Apple's Chief Patent Litigator Profiled as Samsung Threatens Lawsuits over iPhone 5

[rjohnstone]

In Apple's case, the maker of the LTE chip (say Qualcomm) should pay Samsung the license, NOT Apple.

Again... depends on the terms of the license Qualcomm has with Samsung.
Samsung can authorize Qualcomm the build the chip with the functionality, but require the end user (Apple in this case) to acquire a license before the functionality can be enabled.
There are many examples of Qualcomm chips on the market with features disabled by default.
The MSM8660 has CDMA capabilities yet there are plenty of phones with this SOC (US variants of the GS2 for example) that have this feature disabled.
A simple software update to the chip and viola... CDMA is on. The antenna might not be compilable, but that's not the point.
If Samsung wanted this feature enabled, they would have to pay a license fee to enable it.

 

[k995]

Unless it can be demonstrated that those 30, 40 new models of phones were not headed in the direction of Apple's new model... until the competition saw its superiority. And this was demonstrated in court for a win.

BS, it was nowhere shown, its also contradictory to simple reality, several phones were released who resembled iphone, before or right after, software was already long moving in that direction.

Plenty of sites showing this for anyone who actually wants to learn something.


But now, picking your brand is a lot easier if it was footbal we had riots.

 

[jrswizzle]

Again... depends on the terms of the license Qualcomm has with Samsung.
Samsung can authorize Qualcomm the build the chip with the functionality, but require the end user (Apple in this case) to acquire a license before the functionality can be enabled.
There are many examples of Qualcomm chips on the market with features disabled by default.
The MSM8660 has CDMA capabilities yet there are plenty of phones with this SOC (US variants of the GS2 for example) that have this feature disabled.
A simple software update to the chip and viola... CDMA is on. The antenna might not be compilable, but that's not the point.
If Samsung wanted this feature enabled, they would have to pay a license fee to enable it.

These and MANY other facts are unknown. I am certainly not stating my opinions as fact. I'm sure more will leak out regarding this and if Samsung actually does sue, we'll know all the details then.

As of right now, you have to admit. Right after losing a big lawsuit and 2 days before the iPhone 5, rumored to be world-wide capable LTE, is announced an unnamed Samsung exec says "we gonna sue they a$$es".

Lol, it all seems pretty comical to me, especially if after winning that big lawsuit Apple decides "ehh lets just ignore Samsung's patents."

 

[k995]

And I'm saying that there are plenty of people (Apple fans and haters) who love to deal in generalities and take one person's "its all sour grapes" and paint the entire Apple community some shade of "only Apple is allowed to sue".

I'd say that given the evidence (Apple's track record, the recent suit, the fact that LTE IS recognized as a standard, Qualcomm's manufacturing of the radio) it is much more likely this threat of a suit won't amount to much and Samsung is just posturing as to not look weak.

Samsung has 900+ LTE patents

LTE a standard doesnt matter, what matters is does apple have the right to use the tech it has in its phones. That you bought it from company x doesnt matter as YOU need a license/agreement to use it .

 

[jrswizzle]

Samsung has 900+ LTE patents

LTE a standard doesnt matter, what matters is does apple have the right to use the tech it has in its phones. That you bought it from company x doesnt matter as YOU need a license/agreement to use it .

Maybe that's the case with other tech, but as a mobile standard used by countless mobile phones there should be licensing agreements in place between the patent holder (Samsung) and the manufacturers (presumably Qualcomm).

As has been stated, Apple could have tweaked the radio on the software end thereby infringing in that aspect but as the phone is yet to be released I find it hard to believe Samsung has the inside knowledge to file a suit that specific.

Let me make this clear. I am in no way suggesting Samsung doesn't have the right to sue. I'm just saying this "threat" seems more like posturing than an actual suit based on evidence. Who knows though?

----------

Let's ask it this way:

If Apple were the manufacturer of the chip and Qualcomm the producer of the device, who do you think Samsung would be going after?

 

[rjohnstone]

Let's ask it this way:

If Apple were the manufacturer of the chip and Qualcomm the producer of the device, who do you think Samsung would be going after?

They would go after the party they suspect is violating their patent.

You can keep throwing the "sue the chip manufacturer" argument out all day long, but none of us know the terms of the license.

So once again... depends on how the license was setup with the manufacturer.

 

[jrswizzle]

They would go after the party they suspect is violating their patent.

You can keep throwing the "sue the chip manufacturer" argument out all day long, but none of us know the terms of the license.

So once again... depends on how the license was setup with the manufacturer.

Have you not read my other posts? OBVIOUSLY there are a ton of other factors to consider and I agree with you. I am merely speculating and have stated such numerous times.

Only time will tell....but I don't foresee this causing Apple any problems because I can't imagine they'd be that careless (or like Samsung, blatantly ignore the patents).

 

[k995]

Maybe that's the case with other tech, but as a mobile standard used by countless mobile phones there should be licensing agreements in place between the patent holder (Samsung) and the manufacturers (presumably Qualcomm).

depends , doubt it as in this case its just an improvement . Gsm is such a tech, 4g is just a faster data .

And even then it still depends on the licenses owned by qualcomm and apple , locense to manufacture is different then those to use .

As has been stated, Apple could have tweaked the radio on the software end thereby infringing in that aspect but as the phone is yet to be released I find it hard to believe Samsung has the inside knowledge to file a suit that specific.

Let me make this clear. I am in no way suggesting Samsung doesn't have the right to sue. I'm just saying this "threat" seems more like posturing than an actual suit based on evidence. Who knows though?

samsung hasnt filed yet, but it knows his patents it knows the tech and it knows the apple patents.

What you forget is that apple just buys of the shelve, there is very little secret about the Curent lte antennas designs.

If Apple were the manufacturer of the chip and Qualcomm the producer of the device, who do you think Samsung would be going after?

if apple didnt feel threatened by samsung do you think they would have started with all the lawsuis ?

----------

Have you not read my other posts? OBVIOUSLY there are a ton of other factors to consider and I agree with you. I am merely speculating and have stated such numerous times.

Only time will tell....but I don't foresee this causing Apple any problems because I can't imagine they'd be that careless (or like Samsung, blatantly ignore the patents).

You dont seem to understand how patents work, anyone can get one, even sometimes absurd ones. Its proof is once you think they are violated .

Apple or samsung they ignore just as much patents.

 

[SouthsideJohnny]

The photo shows distorted symbols because everyone knows Windows can't handle Apple technology.

 

[kamalsutra]

Ahhhh....**** apple fanboys says....I hope Apple get a taste of its own medicine

-sent from Samsung Galaxy S3

 

[jrswizzle]

depends , doubt it as in this case its just an improvement . Gsm is such a tech, 4g is just a faster data .

And even then it still depends on the licenses owned by qualcomm and apple , locense to manufacture is different then those to use .



samsung hasnt filed yet, but it knows his patents it knows the tech and it knows the apple patents.

What you forget is that apple just buys of the shelve, there is very little secret about the Curent lte antennas designs.

if apple didnt feel threatened by samsung do you think they would have started with all the lawsuis ?

----------



You dont seem to understand how patents work, anyone can get one, even sometimes absurd ones. Its proof is once you think they are violated .

Apple or samsung they ignore just as much patents.

I'll admit I'm no patent expert, but we're not dealing with complex thought processes here. Based on the given information there are two possibilities:

1) Either Samsung is posturing and wants to show Apple they won't back down by making veiled threats.

or

2) There is infringement in the LTE radio the iPhone 5 will reportedly have and Samsung knows what is causing the infringement.

I am arguing that the first is more likely given the current evidence. For the latter to be true Apple would have had to either completely ignore the patents (which coming on the heels of their victory in court would seem absurd) or Qualcomm dropped the ball.

----------

Ahhhh....**** apple fanboys says....I hope Apple get a taste of its own medicine

-sent from Samsung Galaxy S3

Lol, generalizations Apple haters make because they can't come up with anything factual or intelligent to say....

Keep drinking that haterade. I'll continue to be a fan of tech as a whole and make my decisions based on my own preferences. Just as everyone else should.

 

[swagi]

I can't believe nobody has geasped the real dimension of this.

What if Samsung holds the essential software patents for 'voice over LTE'? Just remember...the Galaxy S3 LTE will be the first phone to offer it afaik.

And this has nil connection to the hardwarevchip licensed by Quallcomm.

Just a thought.

 

[jrswizzle]

http://www.patentlyapple.com/patent...confirms-samsung-will-sue-apple-over-lte.html

Toward the end of the article Patently Apple cites a report about LTE patents and the state of the community in 2011 and today. As noted Apple is part of an LTE patent consortium with, among others, Microsoft, RIM and Ericsson. Not to mention the number of LTE patents Qualcomm owns.

I'd say if it is Qualcomm's chip, given the number of patents Apple has, Qualcomm has and the consortium as a whole has, Samsung is talking out of their butts....

Another report I read had their exec quoted as saying they would immediately sue Apple if they released an LTE iPhone....I mean that's absurdly general.

 

[apolloa]

So you are saying that the manufacturer of the actual device (the LTE chip) that is the center of the infringement is less to blame than the manufacturer of the device (the iPhone 5) which simply installs the chip?

How does that make sense? Obviously if Apple and Qualcomm were colluding to drive Samsung out and infringed that would be different.

But if the cops came knocking at your door and arrested you for car theft and you paid for you car you're saying you'd be ok with that? Obviously Apple should do it's due diligence, but that doesn't mean they should ultimately be held responsible.

Yes I am stating that because it is up to the name on the device to check the components that go into it are legal. I mean it's not like Apple has an entire army or lawyers and patent specialists or anything

A quote from HTC:

Apple Inc. (AAPL) may face a difficult task invalidating two HTC Corp. (2498) patents for data transmission in wireless devices, a U.S. trade judge said at a trial that could lead to import bans on the newest iPad and next version of the iPhone.

HTC accuses Apple of infringing two patents it owns for ways to reliably transmit a larger amount of data. Taoyuan, Taiwan-based HTC said the patented methods are critical to the 4G technology known as LTE, or long-term evolution, that allow faster downloads.

In this case, though, HTC acquired the patents at issue in April 2011, around the same time it began selling its first LTE phone, the Thunderbolt. The patents are part of a portfolio HTC bought for $75 million from ADC Telecommunications Inc.

U.S. International Trade Commission Judge Thomas Pender said to Apple lawyer Michael McKeon of Fish & Richardson:

“I don’t care if they bought these patents to sue you or not,” Pender told McKeon. “They are a property right.”

From here:

http://www.businessweek.com/news/2012-09-06/htc-patents-challenged-by-apple-probably-valid-judge-say

So HTC are suing Apple for LTE patent breaches, the judge agrees, I don't see any mention of Qualcomm.

 

[apolloa]

Actually, I have no clue what Motorola did to the XBox or PS3. I don't follow those consoles. What did they do - temporarily stop Microsoft or Sony from selling them?

Motorola got temporary blocks on the sale of the Xbox 360 claiming patent infringement:

http://www.digitaltrends.com/mobile/motorola-wins-injunction-to-block-xbox-360-from-sale-in-germany/
http://www.digitaltrends.com/mobile/motorola-moves-to-block-sale-of-xbox-360-in-u-s/

And LG blocked the importation of Sony's PS3 console into the European router of the Netherlands for three weeks based on patent infringement with Blue Ray drives:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/41834943/ns/technology_and_science-games/#.UE5klYV5nIp

So BIG names successfully blocking the imports or sales or other BIG name devices. High stakes indeed.

No idea why my two posts haven't been linked into one?

 

[MacinDoc]

Again... depends on the terms of the license Qualcomm has with Samsung.
Samsung can authorize Qualcomm the build the chip with the functionality, but require the end user (Apple in this case) to acquire a license before the functionality can be enabled.
There are many examples of Qualcomm chips on the market with features disabled by default.
The MSM8660 has CDMA capabilities yet there are plenty of phones with this SOC (US variants of the GS2 for example) that have this feature disabled.
A simple software update to the chip and viola... CDMA is on. The antenna might not be compilable, but that's not the point.
If Samsung wanted this feature enabled, they would have to pay a license fee to enable it.

If it's anything like the way Samsing licensed 3G IP to Qualcomm, then Samsung may attempt to argue that it licensed the LTE IP to Qualcomm, but that the license was terminated for any chips that were sold to Apple. The problem is that this violates the very principle of FRAND licensing, and is essentially anticompetitive.

Because Samsung cannot be currently aware of any non-standard utilizations by Apple of the Samsung IP included in Qualcomm's LTE chips, the only way that Samsung can say with certainty that an unreleased Apple product has violated its IP is if the company is forbidding Qualcomm to sell LTE chips to Apple under the same conditions that it would sell them to any other customer.

If Samsung isn't careful, it will be lucky to have any of its IP incorporated in future communication standards, because it is fighting against the very principles of common standards.

It's definitely time for patent reform. For starters, standardizing licensing fees for IP that is considered part of a standard. All of these court cases are a waste of time, money, effort and intellect. A group creating a standard protocol should decide on how much to charge for its collective IP and how much each contributor has put toward it, after which collecting and dividing the licensing fees is easy, no lawyers or judges required. Agreeing on licensing fees should be a required element of establishing a standard.

And while we're at it, the patent system could benefit from requiring a much higher standard of specificity and detail than some of the garbage that has previously been awarded, including some that has been awarded to Apple.

 

[KnightWRX]

The problem is that this violates the very principle of FRAND licensing, and is essentially anticompetitive.

The only way to violate FRAND is to either discriminate or offer non fair or reasonable terms. Suing someone that doesn't have a valid license to your patents but is using them is neither discriminatory or an offer that isn't fair and reasonable.

Don't mix things up here. There is no anti-competitive behavior in suing patent infringers. The courts will decide whether infringement has taken place as claimed and if it has, what damages should be awarded.

 

[isoft7]

lol, this place... .

"z0mg!!! Samsung made a rectangle shaped phone!!! SUE THEM!!!"

Then Apple violates patents:

"Crybabies... they should just let others do whatever they want, it's not fair to us consumers!"

There isn't a rolleyes emoticon large enough in the world.

 

[kdarling]

If it's anything like the way Samsing licensed 3G IP to Qualcomm, then Samsung may attempt to argue that it licensed the LTE IP to Qualcomm, but that the license was terminated for any chips that were sold to Apple. The problem is that this violates the very principle of FRAND licensing, and is essentially anticompetitive.

If Samsung licensed to Qualcomm the same way that Motorola did, they included a defensive covenant that allowed them to sue any company that tried to sue them. It also might include the option to directly license to any company instead of allowing Qualcomm to act as intermediary.

AFAIK, the legality of those types of actions in the Motorola case (U.S. District Court #12-cv-355 filed back in Feb 2012) haven't been decided yet.

If Samsung isn't careful, it will be lucky to have any of its IP incorporated in future communication standards, because it is fighting against the very principles of common standards.

The major companies who actually did the LTE R&D, as Samsung did, would probably be more prone to be protective of Samsung than of Apple, who wants lower rates without cross-licensing.

It's definitely time for patent reform. For starters, standardizing licensing fees for IP that is considered part of a standard.

Excellent idea, but the major companies tend to privately resist such things.

They have absolutely zero reason to want to change the way it's been done for decades: start at a high rate, and negotiate downward if the licensee agrees to cross-licensing. This allows everyone to compete on price and included features, instead of much on exclusive features. It's smart self-protection.

In the early days of GSM, for example, when Motorola had over 50% of the patents, they were famous for having only two license options: 1) license included if you bought the carrier equipment and/or phone chips from them, or 2) free if you cross-licensed everything with them. There was no cash option.

ETSI's IP policy itself has very few teeth in it, mostly concerned with companies hiding IP. Otherwise, FRAND rates and contract requirements are up to each patent holder.

 

[jrswizzle]

Yes I am stating that because it is up to the name on the device to check the components that go into it are legal. I mean it's not like Apple has an entire army or lawyers and patent specialists or anything

A quote from HTC:

Apple Inc. (AAPL) may face a difficult task invalidating two HTC Corp. (2498) patents for data transmission in wireless devices, a U.S. trade judge said at a trial that could lead to import bans on the newest iPad and next version of the iPhone.

HTC accuses Apple of infringing two patents it owns for ways to reliably transmit a larger amount of data. Taoyuan, Taiwan-based HTC said the patented methods are critical to the 4G technology known as LTE, or long-term evolution, that allow faster downloads.

In this case, though, HTC acquired the patents at issue in April 2011, around the same time it began selling its first LTE phone, the Thunderbolt. The patents are part of a portfolio HTC bought for $75 million from ADC Telecommunications Inc.

U.S. International Trade Commission Judge Thomas Pender said to Apple lawyer Michael McKeon of Fish & Richardson:

“I don’t care if they bought these patents to sue you or not,” Pender told McKeon. “They are a property right.”

From here:

http://www.businessweek.com/news/2012-09-06/htc-patents-challenged-by-apple-probably-valid-judge-say

So HTC are suing Apple for LTE patent breaches, the judge agrees, I don't see any mention of Qualcomm.

So these patents have already been used in a suit against Apple? Even though they have yet to release an LTE enabled device? Seems odd....would assume the center of the suit has nothing to do about the LTE radio, but the application of communication technology.

It will be interesting to see how these suits unfold, especially as LTE tech becomes more widespread. But as I stated earlier I think the difficulty will come on Samsung's side given Apple's own LTE patents plus the huge number of patents owned by Apple's partners and consortium it is a part of.

 

[KnightWRX]

So these patents have already been used in a suit against Apple? Even though they have yet to release an LTE enabled device?

Uh ?

 

[louis Fashion]

Sue Me Sue You Blues

Just think of all the R and D, all the advances, all the improvements that could be funded with the money that is going to the lawyers. What a waste, reminds me of the Iraq war. Useless. Stupid. My dick is bigger than yours....

 

[bbeagle]

Any particular reason you stopped quoting me before I said

That doesn't apply to patents afaik

I'm sorry - I had to go back and read your post. I didn't intentionally leave out your 'This doesn't apply to patents afaik'. Seems like a political hack job there.

I always assumed patents were the same thing as trademarks, that you can't randomly let certain companies infringe and other companies not. I guess I'm wrong, and that Samsung CAN single-out Apple.

 

[pacalis]

Ahhhh....**** apple fanboys says....I hope Apple get a taste of its own medicine

-sent from Samsung Galaxy S3

True, Apple should spend more on R&D.


2009/2010 R&D Data for top 100 PCT firms

 

[KdParker]

this is getting old....

can't wait to get my iPhone 5.

----------

Ahhhh....**** apple fanboys says....I hope Apple get a taste of its own medicine

-sent from Samsung Galaxy S3

they get sued all the time. But what is Samsung going to sue about?