the dominant player.
- Google has enough muscle to help one Android company at a time, releasing Nexus-branded Android tablets and phones. Google takes a financial hit on each of these, but it's small enough compared to the profits Google makes. This is another source of Android devices that Apple cannot easily quench. And something tells me that Google's corporate policy is one to not give in to bullies, so there might be a bit of a personal thing going on there, especially if Apple insists being dicks.
So, I personally think that Apple needs to stop doing what they're doing.
"The agriculture ministry is not in charge of Gundam" - Japanese ministry official.
Wouldn't it help Apple...? No.
Apple is trying to push for an injunction barring Samsung from selling its products at all. I.e. kill Samsung sales totally. Apple has claimed that the value of it's patents is so great, or impossible to calculate, and the only possible remedy for Samsung's infringement is to stop sales entirely. Apple has claimed that it is not possible for Samsung to pay license fees for the patents.
But now, it would appear that HTC *has* licensed (at least some of) the patents, so Samsung is claiming that it *is* possible to put a value to the patents, and thus a full injunction is not necessary, because a financial solution can be found.
That is why it sucks for Apple... because, if the court agrees with Samsung, Apple a) won't be able to stop samsung sales b) will be shown to be lying about licensing
gus
.. if only.
No, because Apple want to completely ban the Samsung devices and claims that money can't make up for the harm that Samsung's devices are causing. However, if Apple licensed their patents to HTC, then clearly money can make up for the harm and thus, Apple is only entitled to money damages, not a complete ban (if Samsung's devices are found to be infringing).
The real "Libtards" are the Libertarians!
It could also affect dollar amounts. This is the same Apple who wants to offer $1 per device total for several major feature parents from Motorola, but thinks minor design patents means Samsung should pay $30-$40 per device to Apple. Divulging the deal with HTC will likely show that Apple never negotiated in good faith with Samsung and that damages should be much lower, or perhaps change the verdict in an appeal.
http://blindscribblings.com - Tasty pop-culture in conceptual fashion.
However, in a civil suit, actual damages are based on fair market value. The best guide to that is how much Apple freely chose to license the patents to third party for.
I am sorry you are so ill-informed. The patent system is not broken. It is purposefully confusing and complex to help drive innovation in fast paced industries like the smartphone sector. Don't believe me? Just ask hundreds of envious countries and tens of millions of employed American workers.
Apple throws a tantrum and adds a bunch of new products to the never-ending list of products
Great sentence there...
Apple's tantrum stems from a ruling on Thursday
There's that word again...
...but Samsung is trying to get that ruling thrown out. But as the Apple lawsuit has gone on...
Sounds like babbling.
and because of a ruling on Thursday, Apple throws a tantrum and is trying to add even more products into the lawsuit
Holy shit, didn't you already say that a few sentences ago?
Twinstiq, game news
IANAL but I believe the issue that Samsung has is that Apple repeatedly seeks injunctions which would bar the sale of products by Samsung because Apple claims that monetary compensation, i.e. licencing fees, is not enough. Samsung is contending that many of the patents that Apple has used to have injunctions placed on Samsung products are included in the HTC licencing deal. In other words, monetary compensation clearly IS enough, and therefore any injunctions should be removed and Samsung should be offered similar licencing deals to the one that HTC has.
But if HTC and Samsung are both using Apple's patents (with HTC doing so legally) and HTC sales go down but Samsung sales go up, doesn't that imply it has nothing to do with Apple's patents, and everything to do with Samsung marketing and innovation?
"Nobody wants a stylus."
Once again they add a device whose primary raison d'etre is a stylus.
Before it was the Galaxy Note 10.1, now it is the Galaxy Note 2.
Apple must be selling their iShit with hidden wacom styl, to be claiming these copy Apples crap.
4 days ago when Samsung did the same thing, it was "Korean electronics giant Samsung has added three new Apple products to the list of products that the company claims infringes on its patents." But when it's the other side, suddenly, it's "Apple throws a tantrum"? Both articles were yours... Bit of a bias there, Samsungzenpus?
Here's why at best it's neutral and, at worst, it hurts them badly...
Apple claims it is irreparably harmed and nothing short of a permanent injunction can make up for infringing its patents, however...
"If" Apple licensed the same patents in question to HTC, (for monetary gains) then Samsung should, by law, be allowed to pay licensing fees instead of suffering from a permanent injunction.
In essence, "Throw an equitable amount of money at Apple" becomes the solution to the Samsung case, -not- a permanent injunction to prevent Samsung from ever selling an infringing item.
Sig Follows: "Suppose you were an idiot. And suppose you were a member of Congress. But I repeat myself." -- Mark Twain
I would agree it is written by a 9 year old based on the sensationalism and redundancy. Because of redundancy in the summary, along with sensationalism, I agree that it was written by a 9 year old.
Mojo-Jojo?
You're confusing me guys. So is Apple refusing it out of hand or asking 30-40$ for glorious "pitch to zooms"?
"thermonuclear". what do you think that means? it means blocking - presumably this is because samsung is the one who made the commercially hugely successful android phone and because they figured that samsung doesn't have a bunch of patents that would force apple to pay half a billion to samsung.. licensing to htc or moto isn't such a big deal because moto and and htc aren't really doing that well.
the claim(apples view) is that apple is losing good profits money because of samsung products and that (reasonable) license fees aren't enough to compensate for that. samsung is trying to of course turn the table and show that there exists in fact reasonable licensing fee for these patents and thus the damages aren't that huge.
and apple isn't total stranger to cross licensing. nor is apple a total stranger to paying hundreds of millions to a competing company for patent rights..
world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
Well, if the patent system is not broken, then something else isn't working. Apple hasn't done any innovation for years (endless slimming-down of the same product doesn't really count). While it would appear that Apple is in no danger of going belly-up, its business model of devoting increased resources to litigation as its relevance declines is all too reminiscent of the SCO debacle.
No, seriously - other than churn out slightly-improved versions of the same product every 6 months, and attempt to sue their competitors into oblivion, what does Apple do?
Get their crowd of hypnotized tech fans and "because it's cool" hipsters to be early-adopters and drive THEIR version of "the next thing" into the position of being the first commercially successful version - creating the appearance that they came up with the concept (rather than just the first commercially successful design) - and leveraging this commercial success into enough perceived standing to sue the competition into oblivion.
Benefit for the rest of us: At least those with enough money and willingness to live in a walled garden, using only Apple's vision of how things should be done, get new stuff a little sooner.
Downside for the rest of us: Those of use who DON'T have the money, or AREN'T willing to live in a walled garden, end up waiting longer and paying more, or perhaps not getting the next-new-thing at all, due to Apple's litigiousness.
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
Even the article referenced states that this is not the case (from http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2012/11/us-patent-chief-to-software-patent-critics-give-it-a-rest-already/):
Empirical evidence backs this up. For example, in a 2008 book, the researchers James Bessen and Michael Meurer found that for nonchemical patents, the costs of patent litigation began to exceed the benefits of holding patents in the 1990s. Software and business patents were particularly prone to litigation.
David Kappos is the one who is ill informed, and how exactly is his stats include any business that has a trademark. Also how do they measure innovations from the article it sound like they use patients/copyright/trademarks to judge. Well I don't think anybody would argue that the current system doesn't produce patients, and lots of business have them.
Kappos cited a Patent Office report released earlier this year that supposedly shows that "intellectual property" industries "supported the jobs of 40 million American workers, or 27.7 percent of all US jobs." But as we pointed out at the time the report was released, those figures mostly reflect a ludicrously broad definition of "IP-intensive industry." Any industry that makes use of trademark protection is counted as an "IP" industry, meaning that (as we put it in April) "if you hang sheetrock, bag groceries, or answer phones at a paper mill for a living, you're probably in an 'IP-intensive' industry as far as the Obama administration is concerned."
Maybe you are being sarcastic.