No, the EU is investigating Samsung.
http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-12-89_en.htm
Nice try, though.
WRONG!
You said, "the EU is investigating them for improperly using their standards-essential
LTE patents to try to drive out competition."
The case above has NOTHING to do with Samsung's LTE patents.
In fact, it specifically states, "In 2011, Samsung sought injunctive relief in various Member States' courts against competing mobile device makers based on alleged infringements of certain of its patent rights which it has declared essential to implement European mobile telephony standards."
Why is this relevant? I'll explain it to you.
The EU is alleging that Samsung might have broken EU rules by not licensing their standard essential patents to their mobile phone competitors under reasonable FRAND terms, and instead tried sue their competitors in various EU courts for patent infringement and attempted to get their phones withdrawn from the market through sales injunctions.
Do you get it now why you're wrong? NO???
Okay, it's simple.
LTE phones weren't INTRODUCED in the EU until THIS YEAR.
In fact, the first LTE phone available in the EU was a SAMSUNG Galaxy S II LTE, and wasn't made available until FEBRUARY in Sweden, which is the first EU country that had LTE phones on sale.
This is even AFTER the date of the press release, which is January 31, and which itself was referencing to events that happened in 2011.
So how is it possible that Samsung was investigated by the EU for "improperly using their standards-essential
LTE patents " by seeking "injunctive relief in various Member States' courts against competing mobile device makers" in 2011 when LTE phones weren't even on the MARKET until 2012?!
What's more, the press release specifically states, "Such commitments were given to ETSI by many patent holders, including Samsung, when the
third generation ("3G") mobile and wireless telecommunications system standards were adopted in Europe."
Yes, "3G". You are aware the LTE is NOT "3G" right?
Furthermore, Samsung has NOT submitted ANY of their LTE patents for FRAND anyway!
So how is "the EU is investigating them for improperly using their
standards-essential LTE patents to try to drive out competition"???
They're not!
Because none of Samsung's LTE patents are considered "standards-essential" in the EU to begin with!
So you got it WRONG, WRONG, WRONG, WRONG and WRONG! Pretty impressive you could get so much WRONG in so FEW words. Bravo!
Nice try making stuff up though!
But let's also address your other "claim" that if Samsung defends their LTE patents against Apple that the EU will be "forcing a harsh settlement upon them" because "the EU is investigating them for improperly using their [debunked claim snipped so sentence can make theoretical sense] patents to try to drive out competition".
So since the EU issued that press release in January, what actions have the EU actually TAKEN against Samsung for these alleged offenses?
Don't know? I do.
Exactly NOTHING!
Wow, you really made a strong "argument" there.
But wait, what company WAS under investigation by the EU for "price fixing" and other antitrust violations JUST LAST MONTH???
Can you guess?
http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/10/09/us-apple-eu-idUSBRE89818N20121009
And which company due to the seriousness and scope of their illegal price fixing activities and anti-trust violations were under the threat of being fined by the EU of "up to
10 percent of their global sales, which in Apple's case could reach
$15.6 billion, based on its 2012 fiscal year"?
And what company under the treat of the HUMONGOUS penalty for their illegal activities and antitrust violations had to "take a whipping" with their tail behind their legs and SETTLE with the EU just LAST WEEK?
And which company through their illegal price-fixing antitrust violating schemes with four major publishers in the efforts to hurt their market-dominant competitor Amazon and drive them out of business ended up BACK-FIRING and had to offer a highly UNFAVORABLE settlement offer to the EU giving "certainly another win for Amazon"?
http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/11/06/net-us-eu-apple-publishers-idUSBRE8A50SA20121106
Need another hint? It's not Samsung.
Uh, no. Apple has lost some IP suits, as well, most recently to VirnetX. If another company has IP, then they deserve compensation.
But I guess according to you, it's only patent TROLLING when APPLE owns the patent, but otherwise, it's patent INFRINGEMENT when APPLE is getting sued!
Apple certainly has LOST some "IP suits" and yes, VimetX does "deserve compensation", but don't tell that to Apple though!
Not only did Apple lose to VimetX, but VimetX is suing them AGAIN since the last lawsuit didn't cover the latest Apple products including the iPhone 5, iPad Mini and iPad 4, and despite losing the previous case, Apple still won't pay up!
Maybe you can convince Apple "If another company has IP, then they deserve compensation" because they certainly haven't been agreeing with you!
But it's not just VimetX though, VimetX is just the tip of the iceberg.
Just this past week, a Wisconsin court threw out Apple's lawsuit against Motorola Mobility in which Apple was arguing AGAINST PAYING the license fees dictated by Motorola for using its wireless patents.
That's BAD for Apple and basically is going to end up with Apple paying Motorola (i.e. Google) 2.25% of the iPhone minus iPod price which in real dollar figures would be around $10 per unit, or TEN TIMES the $1 that Apple wanted to pay!
And then last week a District of Delaware court DENIED Apple's case dismissal request and allowed MobileMedia Ideas to pursue its lawsuit against Apple for infringing on its screen rotation patent.
This would be HUGE, of course, as "screen rotation" would cover every iOS device Apple has ever produced including all iPod Touch, iPhone and iPad models.
And Apple couldn't just simply remove "screen rotation" from iOS like how Samsung removed "rubber banding" from their devices so if Apple lost that case they would be liable for damages for every one of their iOS devices they ever produced as well as for future license fees.
And THEN you have Samsung's lawsuit for Apple's exploitation of their non-FRAND, non-SEP LTE patents. Since Apple is refusing to pay the license fee to Samsung and therefore blatantly committing patent INFRINGEMENT, Samsung would have no CHOICE but to ask for INJUNCTIVE RELIEF against the iPhone 5, iPad Mini and iPad 4 in both the US AND the EU.
If that happens, like I said, it'll just land a crippling blow to Apple, ceasing revenue from their top three highest grossing products in their first and second most important markets, and sending their AAPL share price into a spinning nose dive from which they may never recover.
You wonder why Apple doesn't just take YOUR advice of "If another company has IP, then they deserve compensation" and just PAY UP!
When you consider that all of the smartphone-related patent lawsuits that Apple and its competitors have been involved in the past two years have generated a combined $20 BILLION in LEGAL COSTS and related expenditures for all parties involved, how much money is Apple WASTING on all this PATENT TROLLING?
Apple would actually be SAVING money if instead of going to court, they just fairly PAID the license fees for the patents they are using to their rightful patent owners, AND if they weren't so INTENT on patent trolling the ENTIRE INDUSTRY to get all of their competitors' products BANNED thinking they DESERVE to be a MONOPOLY.
Apple's icon grid is not even remotely original, it's just one of the most obvious, sensible ways of doing a touch screen UI. Going too weird detracts from usability. (like the Sony UX50's fruit-machine like start screen)
