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

MacRumors

macrumors bot
Original poster
Apr 12, 2001
63,287
30,363



DOJ.png
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:
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
 

forcenine

macrumors member
May 23, 2008
30
12
Because you're confusing standards-essential patents with non-standards-essential patents. Hence FRAND. Best do some research...
 

isepic

macrumors member
May 10, 2008
38
11
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.
 

The Doctor11

macrumors 603
Dec 15, 2013
5,973
1,406
New York
How is this different than Apple wanting to ban Samsung products?

Well I hate Samsung a lot so it would make me happy:D 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
 

T-R-S

macrumors 6502
Sep 25, 2010
455
280
Silicon Valley
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. :p
 

Rogifan

macrumors Penryn
Nov 14, 2011
24,084
31,015
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.
 

Solomani

macrumors 601
Sep 25, 2012
4,785
10,477
Slapfish, North Carolina
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…..
 

clibinarius

macrumors 6502a
Aug 26, 2010
671
70
NY
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...
 

kdarling

macrumors P6
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:

itc_overturn1_short.png

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

itc_negotiations2.png

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:

gnasher729

Suspended
Nov 25, 2005
17,980
5,565
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).
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.