EU Charges Samsung With Abusing Vital Telecoms Patent

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

EU Charges Samsung With Abusing Vital Telecoms Patent

Posted by Soulskill on Friday December 21, 2012 @08:50AM from the jig-is-up dept.

Dupple sends this news from Reuters: "The European Commission charged Samsung Electronics on Friday with abusing its dominant position in seeking to bar rival Apple from using a patent deemed essential to mobile phone use. The Commission sent a 'statement of objections' to the South Korean group, with its preliminary view that Samsung was not acting fairly. 'Intellectual property rights are an important cornerstone of the single market. However, such rights should not be misused when they are essential to implement industry standards, which bring huge benefits to businesses and consumers alike,' Competition Commissioner Joaquin Almunia said in statement."

47 of 96 comments (clear)

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

And yet... by asmkm22 · 2012-12-21 08:51 · Score: 1, Insightful

they do nothing to Apple and their rounded corners?
1. Re:And yet... by jcoy42 · 2012-12-21 09:07 · Score: 4, Funny
  
  I just hope they don't make Samsung post an apology on their website.
  
  --
  Never trust an atom. They make up everything.
2. Re:And yet... by Adrian+Lopez · 2012-12-21 09:11 · Score: 2
  
  Because their design patents are standards essential for making a mobile phone.
  Right on! Apple's competitors could give their phones sharp corners, or use a polkadot pentagonal shape instead of a black rectangular one.
  
  --
  "In prison you just have to shut your eyes and take it. Here you have to shut your eyes and give it."
3. Re:And yet... by fredprado · 2012-12-21 09:31 · Score: 1
  
  Poe's law will cause you problems here...
4. Re:And yet... by harperska · 2012-12-21 09:47 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  Why does this stupid fandroid argument still get modded insightful on /.? Set aside the ignorance on the difference between design patents (which shouldn't really be patents in the first place, but have to be registered as patents because you can't copyright an industrial design for some reason) and FRAND patents. Apple did not generically patent all "rounded corners" as the fandroids claim. They patented which corners were rounded, and by how much. Compare the iPhone to the Nokia Lumia. Both are minimalist designs. Both have rounded corners. But the Lumia doesn't look anything like the iPhone, thus not infringing on the "rounded corners" design patent, while also clearly showing that having the exact same rounded corners as the iPhone is not a necessity for a smartphone.
5. Re:And yet... by Adrian+Lopez · 2012-12-21 09:50 · Score: 1
  
  Poe's law will cause you problems here...
  I didn't miss the irony in AC's post, if that's what you're thinking.
  
  --
  "In prison you just have to shut your eyes and take it. Here you have to shut your eyes and give it."
6. Re:And yet... by Shagg · 2012-12-21 10:04 · Score: 1
  
  Have you seen a current generation mobile phone that didn't violate one of their design patents?
  
  --
  Unix is user friendly, it's just selective about who its friends are.
7. Re:And yet... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-21 10:10 · Score: 1
  
  FRAND actually sets the licensing rates as "reasonable"... it's the R in FRAND. Apple did not want to pay the already established and accepted reasonable rate and instead wanted a huge discount. Which is again the ND part of FRAND "Non-discriminatory", which states that the rates have to be non-discriminatory across all individuals.
  Also, FRAND allows for early-bird adopters of a technology to get a reduced rate (to promote new technology adoption) . Apple was not an early bird adopter and was pretty much late to the party when joining the telecom FRAND agreements.
8. Re:And yet... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-21 10:12 · Score: 1
  
  This is pretty much the situation with most patents - the fandroids have no idea how to read one, much less what it applies to. That is why the outrage - it is easy to get upset about something you don't understand, but think you understand (ie. like the rounded corners, where not ALL rounded corners are infringing).
  Same thing applies to software vs. hardware patents. There is no way to distinguish them, so you have to ban them all.
9. Re:And yet... by rsmith-mac · 2012-12-21 10:18 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  This is fundamentally a FRAND issue. Samsung submitted their patents as FRAND, Apple did not. FRAND places limitations on what Samsung can do with their patents in exchange for a simplified licensing system that gives them long term royalties from virtually every mobile device manufacturer.
  Anyhow, going after Apple with FRAND patents was always a risky strategy, and the EU charges are exactly why.
10. Re:And yet... by fredprado · 2012-12-21 10:50 · Score: 1
  
  No, I mean that the irony on your post will me missed.
11. Re:And yet... by cheesybagel · 2012-12-21 11:40 · Score: 2
  
  Not just that. There are EU standards forbidding the sale of gadgets with sharp corners.
12. Re:And yet... by easyTree · 2012-12-21 12:26 · Score: 1
  
  Samsung have plenty of design-space in which to play. The completely spherical phone is an untapped market, crying out for vendors. Apple have really done everyone a favour. All hail the the fruit! Pretty soon the whole barrel will be as sweet-smelling!
  
  --
  Requiem for the American Dream
13. Re:And yet... by easyTree · 2012-12-21 12:36 · Score: 1
  
  Android still don't seem to have emulator Apple's use of manufacturing plant where their 'staff' are held prisoner and try to kill themselves to escape.
  Apple are way ahead of the pack on this one.
  
  --
  Requiem for the American Dream
14. Re:And yet... by Runaway1956 · 2012-12-21 13:16 · Score: 1
  
  In context, had Apple been denied a license at any price, or had Apple been charged ten times what anyone else was paying for the same license, then that would have been discriminatory.
  Reading comprehension, available in schools and colleges near you.
  
  --
  "Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
15. Re:And yet... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-21 13:19 · Score: 1
  
  Hmm... You mean Foxconn, where they make almost all Android devices as well? Oh, and that Foxconn employees have a lower suicide rate than mainland China and the US.
  More fandroid drivel backed up by lies.
16. Re:And yet... by zieroh · 2012-12-21 13:32 · Score: 1, Flamebait
  
  Do you even know what a design patent is?
  Guess what: they're not the kind of patents that you usually find subject to FRAND obligations.
  
  --
  People who say "sheeple" have about as much sophistication as an AOL user, and in fact are probably actually AOL users.
17. Re:And yet... by fredprado · 2012-12-21 14:44 · Score: 1
  
  Considering how basic and obvious they are they should be forcibly FRAND if conceded at all.
18. Re:And yet... by sg_oneill · 2012-12-21 16:13 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  The basic concept is essential vs non essential patents. Essential patents are supposed to be licenced out so as not to be used as a monopolization tool, where as stuff that isnt essential to compete , not so much.
  Considering "rounded corners" wasnt even a patent, and its entirely possible to put out a phone with other shaped corners, then no this is not a legitimate comparison at all.
  
  --
  Excuse the Unicode crap in my posts. That's an apostrophe, and slashdot is busted.
19. Re:And yet... by Ian+A.+Shill · 2012-12-21 18:19 · Score: 1
  
  The rounded corners, they do nothing!
  
  --
  For hire.
20. Re:And yet... by ahabswhale · 2012-12-23 11:45 · Score: 1
  
  Poor baby want a cookie?
  
  --
  Are agnostics skeptical of unicorns too?
21. Re:And yet... by Plumpaquatsch · 2012-12-23 22:45 · Score: 1
  
  In context, had Apple been denied a license at any price, or had Apple been charged ten times what anyone else was paying for the same license, then that would have been discriminatory.
  Which coincidently is exactly what happened.
  
  --
  Of course news about a fake are Fake News.
Such rights should not be misused by zebslash · 2012-12-21 08:55 · Score: 2, Insightful

Indeed, "such rights should not be misused". So why granting bogus patents on obvious features that lead to such abuses? They should fix the system, not try workarounds!
1. Re:Such rights should not be misused by RyuuzakiTetsuya · 2012-12-21 23:09 · Score: 1
  
  Ah the lament of the Apple hater. Everything Apple does is backwards and wrong until they succeed in the market then it becomes obvious!
  
  --
  Non impediti ratione cogitationus.
2. Re:Such rights should not be misused by zebslash · 2012-12-22 00:13 · Score: 1
  
  Where do you read the word "Apple" in my text? Your reply is idiotic, because I would have said the same for ANY company, including Samsung. But do not let the facts go in your way.
Stupid by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-21 08:55 · Score: 4, Insightful

Apple tried to lowball the licensing at less than a quarter of the rate others were paying. Of course Samsung is going to say No to Apple.
1. Re:Stupid by SirGeek · 2012-12-21 08:56 · Score: 1, Insightful
  
  Yet you don't see the apple fans talking about THAT now, Do you ?
  
  --
  UPS Sucks
2. Re:Stupid by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-21 09:18 · Score: 1
  
  [citation needed]
3. Re:Stupid by harperska · 2012-12-21 09:33 · Score: 1
  
  Personally, I don't think FRAND goes far enough, because it just leads to squabbling about what is "fair" and "reasonable". Obviously, the party who owns the patent and the party who wants to make a new standards compliant device will disagree as to how much is fair. From the perspective of the new entrant, the patent owner may have fleeced all previous licensees with regards to the "F" and the "R" in order to maintain a higher across-the-board licencing rate under the guise of "ND". Of course, from the perspective of the patent owner, this is not the case at all.
  So in my opinion to avoid this sort of thing in the future, if a patented technology is to be included in a standards-body ratified standard, the patent in question should be made royalty-free. You have to choose: either you can keep your invention to yourself, you can license your invention to others for a fee, or you can have your invention included in an industry standard. But you can't have your cake and eat it too. I don't care if it's Samsung, Apple, Nokia, or whoever, nobody should be able to hold an industry ransom over a feature required by all participants in that industry, even for a "fair and reasonable" amount.
4. Re:Stupid by Intropy · 2012-12-21 10:01 · Score: 4, Interesting
  
  I wouldn't go that far. It's good to encourage companies to contribute to standards so that we actually do get standards and not every company for itself. But I think it would be a good idea for open licensing terms to be part of any standards submission. So Samsung can suggest patented tech X as a standard, but that needs to come along with a statement that X will be licensed for 3 cents per device to anyone who wants to use it. The license should cover all reasonably foreseeable use cases, and any that come up later get decided by the standards body. Nothing would stop Samsung from also offering a different license agreement to anyone, but the standard one would always also be on the table.
5. Re:Stupid by cheesybagel · 2012-12-21 11:43 · Score: 1
  
  Great. Why doesn't Apple make their MPEG-4 patents royalty free as well then?
6. Re:Stupid by easyTree · 2012-12-21 12:39 · Score: 1
  
  Yet you don't see the apple fans talking about THAT now, Do you ?
  They're too busy licking their phones or queuing to buy a <Phone-they-just-bought-three-weeks-ago-for-two-and-a-half-times-the-actual-market-worth-which-was-already-behind-the-curve-when-they-bought-it>S
  
  --
  Requiem for the American Dream
This is so important by aliquis · 2012-12-21 09:08 · Score: 1

"Patents are important! Unless they are for stuff which matters!"
We can't have patents on those can we?
Just stop all patents or accept the stupidity of it.
1. Re:This is so important by aliquis · 2012-12-21 09:15 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  s/it/them
  Comment on OSnews:
  http://www.osnews.com/thread?546002
  Laurence:
  
  Apple sue nearly every manufacturer over generic shapes and actions, and the government just give a green light for dumb intellectual property to be registered.
  Samsung sue Apple over actual inventions, and they get investigated.
  This world is going to the shits.
  (yes I know Samsung's patents were dubious because of being FRAND, and in an ideal world they shouldn't have used them. But in an ideal world they shouldn't have had to counter sue because Apple generic design patents).
  I agree. This is what patents are for after all. Why only have shitty patents for things not important and punish people who've got the real stuff? Make sense? Remove them already.
Wow by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-21 09:38 · Score: 1

First claiming something is unknown because licensing deals are confidential, and thus unable to be cited. Then claiming you know it to be the opposite.
The cognitive dissonance is strong with this one.
1. Re:Wow by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-21 20:00 · Score: 1
  
  Except apple had paid the license on the Qualcomm chips. That's a known fact, so there is no cognitive dissonance. You dpn't know what you're talking about
Re:Dear Slashdot... by fredprado · 2012-12-21 09:39 · Score: 1

Let me make it simple for you. Anything that hurts the bully is a good thing. The bully getting away with being bully is not. So basically when you see Apple being screwed you should rejoice. You are free to hate or like the others though. Hope this helps.
Re:Dear Slashdot... by harperska · 2012-12-21 09:54 · Score: 1

Let me make it even simpler. Anything that hurts a bully is a good thing, so whenever a company that makes over a few billion in revenue gets screwed, whether it's Apple, Samsung, Microsoft, Google, etc. you should rejoice. You don't think any of them got to their dominant position by being nice guys, especially the Korean Chaebol and the privacy invading ad company, do you?
Re:Dear Slashdot... by yurik · 2012-12-21 10:20 · Score: 1

Its funny how a comment that was meant as a joke got flagged as flamebait. Guess my sarcasm and jokes are not ./ friendly :(
Re:Dear Slashdot... by Nerdfest · 2012-12-21 10:21 · Score: 1

There's nothing wrong with making money. Personally, I think you should rejoice when a company, big or small, gets screwed over after being anti-competitive, or anti-consumer. Of course, I don't think people should give these companies money either.
Re:Dear Slashdot... by fredprado · 2012-12-21 10:52 · Score: 1

You are free to hate (or not hate) anyone you like, for having money or whatever. That is your pleasure. Completely optional.

Your only obligation is to hate Apple, because it is that bad.
Re:Play by the rules, you won't get burned by moronoxyd · 2012-12-21 11:20 · Score: 1, Informative

You might disagree with the way the business world works--as I know many of the ignoramuses on slashdot do--but Apple is the only company in this whole new-age-of-computing fracas that has been playing by the rules.
Like not paying license fees for patents of other companies?
Yeah, Apple is soooo innocent...
Re:Dear Slashdot... by fredprado · 2012-12-21 12:51 · Score: 1

Poe's Law...
Re:Play by the rules, you won't get burned by easyTree · 2012-12-21 13:01 · Score: 1, Redundant

Apple are playing by rule from the Big Book of Business:
* Rule 73b clause ii) Doubly-maximize profits by selling your shiny-yet-behind-the-curve-when-sold product to retards for 2.5 actual market worth whilst simultaneously obtaining the hardware at such low costs that the supplier *literally* enslaves its 'workers' to meet demand to the extent that they are jumping to their deaths to escape.

--
Requiem for the American Dream
YAWN! by Crypto+Gnome · 2012-12-21 17:48 · Score: 1

This article was brought to you by The Department Of The Blindingly Obvious!

Those of us who have been paying attention know PERFECTLY WELL that this is what patents are for (ie in practice, not "in theory").

More often that not a patent is put to one of three uses:

(1) None at all
(2) Used to Bludgeon competitors
(3) Saved for a rainy-day then sold to the highest bidder (who immediately implement Option #2)

Pretty much NOBODY uses a patent by developing a product using such technicalities and should a competitor wish to use the same merely requiring a license at Fair And Reasonable terms.

--
Visit CryptoGnome in his home.
Flamebait! by drinkypoo · 2012-12-23 02:12 · Score: 1

Apple shillmods are here. Everybody run.

--
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Re:Dear Slashdot... by ahabswhale · 2012-12-23 11:49 · Score: 1

Your hate is completely misplaced. Don't hate Apple (or anyone else) for enforcing their patents. Hate the patent system if you don't like it. Keep in mind that the patent system requires Apple to protect their patents or risk losing them.

--
Are agnostics skeptical of unicorns too?