Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Apple to Pay Samsung for Infringing Patent
- Thread starter Timzer
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
I don't think this is unique to Apple
There is enough posturing on everyone's part to share the load
Some of it is necessary to protect interests
That is how the system works
There is enough posturing on everyone's part to share the load
Some of it is necessary to protect interests
That is how the system works
This stuff has been going on between competitors long before Apple and will continue long after.
That said, this case can (almost) be read as a win for Apple, not a loss. Samsung wanted to ban Apple's devices and charge them exorbitant rates for the tech. Instead, they were told they can't ban them and can only charge market rate.
The only reason it's not a full win for Apple is because they will finally have to pay for it when they haven't been these past few years.
That said, this case can (almost) be read as a win for Apple, not a loss. Samsung wanted to ban Apple's devices and charge them exorbitant rates for the tech. Instead, they were told they can't ban them and can only charge market rate.
The only reason it's not a full win for Apple is because they will finally have to pay for it when they haven't been these past few years.
You'd rather companies got sued by share holders because they failed to protect their their IP, and their investment?
Nah, I'd just rather companies understand that there is copying to some extent in most industries and shut the f up, innovate and move forward. Funny how Apple was able to infringe on these patents without getting called out on it for some years now. Maybe it was Apple throwing the first stone that caused the retaliation. As I said, should have just let shlt roll like the rest of the industry.
Yes, because patent licensing deals are the exception rather than the rule.
Apple suing Samsung for "look and feel" of iOS is a joke. Grid of icons? Really? Then trying to Ban the S3 for more BS patent crap? Give me a break. Just like RIM before them, Apple has jumped the shark.
Yes, because patent licensing deals are the exception rather than the rule.
I think he's meaning the whole back and forth. One sues Apple for this then Apple sues them for something else in a never ending circle. Google acquiring Motorola mobility for their patents then publicly announced they'd like to put an end to these patent wars (since anything with a radio in it is probably infringing on a Motorola patent).
I understand trying to protect your product but if you ripped off 10 people in the process maybe you should try to keep off the radar by suing someone.
This isn't about copying. It's about using technology necessary to cell phones. Hence the FRAND discussion in the article. Apple has always known they would have to pay, the dispute has been over the amount. And that article doesn't say anything about that, unfortunately.
FossPatents weighed in:
theres no question that Apple is ready, willing and able to pay a FRAND royalty rate. It just didnt want Samsung to win an injunction, or pay an excessive rate. Court documents say that Apple asked Samsung half a dozen times (!) to quote a FRAND rate before the 2.4% demand, which the court considered outrageous, was made Considering the parameters and circumstances I just described, Samsung will be lucky to even recover its attorneys fees with this. The dispute will continue.
theres no question that Apple is ready, willing and able to pay a FRAND royalty rate. It just didnt want Samsung to win an injunction, or pay an excessive rate. Court documents say that Apple asked Samsung half a dozen times (!) to quote a FRAND rate before the 2.4% demand, which the court considered outrageous, was made Considering the parameters and circumstances I just described, Samsung will be lucky to even recover its attorneys fees with this. The dispute will continue.
Yes because companies don't want to protect their IP's. when they don't protect IP's they lose rights to it.
You don't know much about business. Plus what does this have to do with the iPhone?
I don't think people realize the the consequences of not legally protecting your IP. It's not like people think where they can just let potential IP theft slide because they are nice guys.
Apple has an an absolute obligation to defend their IP or they can lose those rights, be sued by the shareholder and be subject to all kinds of FTC investigations.
Nice Trolling.
I wonder why some of you like to hang out here. Companies sue each other..if you don't defend patents you lose them.
I don't like the system but who's going to change it. Apple's doing nothing that thousands of other companies don't do.
But hey it makes for good Troll material doesn't it?
https://forums.macrumors.com/posts/14972476/
Timzer said:
Okaay.
https://forums.macrumors.com/posts/15073967/
Timzer said:
https://forums.macrumors.com/threads/1285641/
(Apple are not innovators)
Your whole history here on Macrumors is founded in puerile behavior because Apple doesn't operate "exactly" how you wish. Thus now by mandate every thread you create must denigrate Apple or calling Apple finds Blind on a Mac enthusiast site no less.
Last edited:
After Florian got everything wrong about the Google vs Oracle case, I can't believe anyone is taking him seriously still.
That's because the case wasn't primarily about the license rate. It was about whether or not Apple had infringed on Samsung's UMTS patent.
Apple's main defense consisted of claiming that the UMTS patent was invalid. So no, they didn't always know they'd have to pay. They were hoping they didn't have to.
On that note, the court also ruled on two other Samsung patent lawsuits yesterday, about three patents. In those cases, Apple was found not to infringe, and thus Samsung has to pay Apple €800000 to cover their court costs.
For those who are interested, the court ruling (in Dutch) is here.
Well, of course Apple is willing to pay now that they're forced to.
I've only ever seen Apple's claims that the rate was excessive. They have said the same thing about every other FRAND patent they've disputed:
Fair or not, for years many ETSI FRAND patents have been charged as a percentage of the phone price, partly to encourage phones priced for the world's poorer masses. This is antithetical to Apple's practice of keeping higher prices to get far higher profit margins.
As a side note, many people mistakenly think that cellular patent FRAND terms, and not allowing injunctions, are based on some mysterious requirement law that countries have written. Those are instead based on the voluntary agreement made between members of ETSI, a policy which naturally heavily favors the major patent contributors. Of course, contractual and anti-trust laws bind such an agreement.
Last edited:
Maybe. You are going by the letter of their court filings. I'm making assumptions of intent and tactics. And I think I'm not far off. I don't see how they could truly believe they would win that point.
Apple found in violation of 1 patent of the 4 Samsung was suing for. Samsung was ordered to pay Apple's court fees which are believed to be significantly more than Apple will pay in FRAND royalty fees.
That's what Florian wrote. Let's see if he makes sense:
It depends on how many iPhone 3G, 3GS, 4 and iPad 1/2 3G models have been sold there since mid 2010. Not much iPad data, but so let's just do phones:
About four million smartphones were sold in the Netherlands between mid 2010 and late 2011 when the non-offending 4S model came out.
If we presume a percentage like countries around it, then 20-30% were offending iPhones, or minimum 800,000 iPhones.
Samsung was asking about €12 per phone, but all they need is €1 (one euro) per phone to cover the cost of paying Apple's €800,000 court costs.
What do you think their chances are?