"We agree to stop abusing SEP patents for five years. And then, once those five years have passed, we will return to abusing them as we have which lead us to this point."
How about Samsung stop abusing SEP patents and honour their FRAND promises. Period.
They're offer appears nice, on the face of things, but it is hollow in the long run. The EU response should be simple - you've broken your FRAND promises and abused your SEP patents. You are fined an enormous amount and if it happens again, you will be fined an enormous amount again until you understand that FRAND promises are vital to the industry's ability to grow and develop and breaking those promises undermines the entire foundation of Standards Essential Patents. Stop abusing them - drop every single SEP-based lawsuit against every manufacturer and do not launch another lawsuit seeking damages nor injunctions for SEP patents ever again - or be fined. Period.
So long as manufacturers can wield SEP patents that are covered by FRAND promises as a weapon, there's serious damage being done to the industry. If you want to use your patent as a weapon against your fellow manufacturers, don't offer them up to a standards body for inclusion in an industry standard and don't promise to license them under FRAND terms. You are under no obligation to do so. This situation isn't forced upon you. There are reasons companies want their patents in an industry standard, even with the FRAND limitations, and there are reasons companies want to keep patents close to their chest. Pick one. You can't have both. Attempting to have both is an abuse of SEP patents and a breach of FRAND promises.
It's crap like this that makes me wonder why anyone still reads this site.
Because, years ago, it used to be a great resource to learn about various diverse tech topics and some of us hope that it might, one day, return to that (all the while knowing those days are gone, gone, gone...).
Folks, like many expensive watches, this is a fashion item...
You clearly haven't seen the watch if you think it's a fashion item. It would have been ugly had it come out in the mid-90's. In 2013, it's downright embarrassing. There's nothing, what-so-ever fashionable about the Samsung Gear. And, for the love of gawd, please don't compare it to a Rolex which actually is a fashionable piece of jewelry.
Most analysts don't know their ass from their elbow so why should anyone give a rat's ass what they think? Seriously, as an example, look at analyst Peter Misek's track record and you see a long history of utter cluelessness that makes you wonder just how he manages to keep his job. And he's far from the only analyst who would do better if they just randomly guessed at things. So why should we care what an analyst thinks?
Yeah! Exactly! I mean, that's precisely what happened when Apple started releasing new less-expensive versions of their iPod alongside their top of the line iPods. When will Apple learn from their past mistakes. Stoopid Apple./sarcasm
You're right. They shouldn't have done anything to move their hardware forward. They should have just released the exact same device they did last year to ensure nothing ever became obsolete.
And, by "you're right", I of course mean "you're a moron."
Translation: I've pumped the value of Dell stock as high as I'm going to get it to go so I now have my eyes set on pumping the value of a different company's stock through my "activism".
I really would be surprised if Obama does Samsung the same favour he extended to Apple last week and overturns this ban.
I know it's fun to quote the campaign contributions and imply the decision was all about the money or to imply that Obama is protecting the American company from the evil foreign company but the simple reality is Samsung obtained a ban using Standards Essential, FRAND patents. Apple's ban is not related to Standards Essential, FRAND patents.
That is why Obama is not going to step in and overturned the ban on Samsung products.
If you actually believe that driving while on the phone does not distract you and impair your ability to safely drive, all I can say is you're a moron and ask that when you do get into a accident, please do your level best to ensure that you, and and only you, are injured. There are other drivers on the streets (with passengers, like kids, in their car) who would like to get home alive and unharmed and we'd appreciate it if you'd risk only your life rather than ours.
You may not respect the responsibility attached to driving around a massive machine capable of killing people so we'd really appreciate it if you could do your best to keep the destruction and injury focused on yourself, since you are the one taking the risk.
Sadly, it almost never is the moron on the phone (or texting or drunk or whatever) that gets seriously hurt - its usually some soccer mom with a car full of kids or some grandpa going to visit his grand kids who pays the price for this myth being wrong...
A $12 chip which was made by Infineon (who had already paid a license fee to Samsung) for which Samsung was requesting MORE THAN THE PRICE OF THE CHIP.
Yeah, Apple refused those terms. Those terms aren't fair nor reasonable. Anyone who thinks 100-plus percent is a reasonable fee _FOR A PRODUCT THAT IS ALREADY COVERED BY A LICENSE_ is a moron. Samsung was attempting to double dip on the patent - get a license from the manufacturer of the chip and then get a second license from clients who bought the chip.
Further, the fact that Samsung specifically targeted Apple with this outrageous demand is the very definition of discriminatory which, in total, is an absolute breach of their FRAND promise.
There's a reason that Samsung is being investigated by the EU. The ITC fucked up.
It's not about the patent being "a widely held technology standard" - it's about the fact that Samsung offered the patent for inclusion in an industry standard technology with a promise to license the patent under FRAND - Fair, Reasonable, And Non-Discriminatory - terms.
Samsung AGREED to those terms to include the license in the industry standard.
Now they are breaking that agreement by specifically targeting Apple.
The President is arguing that if a company is permitted to break their FRAND licensing promise to specifically target certain companies, the implementation of industry standards will be drastically affected and that will adversely affect consumers.
Apple wasn't offered the same FRAND terms. They were offered terms VASTLY higher than what their competitors were paying would would clearly be defined as not Fair and Reasonable and would be the very definition of Discriminatory - by selectively targeting Apple for higher licensing terms than what others paid, Samsung was abusing their FRAND patents.
Apple has continually stated they are willing to pay FRAND licensing rates but they are NOT willing to pay excessive rates that are not in line with industry standards.
And Apple didn't make their design patents industry standard FRAND patents so they are under no obligation to offer them to their competitors so they are within their rights to enforce those patent rights. They obtained those patents specifically to prevent their competitors from copying them in certain aspects.
You see, there's the key difference. Standard essential FRAND patents make less money per license but they more than make up for it because everyone needs to license it because it is an industry standard - if you make use of that industry standard technology, you license the patent. Thus, while they make less per license, they make up the R&D money in volume. That's the agreement that they make when they offer the patent to the standards body for consideration for inclusion in the technology. If they don't make that agreement, their technology won't be included in the industry standard.
Non-FRAND patents are obtained for two reasons - either to make a lot of money per license when other companies ask to license it or to prevent other companies from copying your tech (or, in this case, design) by refusing to license it, which is your right since it's not part of an industry standard.
Samsung offered their patent up as part of an industry standard. Their choice. As part of that process, they agreed to license it under FRAND terms. Again, their choice. When discussions began with Apple, a company with a lot of money, they go greedy and demanded more money from Apple than they demand from anyone else. They demanded a rate that is excessive and abusive. That is not Fair, not Reasonable, and not Non-Discriminatory. That is, in every way, not within the basic concepts of a FRAND patent.
Everyone should be against Samsung in this, regardless of their feelings for Samsung and regardless of their feelings for Apple. Samsung is abusing their FRAND patents and we should, in no way, celebrate their success in that abuse. If they successfully abuse their FRAND patents to specifically target Apple then every other FRAND patent holder will start considering doing the same thing. You may hate Apple; you may love Samsung but, if this ruling is allowed to stand, eventually, a company you hate will target a company you love with a FRAND patent and then the party comes to an end.
Look at the events and remove the names of the parties involved and evaluate it on the merits of what is happening. You can't possibly think this is a good thing.
But those patents weren't standards essential FRAND patents.
That would mean the key difference is Samsung was under an obligation to license those patents at Fair and Reasonable terms without discriminating who gets that license and the terms of that license because those patents were part of an industry standard. The design patents that you refer to are not part of an industry standard and can easily be designed around without impacting the functionality of the device.
That would make one an abuse of FRAND patents and the other protecting patent rights.
Please do try to understand what's going on here.
The fact that anyone supports Samsung's abuse of their FRAND patents is beyond me. You can love Samsung; you can hate Apple all you want but to view Samsung's abuse of their FRAND patents as anything good is moronic. If Samsung is permitted to abuse their FRAND patents as they have, they open the door for every FRAND patent holder doing the same thing which will completely throw standards essential patents into chaos. It would be - and this not me using this word for hyperbole - disastrous for any industry that relies on standards essential patents.
It's $199 for the 16GB one on a 2 year contract, which is the same as you'd pay for a top-tier phone like the HTC One 32GB or the Samsung Galaxy S4 16GB...
Or the iPhone 5S, the single most popular phone on the market that is also available for $199 on a two year contract.
I'm just sayin'.
(Before anyone claims I'm being an Apple fanboy, which I have long ago admitted I am, I would similarly have said something had you failed to mention the S4. If you're going to name phones in a market category without naming one or the other of the two most popular phones in that category, it's hard to not see a bias.)
"how is this any different than the fact that Apple pays for product placement in *every* TV show or movie that has a laptop or phone in it?"
Um, because product placement in a tv show or movie is _OBVIOUSLY_ paid-for product placement and the viewer knows money exchanged hands for it to happen.
Some average geek "organically" spreading the word about how super-duper-awesome Samsung is is NOT obviously paid for.
Or, to be cleared, one is transparent about the commercial transaction that netted the result while the other is deceptive.
I thought that difference was rather obvious but I guess not.
Hey, I could use some extra disposable income - feel like putting me in touch with your contact? I'd be willing to be a shill for their toys for $500 a month.
How much does Samsung pay you to spread this misinformation?
This thread is littered with multiple posts from you spreading the same misinformation that is clearly wrong to anyone who's read the article - the 533MHZ speed is ONLY available to benchmark apps (the code it triggers is even called BenchmarkBooster). Other apps and games cannot access that speed and are limited to 480MHz.
Given how many times you've posted misinformation to this discussion, I'm forced to assume you're either a complete moron or you're on Samsung's payroll. I'm guessing the later so I'm curious, how much does Samsung pay? What is the going rate for spreading misinformation in a Slashdot discussion?
1) How much money did Apple fork over to the US government in taxes? I'm guessing that number is not-zero.
So the claim that Apple paid literally zero in taxes is a lie. They paid LITERALLY billions of dollars in taxes. Last I checked, "billions" does not equal "literally zero". They, in fact, paid MORE than any other American company.
2) What other companies make use of the Ireland tax situation? But let's focus on Apple, right? Apple generates page views and nobody cares about every other company that's doing the same thing. Also, you know IT'S LEGAL!
Do you not take advantage of tax deductions that are available to you come tax time? Why is it wrong when a company works WITHIN the law to minimize their tax burden but its ok for an individual to do so?
Regardless of point 2, point 1 clearly shows that the claim that Apple literally paid zero taxes is a lie. Unless you consider billions of dollars to equal literally zero.
It's seen a _small_ sales dip in _some_ categories but nothing close to "plummeting". And if you dare quote the iPad numbers, you will betray how daft you are. It's a channel adjustment - the actual sell through numbers only dropped 3% which is _EASILY_ attributable to people knowing a new iPad is on the horizon and choosing to wait before buying and if you consider a 3% dip "plummeting" then you are a moron.
paying literally zero tax
Apple paid more corporate taxes than ANY OTHER AMERICAN COMPANY! Now, I don't know what your definition of "literally zero" is but when they paid more than anyone else, that would suggest they did not, in fact, pay "literally zero". Unless every other corporation got money back, Apple did not LITERALLY pay ZERO taxes.
I'm not going to pick apart any more of your post because you're a lying moron and not worth my time. Anyone who claims Apple is paying "literally zero tax" is flat out a liar.
How does ignorant lying bullshit like this get modded up?
Feel free to flame; feel free to mod me troll, but I'm sick of flat out bullshit ignorant posts like this being modded "Informative". I've been coming to Slashdot for many years to learn new things about tech and geek subjects but this is getting pathetic. Hate Apple, if you want, but at least base it vaguely on facts rather than complete and total bullshit lies.
Slashdot Mirror
"We agree to stop abusing SEP patents for five years. And then, once those five years have passed, we will return to abusing them as we have which lead us to this point."
How about Samsung stop abusing SEP patents and honour their FRAND promises. Period.
They're offer appears nice, on the face of things, but it is hollow in the long run. The EU response should be simple - you've broken your FRAND promises and abused your SEP patents. You are fined an enormous amount and if it happens again, you will be fined an enormous amount again until you understand that FRAND promises are vital to the industry's ability to grow and develop and breaking those promises undermines the entire foundation of Standards Essential Patents. Stop abusing them - drop every single SEP-based lawsuit against every manufacturer and do not launch another lawsuit seeking damages nor injunctions for SEP patents ever again - or be fined. Period.
So long as manufacturers can wield SEP patents that are covered by FRAND promises as a weapon, there's serious damage being done to the industry. If you want to use your patent as a weapon against your fellow manufacturers, don't offer them up to a standards body for inclusion in an industry standard and don't promise to license them under FRAND terms. You are under no obligation to do so. This situation isn't forced upon you. There are reasons companies want their patents in an industry standard, even with the FRAND limitations, and there are reasons companies want to keep patents close to their chest. Pick one. You can't have both. Attempting to have both is an abuse of SEP patents and a breach of FRAND promises.
Why does Apple get to lobby the government or expect the support of the government when they won't pay for it?
Apple paid more in corporate taxes to the American government than any other company (iirc, they cut the US Treasury a check for $6 BILLION).
Sorry to ruin your rant with facts...
It's crap like this that makes me wonder why anyone still reads this site.
Because, years ago, it used to be a great resource to learn about various diverse tech topics and some of us hope that it might, one day, return to that (all the while knowing those days are gone, gone, gone...).
Folks, like many expensive watches, this is a fashion item...
You clearly haven't seen the watch if you think it's a fashion item. It would have been ugly had it come out in the mid-90's. In 2013, it's downright embarrassing. There's nothing, what-so-ever fashionable about the Samsung Gear. And, for the love of gawd, please don't compare it to a Rolex which actually is a fashionable piece of jewelry.
Who is this guy? I'd like to get some out of court settlement funds.
Not to be insensitive to people with vestibular disorders, but why is this the first I'm hearing about this?
Because now it's about Apple and the iPhone and that generates page views and drives advertising. Now it's a real story where, before, it wasn't.
I'm guessing you already knew the answer but I'm stating it to make it official.
Most analysts don't know their ass from their elbow so why should anyone give a rat's ass what they think? Seriously, as an example, look at analyst Peter Misek's track record and you see a long history of utter cluelessness that makes you wonder just how he manages to keep his job. And he's far from the only analyst who would do better if they just randomly guessed at things. So why should we care what an analyst thinks?
Yeah! Exactly! I mean, that's precisely what happened when Apple started releasing new less-expensive versions of their iPod alongside their top of the line iPods. When will Apple learn from their past mistakes. Stoopid Apple. /sarcasm
You're right. They shouldn't have done anything to move their hardware forward. They should have just released the exact same device they did last year to ensure nothing ever became obsolete.
And, by "you're right", I of course mean "you're a moron."
Mod away.
Translation: I've pumped the value of Dell stock as high as I'm going to get it to go so I now have my eyes set on pumping the value of a different company's stock through my "activism".
I do appreciate that he air-quoted "activism"...
Just be ause the headless chicken continues to run around the yard does not mean it's alive.
Blackberry is dead and has been for a while. The body just hasn't realized it yet.
I really would be surprised if Obama does Samsung the same favour he extended to Apple last week and overturns this ban.
I know it's fun to quote the campaign contributions and imply the decision was all about the money or to imply that Obama is protecting the American company from the evil foreign company but the simple reality is Samsung obtained a ban using Standards Essential, FRAND patents. Apple's ban is not related to Standards Essential, FRAND patents.
That is why Obama is not going to step in and overturned the ban on Samsung products.
That, and only that, is the reason.
If you actually believe that driving while on the phone does not distract you and impair your ability to safely drive, all I can say is you're a moron and ask that when you do get into a accident, please do your level best to ensure that you, and and only you, are injured. There are other drivers on the streets (with passengers, like kids, in their car) who would like to get home alive and unharmed and we'd appreciate it if you'd risk only your life rather than ours.
You may not respect the responsibility attached to driving around a massive machine capable of killing people so we'd really appreciate it if you could do your best to keep the destruction and injury focused on yourself, since you are the one taking the risk.
Sadly, it almost never is the moron on the phone (or texting or drunk or whatever) that gets seriously hurt - its usually some soccer mom with a car full of kids or some grandpa going to visit his grand kids who pays the price for this myth being wrong...
The ITC fucked up.
If their ban had been allowed to pass, everyone would have lost. Including you.
A $12 chip which was made by Infineon (who had already paid a license fee to Samsung) for which Samsung was requesting MORE THAN THE PRICE OF THE CHIP.
Yeah, Apple refused those terms. Those terms aren't fair nor reasonable. Anyone who thinks 100-plus percent is a reasonable fee _FOR A PRODUCT THAT IS ALREADY COVERED BY A LICENSE_ is a moron. Samsung was attempting to double dip on the patent - get a license from the manufacturer of the chip and then get a second license from clients who bought the chip.
Further, the fact that Samsung specifically targeted Apple with this outrageous demand is the very definition of discriminatory which, in total, is an absolute breach of their FRAND promise.
There's a reason that Samsung is being investigated by the EU. The ITC fucked up.
It's not about the patent being "a widely held technology standard" - it's about the fact that Samsung offered the patent for inclusion in an industry standard technology with a promise to license the patent under FRAND - Fair, Reasonable, And Non-Discriminatory - terms.
Samsung AGREED to those terms to include the license in the industry standard.
Now they are breaking that agreement by specifically targeting Apple.
The President is arguing that if a company is permitted to break their FRAND licensing promise to specifically target certain companies, the implementation of industry standards will be drastically affected and that will adversely affect consumers.
And he's right.
Apple wasn't offered the same FRAND terms. They were offered terms VASTLY higher than what their competitors were paying would would clearly be defined as not Fair and Reasonable and would be the very definition of Discriminatory - by selectively targeting Apple for higher licensing terms than what others paid, Samsung was abusing their FRAND patents.
Apple has continually stated they are willing to pay FRAND licensing rates but they are NOT willing to pay excessive rates that are not in line with industry standards.
And Apple didn't make their design patents industry standard FRAND patents so they are under no obligation to offer them to their competitors so they are within their rights to enforce those patent rights. They obtained those patents specifically to prevent their competitors from copying them in certain aspects.
You see, there's the key difference. Standard essential FRAND patents make less money per license but they more than make up for it because everyone needs to license it because it is an industry standard - if you make use of that industry standard technology, you license the patent. Thus, while they make less per license, they make up the R&D money in volume. That's the agreement that they make when they offer the patent to the standards body for consideration for inclusion in the technology. If they don't make that agreement, their technology won't be included in the industry standard.
Non-FRAND patents are obtained for two reasons - either to make a lot of money per license when other companies ask to license it or to prevent other companies from copying your tech (or, in this case, design) by refusing to license it, which is your right since it's not part of an industry standard.
Samsung offered their patent up as part of an industry standard. Their choice. As part of that process, they agreed to license it under FRAND terms. Again, their choice. When discussions began with Apple, a company with a lot of money, they go greedy and demanded more money from Apple than they demand from anyone else. They demanded a rate that is excessive and abusive. That is not Fair, not Reasonable, and not Non-Discriminatory. That is, in every way, not within the basic concepts of a FRAND patent.
Everyone should be against Samsung in this, regardless of their feelings for Samsung and regardless of their feelings for Apple. Samsung is abusing their FRAND patents and we should, in no way, celebrate their success in that abuse. If they successfully abuse their FRAND patents to specifically target Apple then every other FRAND patent holder will start considering doing the same thing. You may hate Apple; you may love Samsung but, if this ruling is allowed to stand, eventually, a company you hate will target a company you love with a FRAND patent and then the party comes to an end.
Look at the events and remove the names of the parties involved and evaluate it on the merits of what is happening. You can't possibly think this is a good thing.
But those patents weren't standards essential FRAND patents.
That would mean the key difference is Samsung was under an obligation to license those patents at Fair and Reasonable terms without discriminating who gets that license and the terms of that license because those patents were part of an industry standard. The design patents that you refer to are not part of an industry standard and can easily be designed around without impacting the functionality of the device.
That would make one an abuse of FRAND patents and the other protecting patent rights.
Please do try to understand what's going on here.
The fact that anyone supports Samsung's abuse of their FRAND patents is beyond me. You can love Samsung; you can hate Apple all you want but to view Samsung's abuse of their FRAND patents as anything good is moronic. If Samsung is permitted to abuse their FRAND patents as they have, they open the door for every FRAND patent holder doing the same thing which will completely throw standards essential patents into chaos. It would be - and this not me using this word for hyperbole - disastrous for any industry that relies on standards essential patents.
It's $199 for the 16GB one on a 2 year contract, which is the same as you'd pay for a top-tier phone like the HTC One 32GB or the Samsung Galaxy S4 16GB...
Or the iPhone 5S, the single most popular phone on the market that is also available for $199 on a two year contract.
I'm just sayin'.
(Before anyone claims I'm being an Apple fanboy, which I have long ago admitted I am, I would similarly have said something had you failed to mention the S4. If you're going to name phones in a market category without naming one or the other of the two most popular phones in that category, it's hard to not see a bias.)
"how is this any different than the fact that Apple pays for product placement in *every* TV show or movie that has a laptop or phone in it?"
Um, because product placement in a tv show or movie is _OBVIOUSLY_ paid-for product placement and the viewer knows money exchanged hands for it to happen.
Some average geek "organically" spreading the word about how super-duper-awesome Samsung is is NOT obviously paid for.
Or, to be cleared, one is transparent about the commercial transaction that netted the result while the other is deceptive.
I thought that difference was rather obvious but I guess not.
http://appleinsider.com/articles/13/08/01/fllu-offers-cash-to-organically-promote-samsungs-push-for-proprietary-android-apps
Now I know. $500 a month.
Well, you certainly earned it.
Hey, I could use some extra disposable income - feel like putting me in touch with your contact? I'd be willing to be a shill for their toys for $500 a month.
How much does Samsung pay you to spread this misinformation?
This thread is littered with multiple posts from you spreading the same misinformation that is clearly wrong to anyone who's read the article - the 533MHZ speed is ONLY available to benchmark apps (the code it triggers is even called BenchmarkBooster). Other apps and games cannot access that speed and are limited to 480MHz.
http://www.anandtech.com/show/7187/looking-at-cpugpu-benchmark-optimizations-galaxy-s-4
...all other apps/games were limited to 480MHz.
Given how many times you've posted misinformation to this discussion, I'm forced to assume you're either a complete moron or you're on Samsung's payroll. I'm guessing the later so I'm curious, how much does Samsung pay? What is the going rate for spreading misinformation in a Slashdot discussion?
It doesn't. Other applications can run at 533mhz...
No. They can't. Please try reading the article.
http://www.anandtech.com/show/7187/looking-at-cpugpu-benchmark-optimizations-galaxy-s-4
...all other apps/games were limited to 480MHz.
Other applications can NOT run at 533. The only applications that have access to that speed boost are benchmark apps.
The ONLY apps.
Please read the article before you continue spreading your misinformation.
1) How much money did Apple fork over to the US government in taxes? I'm guessing that number is not-zero.
So the claim that Apple paid literally zero in taxes is a lie. They paid LITERALLY billions of dollars in taxes. Last I checked, "billions" does not equal "literally zero". They, in fact, paid MORE than any other American company.
2) What other companies make use of the Ireland tax situation? But let's focus on Apple, right? Apple generates page views and nobody cares about every other company that's doing the same thing. Also, you know IT'S LEGAL!
Do you not take advantage of tax deductions that are available to you come tax time? Why is it wrong when a company works WITHIN the law to minimize their tax burden but its ok for an individual to do so?
Regardless of point 2, point 1 clearly shows that the claim that Apple literally paid zero taxes is a lie. Unless you consider billions of dollars to equal literally zero.
Shut up you ignorant lying moron.
sales are plummeting
It's seen a _small_ sales dip in _some_ categories but nothing close to "plummeting". And if you dare quote the iPad numbers, you will betray how daft you are. It's a channel adjustment - the actual sell through numbers only dropped 3% which is _EASILY_ attributable to people knowing a new iPad is on the horizon and choosing to wait before buying and if you consider a 3% dip "plummeting" then you are a moron.
paying literally zero tax
Apple paid more corporate taxes than ANY OTHER AMERICAN COMPANY! Now, I don't know what your definition of "literally zero" is but when they paid more than anyone else, that would suggest they did not, in fact, pay "literally zero". Unless every other corporation got money back, Apple did not LITERALLY pay ZERO taxes.
I'm not going to pick apart any more of your post because you're a lying moron and not worth my time. Anyone who claims Apple is paying "literally zero tax" is flat out a liar.
How does ignorant lying bullshit like this get modded up?
Feel free to flame; feel free to mod me troll, but I'm sick of flat out bullshit ignorant posts like this being modded "Informative". I've been coming to Slashdot for many years to learn new things about tech and geek subjects but this is getting pathetic. Hate Apple, if you want, but at least base it vaguely on facts rather than complete and total bullshit lies.