Go Back   MacRumors Forums > News and Article Discussion > iOS Blog Discussion

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Old Feb 7, 2014, 05:30 PM   #1
MacRumors
macrumors bot
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Samsung Reprimanded Over Use of Standards-Essential Patents for Import Ban




Samsung has been reprimanded by the U.S. Justice Department for using its standards-essential or FRAND patents to seek an import ban against some older Apple products into the United States. The DoJ investigated the case after concerns were raised about companies unfairly wielding their standards-essential patents to hamper competition.

As part of their extensive legal back-and-forth over patents, Samsung and Apple went before the U.S. International Trade Commission which ordered an import ban on several older Apple products saying they had violated a particular standards-essential Samsung patent. Apple argued that Samsung was asking an unfair licensing fee, but the ITC ruled that the Samsung's claims could proceed nonetheless.

The Obama administration ended up vetoing the import ban, the first time since 1987 that the President of the United States had interfered with an ITC decision. A number of companies had lined up support for Apple, asking the President to veto the ban because the patent in question was deemed essential for 3G wireless functionality and Samsung was asking for inappropriately large licensing fees in violation of patent rules.

The DoJ said that it would not take action against Samsung because of the Presidential veto, but warned the firm against taking similar actions in the future:
Quote:
In many cases, there is a risk that the patent holder could use the threat of an exclusion order to obtain licensing terms that are more onerous than would be justified by the value of the technology itself, effectively exploiting the market power obtained through the standards-setting process.
FRAND patents are supposed to allow companies to cross-license so-called "essential" patents at reasonable rates to avoid having companies with one necessary patent from extorting an entire industry with extreme licensing requirements.

Article Link: Samsung Reprimanded Over Use of Standards-Essential Patents for Import Ban
MacRumors is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Feb 7, 2014, 05:34 PM   #2
OTACORB
macrumors 6502a
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Central, Louisiana
Somehow these Samsung cats always seem to escape from any real consequences for their actions.
__________________
Samsung Galaxy Note 3
MacBook Pro Retina (2013)
Mac Mini (2012)
iPad rMini 32GB White Wifi
OTACORB is offline   12 Reply With Quote
Old Feb 7, 2014, 05:36 PM   #3
The Doctor11
macrumors 68040
 
The Doctor11's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Location: USA
Samsung can't do dat!
__________________
iPhone 6, iPad 3rd gen, Apple TV, Airport Express
Ebola?! Kiss your ass good bye!!!
Please subscribe to me on YouTube
The Doctor11 is online now   0 Reply With Quote
Old Feb 7, 2014, 05:41 PM   #4
UnfetteredMind
macrumors 6502
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
I'm sure Samsung has learned their lesson and won't do it again.
UnfetteredMind is offline   5 Reply With Quote
Old Feb 7, 2014, 05:46 PM   #5
jreuschl
macrumors 6502
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
How is this different than Apple wanting to ban Samsung products?
jreuschl is offline   1 Reply With Quote
Old Feb 7, 2014, 05:48 PM   #6
forcenine
macrumors newbie
 
Join Date: May 2008
Because you're confusing standards-essential patents with non-standards-essential patents. Hence FRAND. Best do some research...
forcenine is offline   9 Reply With Quote
Old Feb 7, 2014, 05:49 PM   #7
isepic
macrumors member
 
Join Date: May 2008
Quote:
Originally Posted by jreuschl View Post
How is this different than Apple wanting to ban Samsung products?
Research: standards-essential or FRAND patents, and see if Apple's request to ban was based on it. Short answer, no, it wasn't, it was blatant rip off which warranted it. Samsung had nothing, so they resort to these illegal methods, and got caught.
isepic is offline   16 Reply With Quote
Old Feb 7, 2014, 05:56 PM   #8
The Doctor11
macrumors 68040
 
The Doctor11's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Location: USA
Quote:
Originally Posted by jreuschl View Post
How is this different than Apple wanting to ban Samsung products?
Well I hate Samsung a lot so it would make me happy But if Samsung triesto do some thing like that to apple it would make me very very sad cuz I love apple That's how its different
__________________
iPhone 6, iPad 3rd gen, Apple TV, Airport Express
Ebola?! Kiss your ass good bye!!!
Please subscribe to me on YouTube
The Doctor11 is online now   0 Reply With Quote
Old Feb 7, 2014, 06:58 PM   #9
Klae17
macrumors 6502a
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Quote:
Originally Posted by jreuschl View Post
How is this different than Apple wanting to ban Samsung products?
Read the damn article.
Klae17 is offline   19 Reply With Quote
Old Feb 7, 2014, 07:15 PM   #10
T-R-S
macrumors member
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
My favourite Samsung patent claim "Wireless video transmission & reception to and from a portable device."

I was thinking I might be able to patent "breathing air by a human" as well.
T-R-S is offline   4 Reply With Quote
Old Feb 7, 2014, 07:17 PM   #11
The Doctor11
macrumors 68040
 
The Doctor11's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Location: USA
Quote:
Originally Posted by T-R-S View Post
My favourite Samsung patent claim "Wireless video transmission & reception to and from a portable device."

I was thinking I might be able to patent "breathing air by a human" as well.
Isn't that patent violated by texting?
__________________
iPhone 6, iPad 3rd gen, Apple TV, Airport Express
Ebola?! Kiss your ass good bye!!!
Please subscribe to me on YouTube
The Doctor11 is online now   0 Reply With Quote
Old Feb 7, 2014, 07:21 PM   #12
HiRez
macrumors 601
 
HiRez's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Western US
Jesus, just how many times do they have to be "reprimanded" over this? How about some fines?
__________________
Go outside, the graphics are amazing!
HiRez is offline   5 Reply With Quote
Old Feb 7, 2014, 07:22 PM   #13
zorinlynx
macrumors 68020
 
zorinlynx's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Florida, USA
Screw all these idiotic patent wars. More competition is good in this industry. We don't want one player to own it all.
__________________
Old-school Apple ][ expert! Ask me if you have a ][ question!
Apple user 1983-1992, 2003-Present -- Linux user 1995-Present
Windows-free since 2003! Though I still have to deal with it at work.
zorinlynx is offline   1 Reply With Quote
Old Feb 7, 2014, 08:13 PM   #14
Rogifan
macrumors G3
 
Rogifan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Quote:
Originally Posted by zorinlynx View Post
Screw all these idiotic patent wars. More competition is good in this industry. We don't want one player to own it all.
Except when it comes to Google, then people seem perfectly fine with one player owning it all.
__________________
"I have a very optimistic view of individuals. As individuals, people are inherently good. I have a somewhat more pessimistic view of people in groups." -- Steve Jobs , Wired interview
Rogifan is offline   4 Reply With Quote
Old Feb 7, 2014, 08:40 PM   #15
dBeats
macrumors 6502
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Shameful actions by Samsung....Shameful
dBeats is offline   2 Reply With Quote
Old Feb 7, 2014, 09:31 PM   #16
Solomani
macrumors 68000
 
Solomani's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Quote:
Originally Posted by HiRez View Post
Jesus, just how many times do they have to be "reprimanded" over this? How about some fines?
At the very least, they should be fined for wasting the US Court's time. Samsung should pay all the salaried time (pro-rated) of all the judges, legal clerks, legal counsels, and Court attorneys involved. I know it's just pocket change for Samsung, but still…..
Solomani is offline   1 Reply With Quote
Old Feb 7, 2014, 11:48 PM   #17
giantfan1224
macrumors 6502a
 
giantfan1224's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Quote:
Originally Posted by jreuschl View Post
How is this different than Apple wanting to ban Samsung products?
If you know what SEP and FRAND are, then you already know the answer. If you don't, that's what Google is for. You're welcome.
giantfan1224 is offline   1 Reply With Quote
Old Feb 8, 2014, 12:01 AM   #18
John.B
macrumors 68040
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Flyover Country
Quote:
Originally Posted by zorinlynx View Post
Screw all these idiotic patent wars. More competition is good in this industry. We don't want one player to own it all.
Take it up with the Founding Fathers.

Patents go back to Colonial America, and were enshrined in the US Constitution in Article I, Section 8, Clause 8.
__________________
Apple develops an improved programming language. Google copied Java. Everything you need to know, right there.
MD388LL/A MG632LL/A ME344LL/A MD199LL/A MC572LL/A MD481LL/A FB463LL/A FC060LL/A
John.B is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Feb 8, 2014, 01:43 AM   #19
Oohara
macrumors 68000
 
Oohara's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Quote:
Originally Posted by John.B View Post
Take it up with the Founding Fathers.

Patents go back to Colonial America, and were enshrined in the US Constitution in Article I, Section 8, Clause 8.
Try 15th century Venice, and the Venetian Patent Statute from 1474.
Oohara is offline   1 Reply With Quote
Old Feb 8, 2014, 05:14 AM   #20
MikeyMike01
macrumors 6502
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Quote:
Originally Posted by zorinlynx View Post
Screw all these idiotic patent wars. More competition is good in this industry. We don't want one player to own it all.
Competition is good. See: Google Now

Copying is bad. See: S Voice
MikeyMike01 is offline   2 Reply With Quote
Old Feb 8, 2014, 07:26 AM   #21
clibinarius
macrumors 6502a
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Quote:
Originally Posted by OTACORB View Post
Somehow these Samsung cats always seem to escape from any real consequences for their actions.
If Samsung can't make too much money on this stuff, it stymies real innovation. "Bounce back" v. 3G; I think Bounce back is worth more and should command more money.

Seriously...what's more important? A FRAND patent or one of the things Apple's suing over? One makes a phone work. One gives a visual effect. Innovation, in my opinion, should mean more standards. Anything Apple develops that should be a standard? They refuse to open and license.

iOS? Apple only. Facetime? Apple only. iMessage? Apple only. And the beat goes on...
clibinarius is offline   1 Reply With Quote
Old Feb 8, 2014, 08:19 AM   #22
kdarling
macrumors G5
 
kdarling's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Device engineer 30+ yrs, touchscreens 23+.
The coverage and debate on this topic is often too simplistic.

For one thing, Samsung did nothing illegal requesting the ITC import ban over FRAND patents, otherwise the request would not even have been accepted. It has been a standard legal move for decades. It's only in the past year that the DOJ began to push for not allowing them.

The main article also left out a critical beginning phrase from the DOJ statement:

"While there are certain circumstances where an exclusion order as a remedy for infringement of such patents could be appropriate, in many cases there is a risk ..."

What are the "certain circumstances"? Well, when the US Trade Representative overruled the ITC ban, he noted that a failure to negotiate was a valid reason for an import ban request:

Click image for larger version

Name:	itc_overturn1_short.png
Views:	68
Size:	15.4 KB
ID:	460065

And in fact, a lack of Apple good faith negotiation is what the ITC used as its main basis for the import ban:

Click image for larger version

Name:	itc_negotiations2.png
Views:	67
Size:	109.3 KB
ID:	460064

Thus the ITC import ban decision was actually in line with the DOJ's public stance. So why overturn their ruling? Was it a legal turf war between the DOJ and ITC? A Presidential fear of iPhone buyer backlash? That's for history to decide.

One good outcome of all this, is that the DOJ has come up with clearer guidelines for the future. In particular, these rules spell out time limits. If a potential licensee fails to negotiate within a certain time period, the patent holder can then ask for arbitrated rates. If the licensee still fails to pay those, then an injunction is allowed.

If used, such time limits and forced arbitration will hopefully prevent long, drawn out court battles, and be fairer to all parties.

Last edited by kdarling; Feb 8, 2014 at 08:40 AM.
kdarling is offline   4 Reply With Quote
Old Feb 8, 2014, 08:21 AM   #23
AZREOSpecialist
macrumors 68000
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
All Samsung products should be banned from the US. They are a disease.
__________________
2009 Mac Pro Quad Xeon W3580 @ 3.3 GHz, 16 GB RAM, 2 TB RAID 5/RocketRAID 4320, Corsair P256 SSD Boot Drive, EVGA GTX-285
2012 MacBook Pro Retina 2.6 GHz, 16 GB RAM, 512 GB SSD
AZREOSpecialist is offline   3 Reply With Quote
Old Feb 8, 2014, 08:44 AM   #24
mcfmullen
macrumors member
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Why do journalists use FRAND when the DOJ says F/RAND?
mcfmullen is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Feb 8, 2014, 10:06 AM   #25
gnasher729
macrumors G5
 
gnasher729's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Quote:
Originally Posted by clibinarius View Post
If Samsung can't make too much money on this stuff, it stymies real innovation. "Bounce back" v. 3G; I think Bounce back is worth more and should command more money.

Seriously...what's more important? A FRAND patent or one of the things Apple's suing over? One makes a phone work. One gives a visual effect. Innovation, in my opinion, should mean more standards. Anything Apple develops that should be a standard? They refuse to open and license.

iOS? Apple only. Facetime? Apple only. iMessage? Apple only. And the beat goes on...
The obvious question is whether a phone can work needs to use a patent, especially if there are standards that require you use it, or if the patent is just for something that is not required for a phone. A phone will work just fine if you don't use the "bounce back" patent. Because of that, the patent holder can demand any amount they want for its use or even not allow its use at all. It doesn't stop others from making and selling phones. Not allowing the use of FRAND patents would make it impossible to build or sell a phone.

That's why Samsung was threatened with a fine up to $13 billion in the EU for suing to prevent the use of FRAND patents.

Consider this: If two different companies hold two different patents, each absolutely required to make a phone work, and both refuse to license, then _nobody_ could build phones (if these two companies acted legally, which they wouldn't).
gnasher729 is offline   0 Reply With Quote

Reply
MacRumors Forums > News and Article Discussion > iOS Blog Discussion

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Similar Threads
thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Samsung Fails to Win Presidential Veto of Potential U.S. Import Ban in Apple Patent Case MacRumors MacRumors.com News Discussion 74 Oct 12, 2013 03:13 AM
Samsung Loses Bid for Presidential Veto of Apple-Won Import Ban PracticalMac Apple, Industry and Internet Discussion 1 Oct 8, 2013 10:07 AM
Samsung takes LG to court to sue for OLED patents Dolorian Alternatives to iOS and iOS Devices 8 Nov 20, 2012 10:14 AM
Samsung can sue Apple for LTE patents. ARSC Apple, Industry and Internet Discussion 33 Sep 1, 2012 03:16 AM
Google's Top Lawyer: Some Apple Inventions are Commercially Essential, Should Be Made Into Standards MacRumors MacRumors.com News Discussion 718 Aug 16, 2012 05:30 AM

Forum Jump

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 10:06 PM.

Mac Rumors | Mac | iPhone | iPhone Game Reviews | iPhone Apps

Mobile Version | Fixed | Fluid | Fluid HD
Copyright 2002-2013, MacRumors.com, LLC