Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

macs4nw

macrumors 601
It seems to me the issue is narrower here. Since Samsung is required to license the technology to Apple under FRAND, this is a monetary dispute. But the ITC is not allowed to issue a monetary judgement against Apple-- their only recourse is an import ban. This appears to be in contradiction to the goals of FRAND, as it gives Samsung an incentive not to settle on reasonable terms. The result is that having a standards-essential patent is providing Samsung some undue monopoly power. That seems to be what all the third-party filings are about. I think all the third parties would be perfectly happy if the ITC imposed a monetary judgement on Apple, but that is not within their power.

You've hit upon the crux of the dispute.

From the ITC : Samsung says that Apple should simply avoid the import ban, which will enter into force on August 5 absent a veto or stay, by accepting Samsung's December 2012 cross-licensing proposal -- the one Commissioner Pinkert found inconsistent with FRAND for particularly the following reason: "Although licenses to non-FRAND-encumbered patents may certainly be included in a consensual resolution of a dispute over a FRAND-encumbered patent, it is neither fair nor non-discriminatory for the holder of the FRAND-encumbered patent to require licenses to non-FRAND-encumbered patents as a condition for licensing its patent."
Source: http://www.fosspatents.com/2013/07/wheres-doj-samsung-takes-extortionate.html

We don't really know, what SAMSUNG asked for, and what APPLE offered, but it was reportedly the cross-licensing agreement SAMSUNG was seeking from APPLE, that was the most objectionable to the latter, as SAMSUNG would have more to gain from such an agreement.

It seems to me that a solution to this problem is for royalties to be fixed as part of the process of standards adoption. Then patent holders would not be able to abuse their monopoly and large manufacturers would not be able to negotiate lower royalties that disadvantage other players.....

That seems like an excellent and reasonable solution to this mess, and I might add 'fixed royalties', as in fixed $ amount per frand patent used in each handset sold, rather than fixed percentage of the price of each handset sold, which is an inequitable way to receive more royalties for the same patent, from manufacturers who include more or better additional tech, in their higher-priced handsets.
 
Last edited:

kdarling

macrumors P6
From the ITC : Samsung says that Apple should simply avoid the import ban, which will enter into force on August 5 absent a veto or stay, by accepting Samsung's December 2012 cross-licensing proposal -- the one Commissioner Pinkert found inconsistent with FRAND for particularly the following reason:

"Although licenses to non-FRAND-encumbered patents may certainly be included in a consensual resolution of a dispute over a FRAND-encumbered patent, it is neither fair nor non-discriminatory for the holder of the FRAND-encumbered patent to require licenses to non-FRAND-encumbered patents as a condition for licensing its patent."

The statement has to be read in context.

All that Samsung is REQUIRED to do is offer a cash price that anyone can pay. Any other deal is gravy for both sides, and as the Commissioner pointed out, is quite legal.

Samsung apparently made several offers to Apple, including the 2.4% cash price, AND another offer to lower rates through cross-licensing non-FRAND patents.

He was not saying that Samsung was wrong to make such an offer. On the contrary, he said it was okay if consensual. The Commissioner was simply stating that he didn't consider it to qualify to be listed with other FRAND offers.

In other words, he was asking that, if you ignore that particular offer, do the remaining offer(s) count as FRAND offer(s)?

Mueller tried to make it sound like it was the only offer. It was not.
 

LordVic

Cancelled
Sep 7, 2011
5,938
12,458
over a dispute over a relatively small sum of money.

2.4% of iphone sales is "small"?

there are what? 60 million iphones sold over it's life? at a modest 650/phone,

we're talking nearly a billion dollars in potential lost revenue from the patent license.
:eek:
 

KPOM

macrumors P6
Oct 23, 2010
18,019
7,862
2.4% of iphone sales is "small"?

there are what? 60 million iphones sold over it's life? at a modest 650/phone,

we're talking nearly a billion dollars in potential lost revenue from the patent license.
:eek:

The amounts in dispute last year in Apple v. Samsung were higher. The judge (correctly, in my view) largely avoided imposing injunctive sales bans.
 

LordVic

Cancelled
Sep 7, 2011
5,938
12,458
The amounts in dispute last year in Apple v. Samsung were higher. The judge (correctly, in my view) largely avoided imposing injunctive sales bans.

are you talking about the court case in California between Apple and Samsung that ended up with a preliminary ruling ofr over 3 Billion towards Apple?

Cause technically a few Injunctions were in place by Judge Koh, that were later overturned by higher district courts.
 

Switchback666

macrumors 68000
Nov 16, 2012
1,600
67
SXM
Next time Apple should just pay the licensing fee like everyone else.

Exactly, pay the fee.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk 2

----------

Apple asked Samsung $30 per phone for their worthless rounded edges and bounce back patents, so you can argue all day who is more unreasonable.
Apple went down the legal path and now it bit them in the @ss. Tough luck.

If this is true... WOW! :eek: how disgusting, all that for a pos rounded edges and back ?


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk 2

----------

You know nothing, Jon Snow.

In fact, it does show who's more unreasonable. The fact that you deem bounce-back patents to not be essential to a phone, yet Samsung used them anyway (knowing that Apple had them patented) ...

Not only that, but this is a 3G FRAND patent. If they win this against Apple, they have grounds to cripple every single phone manufacturer that uses 3G.

Stop being so blind, this is far bigger than 'that's what you get for suing people, Apple'.

Samsung is only hostile to apple, hell this could be a great opportunity for everyone else to join and humble down apple.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk 2
 

TMay

macrumors 68000
Dec 24, 2001
1,520
1
Carson City, NV
You've hit upon the crux of the dispute.

From the ITC : Samsung says that Apple should simply avoid the import ban, which will enter into force on August 5 absent a veto or stay, by accepting Samsung's December 2012 cross-licensing proposal -- the one Commissioner Pinkert found inconsistent with FRAND for particularly the following reason: "Although licenses to non-FRAND-encumbered patents may certainly be included in a consensual resolution of a dispute over a FRAND-encumbered patent, it is neither fair nor non-discriminatory for the holder of the FRAND-encumbered patent to require licenses to non-FRAND-encumbered patents as a condition for licensing its patent."
Source: http://www.fosspatents.com/2013/07/wheres-doj-samsung-takes-extortionate.html

We don't really know, what SAMSUNG asked for, and what APPLE offered, but it was reportedly the cross-licensing agreement SAMSUNG was seeking from APPLE, that was the most objectionable to the latter, as SAMSUNG would have more to gain from such an agreement.



That seems like an excellent and reasonable solution to this mess, and I might add 'fixed royalties', as in fixed $ amount per frand patent used in each handset sold, rather than fixed percentage of the price of each handset sold, which is an inequitable way to receive more royalties for the same patent, from manufacturers who include more or better additional tech, in their higher-priced handsets.

Yes, both the implied access to Apple's non essential patents and the basis of the price of the finished product make this a no go for Apple.
 

KPOM

macrumors P6
Oct 23, 2010
18,019
7,862
are you talking about the court case in California between Apple and Samsung that ended up with a preliminary ruling ofr over 3 Billion towards Apple?

Cause technically a few Injunctions were in place by Judge Koh, that were later overturned by higher district courts.

I believe actually Judge Koh rejected them initially, Apple appealed, and after appellate review Koh put in place 2 injunctions on some old products. Apple had to post a bond in the event that it lost (which it actually did on the two products). But by and large the judge did NOT impose sales bans on actively sold products.
 

Leaping Tortois

macrumors regular
Oct 11, 2010
151
0
Melbourne, Australia
Seems to be a fair bit of arguing over this. I was quite curious as to the terms of this until kdarling made his post. People seem to think that's ok to claim a patent is FRAND and therefore they can just use it. They can't. Samsung must license the patent under Fair, Reasonable and Non Discriminatory terms, but Apple MUST pay a Fair and Reasonable fee, they can't just claim Samsungs offer is outrageous and then use the patent anyway.

To draw analogy to the copyright field. If I write a song, compose and publish it, I have rights to make sure that nobody can claim that they wrote this song. That said if somebody wants to publish a cover, there's an obligation for me to license this as a Mechanical License with a fee. Because there's an obligation for me to provide the license, that does not mean that anyone can just make a cover and start profiting. They have to pay the fee, or else its copyright infringement. Same thing here. Apple didn't pay the fee, and therefore they've infringed on a Samsung patent.

As to the import ban. I think this is perfectly justifiable in this case. I think that apple had it coming when all those android phones (such as the galaxy nexus) had import bans placed on them for, what was it? The way you scrolled through photos in the gallery? In a case like that a just solution is to impose a set period for the company to release an update which stops the infringing patent (even if it is ridiculous).

In this case an import ban is absolutely justified. Unlike the animation for changing photos, the 3G patent is essential for sales of the iPhone. Nobody would buy an iPhone without 3G, they'd buy an iPod touch. Apple failed to negotiate for FRAND rights properly, and infringed on a patent that added an essential feature to their product. In this case it deserves to get banned.

I think a set fee for FRAND sounds good, but isn't a great idea. Many companies would want to do cross licensing of patents/copyright/general IP. They should be able to negotiate this. What's more, is that while a patent may be FRAND, it doesn't mean that it's worth a certain amount for every product. Some products would never sell without a particular FRAND patent, while others might go on just fine, the FRAND fee should reflect this. FRAND isn't a gratuity.
 
Last edited:

otismotive77

macrumors 6502
May 18, 2013
467
0
the veto was totally unnecessary, apple should have been punished, they should have been told what it's like to sue everyone. bad decision
 

pirg

macrumors 6502a
Apr 18, 2013
618
0
Of course it was going to get vetoed. I'm really not sure why anyone could possibly think it wouldn't. Really shows a fundamental lack of understanding of anything at all if you could even imagine that such a ridiculous ruling would not be vetoed...

https://forums.macrumors.com/posts/17354990/

Called it from the minute it happened. The only shocking part about all this is people thought it wouldn't be overturned...
 

oliversl

macrumors 65816
Jun 29, 2007
1,498
426
Samsung charge other manufacturers like 0.5% for the FRAND license, but Samsung is charging Apple more than that. That is not FRAND use.

Samgung will not license FRAND to Apple until Apple license not FRAND licenses to Samsung.


Please explain what you mean.
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.