European Commission Opens Investigation into Samsung's Patent Threats Against Apple

[charlituna]

Originally Posted by mknopp

No, it started as anti-plagiarism (actually trade dress violations but close enough). Then Samsung turned it into an anti-competitive argument, by trying to sue Apple for violations of FRAND technology.

Samsung didn't turn anything into an anti-competitive argument in regards to the trade dress issue. They know it isn't the same at all. They are just trying to get a position over Apple so they can play a 'tell you what since we are nice guys, you drop your case against us and we'll drop ours' move, which is going to fail cause Apple isn't likely to play ball due to the FRAND issue. Especially when Samsung has yet to show proof that the deal with Qualcomm to make chips using said tech doesn't include covering the licensing for folks to use the chips as Apple claims.

----------

Originally Posted by Mad-B-One

In the end, current practice of Samsung looks like trying to block FRAND patents and or trying to double-dip.

yep it's a great argument. Apple can say that they paid the FRAND terms via Qualcomm and now Samsung is demanding they pay it again directly which makes the payments not FRAND compliant.

[starvingartist8]

Originally Posted by Renzatic

If I were to say that Apple copies everybody and takes credit for the innovations of others, you'd pick it apart, right? You'd probably feel the need to go out and correct that person's erroneous statement.

But, you see, it also works the other way. When someone says that everyone is copying Apple, that's not totally true, either. Like you see alot of people around here claiming that Android copped iOS completely, which isn't at all true. Just like you, they'd feel that need to go out and correct that person's erroneous statement.

Just because someone doesn't agree with Apple 100% doesn't make the Apple Haters, or Fandroids, or whatever. Remember that.

you're right. I could pick apart everything you just said then because none of it was said by me before. Well done on being the forums most stupid poster so far

[Mad-B-One]

Originally Posted by Oletros

It's not so easy, chipset makers AND phone makers pays licensing fees for radio patents to the 3G pool. Do you remember that in the Apple-Nokia case was also said that why Apple has to pay when the chipset maker was paying?

I see. Well, then it boils down to FRAND. But even so, the Nokia case was more about using certain technology in a certain way (easy user interface or so, don't remember exactly) and this case is about the technical part - basically using the chip by addressing it with software. In other words: Samsung says it would be okay to use the Qualcomm (yes sorry not BroadCom) chip as long as your software does not access it. That is silly. If the hardware producer paid the patent costs and sells the chip, that means the use of it is being payed as well and you use a software layer for it.

[dBeats]

Samsung even copies Apple's lawsuits and still can't manage to do anything right. What a pitiful uncreative company....

[TMay]

Originally Posted by Oletros

It's not so easy, chipset makers AND phone makers pays licensing fees for radio patents to the 3G pool. Do you remember that in the Apple-Nokia case was also said that why Apple has to pay when the chipset maker was paying?

Not always; Apple petitioned and the court granted Apple access to Qualcom's licensing terms with Samsung with regard to the part(s) Apple purchased to see if in fact the licensing terms are broad enough to cover Apple.

[mcarling]

Originally Posted by darkplanets

I'm not a lawyer, and I especially don't know EU law... thank you for pointing this out (so I could Google it!).

You're welcome. If you're going to dig into this, I should mention that the EU renumbers the articles with each new treaty. Before the Lisbon treaties took effect in 2009, the competition articles, now 101 and 102, were numbered 81 and 82. Most of the precedents you'll find will refer to Article 82.

Originally Posted by darkplanets

You do know the point of IP, right?

I realize this question wasn't directed at me, but I'll answer it anyway. The Anglo-Saxon view of IP law is that the point is to maximize innovation. The European view of IP law is that it's meant to protect "moral rights."

[Frazzle]

Samsung should take a hint from their own TV division. They're doing some really original designs, no other manufacturer comes close. Even the software in those sets is fairly innovative. Why be a copycat?

[darkplanets]

Originally Posted by mcarling

You're welcome. If you're going to dig into this, I should mention that the EU renumbers the articles with each new treaty. Before the Lisbon treaties took effect in 2009, the competition articles, now 101 and 102, were numbered 81 and 82. Most of the precedents you'll find will refer to Article 82.

Good to know.

I realize this question wasn't directed at me, but I'll answer it anyway. The Anglo-Saxon view of IP law is that the point is to maximize innovation. The European view of IP law is that it's meant to protect "moral rights."

I could argue that doing one does the other, but I see your point.

[The Great Boony]

Originally Posted by usptact

I hope Apple will get back in quadruple what it did to Samsung

#TrollFail

[GQB]

Originally Posted by usptact

I hope Apple will get back in quadruple what it did to Samsung

Which was what precisely?
Samsung 100% steals Apple's designs and products, Apple forces them to stop.
What part of that are you weeping over for Samsung?

[Renzatic]

Originally Posted by starvingartist8

I could literally assume you are a thief that is going to prison and cannot understand why. < I know that is exaggerated but you are going against the courts that means you are wrong lol.

How am I going against court opinion? I don't remember taking any sides in my previous post.

[vrDrew]

Originally Posted by starvingartist8

That is like me letting someone else copy my paintings because they sell me their paint....

That's a great analogy!

Nobody likes lawsuits and investigations. But they are immeasurably preferable to other methods of resolving business disputes. (Car bombs? Assassinations?) Businesses have had trade disputes for as long as their have been businesses or trade itself.

And, IMHO, Samsung has been playing a nasty game here. Of all the smartphone manufacturers out there, Samsung seems to have gone out of its way to copy Apple's products. We've all seen the pictures of the icons in its TouchWiz skin, and how closely they resemble Apple's.

But Apple isn't basing its claims against Samsung solely on design issues. Its basing its infringement claims on some pretty specific patents: "Scroll and Bounce Back"; "Multi Touch"; and the utility that automatically opens a phone dialer or e-mail client when you get a message with an address or phone number. And people claiming Apple is suing over "rounded rectangles" simply don't know what they are talking about.

For a company as big and successful as Samsung is, they seem to have wildly underestimated the implications of relying on their FRAND-encumbered IP as a basis for counterclaims. Maybe the executives there have gotten away with copying for so long that they didn't think anyone would notice.

[Oletros]

Originally Posted by GQB

Samsung 100% steals Apple's designs and products

Really? Dutch and Australian courts doesn't think that

[seanclancy]

Android is simply trying to take a slice of Apple's monopoly.

I'm wondering if Apple is floundering a little as the iPhone 5 would have been a stronger statement than the iPhone 4s.

iPhone 4s simply sounds like an intermediate step.
It's true that Samsung are deliberately tailgating Apple, but it remains to be seen whether or not Apple can keep it's stock strong regarding the circumstances of late....

I may be wrong though

please feel free to throw fruit at my article about it

[The Great Boony]

Originally Posted by GQB

Which was what precisely?
Samsung 100% steals Apple's designs and products, Apple forces them to stop.
What part of that are you weeping over for Samsung?

Samsung have copied Apple for years and have been getting away with it.

The cost of using Android on your hardware is going to get very expensive in the future, they are already paying Microsoft in excess of $15 per handset installed with android and Nokia $7 per handset.

A quick look at all phones released in 2007 alongside the iPhone just displays how advanced iPhone and iOS was.

I’d be curious to see what shape Android was in then… bearing in mind Google they hired two Apple engineers that had early sight of IOS way before iPhone was released.

Google is the devil and Samsung are one of their minions

[guch20]

Originally Posted by Oletros

Really? Dutch and Australian courts doesn't think that

Wow, really?

http://www.tmcnet.com/usubmit/2011/10/25/5880881.htm

http://www.mobiledia.com/news/104469.html

In fact, the total opposite is true. Nearly every single court in the entire world that has had this case brought before them has sided with Apple, and in an hilarious turn of events, sides against Samsung when they counter-sue.

I wonder why that is. I wonder why courts all over the world agree with Apple that they've been slavishly copied and ripped off, while slapping Samsung down when they try to claim the same. It couldn't be that Apple has a point. Nah. It must be a global conspiracy!

[swagi]

Originally Posted by The Great Boony

Samsung have copied Apple for years and have been getting away with it.

The cost of using Android on your hardware is going to get very expensive in the future, they are already paying Microsoft in excess of $15 per handset installed with android and Nokia $7 per handset.

A quick look at all phones released in 2007 alongside the iPhone just displays how advanced iPhone and iOS was.

I’d be curious to see what shape Android was in then… bearing in mind Google they hired two Apple engineers that had early sight of IOS way before iPhone was released.

Google is the devil and Samsung are one of their minions

You want to know what may be the real funny outcome of this?

That a patent on "slide to unlock" has to be licensed under FRAND terms.

Gee - ever thought abput that?

[The Great Boony]

Originally Posted by seanclancy

Android is simply trying to take a slice of Apple's monopoly.

I'm wondering if Apple is floundering a little as the iPhone 5 would have been a stronger statement than the iPhone 4s.

iPhone 4s simply sounds like an intermediate step.
It's true that Samsung are deliberately tailgating Apple, but it remains to be seen whether or not Apple can keep it's stock strong regarding the circumstances of late....

I may be wrong though

please feel free to throw fruit at my article about it

Since when did rebranded counterfeit goods become direct competition in any market?

[Oletros]

Originally Posted by The Great Boony

The cost of using Android on your hardware is going to get very expensive in the future, they are already paying Microsoft in excess of $15 per handset installed with android and Nokia $7 per handset.

Any source to this because Samsung is paying MS $5 per "Android handset and no $15 and they doesn't have to pay Nokia nothing

Originally Posted by The Great Boony

I’d be curious to see what shape Android was in then… bearing in mind Google they hired two Apple engineers that had early sight of IOS way before iPhone was released.

Which engineers and when they were hired? I think you have read wrong

Originally Posted by The Great Boony

Google is the devil and Samsung are one of their minions

And they must be cleansed in blood and burnt in Hell, uuuuhhhhhhhhh

----------

Originally Posted by guch20

Wow, really?

http://www.tmcnet.com/usubmit/2011/10/25/5880881.htm

http://www.mobiledia.com/news/104469.html

That's the problem of reading only headlines and not what Dutch and Australian courts have said.

Yes, really

----------

Originally Posted by The Great Boony

Since when did rebranded counterfeit goods become direct competition in any market?

What counterfeit goods?

[Kaibelf]

Originally Posted by Mad-B-One

I see. Well, then it boils down to FRAND. But even so, the Nokia case was more about using certain technology in a certain way (easy user interface or so, don't remember exactly) and this case is about the technical part - basically using the chip by addressing it with software. In other words: Samsung says it would be okay to use the Qualcomm (yes sorry not BroadCom) chip as long as your software does not access it. That is silly. If the hardware producer paid the patent costs and sells the chip, that means the use of it is being payed as well and you use a software layer for it.

EXACTLY. It's essentially the same as someone going to the store and buying a TV, and then having the manufacturers of that TV's parts come to you demanding money for the "licenses" to use things like the remote sensor, flat panel, etc. You already paid for it when you bought the product. Samsung is under the impression that Apple paid good money for plastic, silicon, and various metals that just happened to be in a circuit configuration.

[guch20]

Originally Posted by Oletros

That's the problem of reading only headlines and not what Dutch and Australian courts have said.

So I guess it's common practice in Dutch and Australian courts to ban products from the company you're siding with. Interesting.

And for the record, let me say you really really should read those articles before you accuse me of not doing so. Neither of them goes anywhere near vindicating Samsung. Instead, they talk about how this is yet another victory for Apple.

Crazy how Apple just keeps winning these things and Samsung just keeps losing. Like I said, it obviously can't be that Samsung really did copy Apple. It must be a global conspiracy! Good thing Samsung has you on their side to keep fighting the good fight despite the odds and the evidence.

[Kaibelf]

Originally Posted by Oletros

What counterfeit goods?

http://peanutbuttereggdirt.com/e/cus...re-Design.html

http://peanutbuttereggdirt.com/e/cus...ace-Icons.html

and

http://peanutbuttereggdirt.com/e/cus...ge-Design.html

[Oletros]

Originally Posted by guch20

So I guess it's common practice in Dutch and Australian courts to ban products from the company you're siding with. Interesting.

So I guess that you're talking without even read what I was answering and what Dutch and Australian courts have said.

Ps, Dutch courts have said that Samsung doesn't steal Apple DESIGNS and Australian courts have said the same. That's what I was answering.

And yes, Australian courts doesn't have sided with Apple, they have weighted who will lose more if an injunction is granted or not.

----------

Originally Posted by Kaibelf

http://peanutbuttereggdirt.com/e/cus...re-Design.html

http://peanutbuttereggdirt.com/e/cus...ace-Icons.html

and

http://peanutbuttereggdirt.com/e/cus...ge-Design.html

And where are the counterfeit goods? This are Apple claims, no?

[Thunderhawks]

Originally Posted by Mad-B-One

Nope. Not really. This patent law suit is about if Apple can buy chips from
BroadCom who pays licensing fees to use the 3G technology and therefore Apple does not have to pay or if Apple still infringes if they use these chips. Basically, is Samsung hindering competition by trying to rip off the competition because it would cash in twice... and also not offering a reasonable price for other companies to pay to use the technology. Problem would be if Samsung wins, does BroadCom get their money back since now Apple is licensing? Because that would mean the production of the chips gets cheaper and Apple would just shift the pay from BroadCom to Samsung. In the end, current practice of Samsung looks like trying to block FRAND patents and or trying to double-dip.

If a chipmaker pays a licensing fee and then sells the chips why would Samsung be allowed to double dip? Why not go after the next person who sells that used equipment with that chip?

Obviously the chipmaker's business is to sell that chip to as many customers as possible. That shouldn't come as a surprise to Samsung.

Samsung is looking for ways to hit back in whatever area, because they cannot defend that their copy is too close to the real thing.

Evolution in products and product design is always based on either a first idea or something that already exists.
The art of taking the good parts of a product and making a better one is a fine line balancing act.

Copying goes on in all areas of life.

Samsung's problem is that in the Asian world's thinking copying the master is a compliment. In that sense they probably don't even see what the problem is.

[The Great Boony]

Originally Posted by Kaibelf

http://peanutbuttereggdirt.com/e/cus...re-Design.html

http://peanutbuttereggdirt.com/e/cus...ace-Icons.html

and

http://peanutbuttereggdirt.com/e/cus...ge-Design.html

Well played sir... Well played...