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

[69650]

It won't last years or even weeks. This really is a MAD situation.

Why would Telco's invest/risk money deploying a system that they can't have confidence in the Patent players keeping there end of the FRAND bargain.

If Samsung go ahead with this I thinking it will be less than 1 week after that we will hear of major telco's halting or cancelling LTE deployments.

I don't think so. There are already plenty of LTE smartphones to keep the Telco's busy. We've already heard that AT&T and Verizon have been pushing other phones in their shops to try and reduce their reliance on the iPhone. Any ban on the iPhone 5 would only help that.

No this is going to go on and on unless BOTH sides are willing to compromise.

PS With the current fragmented "national" patent system we have, Apple has to take Samsung to court in every single country around the world. That alone will take years then add on all the appeals and you see this thing ain't going away anythime soon.

 

[jrswizzle]

Uh ?

View attachment 356686

Lol duh....

----------

Wishfull thinking because youre apple fan.

You dont know lte patents from samsung you dont know the tech used in iphone 5 you dont know the licensing agreements.




We only know the party with most lte patents will guard them carefully

Samsung may have the most alone, but if you add Apple's with the consortium they are a part of and Qualcomm's, I don't know if Samsung even still has more patents.

And as has been stated, it's not about the number of them, its about which ones each company has. An interesting story will follow from this I'm sure. Only time will tell.

 

[the read]

However, Windows 7 will be supported until January 14, 2020. That's seven years and four months from now. Given Apple's history with OS X, I doubt they will support the MacBook Pro with Retina Display anywhere near as long.

Agreed, but the thought of using windows 7 now makes me want to cry, in 2020 it would make me want to go postal.

 

[jrswizzle]

When the 3G3P group (the collective of companies whose IP made up the 3G standard) underwent scrutiny in the EU regarding its potentially anticompetitive nature, the group claimed that there would be a "Standard Royalty rate" for all licensees and a "Maximum Cumulative Royalty rate", and that to avoid accusations of price fixing, licensees could make bilateral agreements under FRAND terms to charge less than the maximum rates to recognize the IP co-licensees brought to the standard. The problem is that Samsung wanted to stop offering these licensing terms to Qualcomm, also a member of the 3G3P group, for any merchandise that was subsequently sold to Apple. Instead, Samsung wanted to establish its own bilateral agreement with Apple that included licensing fees equal to the entire "Maximum Cumulative Royalty rate" for only Samsung's portion of the 3G IP. Furthermore, Samsung wanted to base its calculation of the "Maximum Cumulative Royalty rate" on the entire cost of the iPhone, rather than just on the price of the broadband chip that featured Samsung's IP (why, for example, the value of Samsung's 3G patents used in the iPhone should be increased based on the cost of the phone's cameras, screen, GPS, and GPU, is beyond me). How is it that IP that's apparently worth pennies in a Galaxy S should cost $15 - $20 in an iPhone? Come on, if every member of a standards group wanted $20/phone for its IP, with about 20 members in a standards group, it would cost $400/phone for a new competitor to enter the market just to obtain the communications protocol IP. Talk about stifling competition!

Now I know that Apple's licensing offer to Samsung for its design patents was anything but reasonable. But then again, those patents were not part of a communications protocol, and were not subject to FRAND licensing. Samsung wants to have patents that are part of an agreed on communications protocol to be treated in the same manner as design patents that give each device its unique appearance and functionality. This defeats the purpose of FRAND licensing by creating an impassible barrier to any company that was not a major contributor to the standard, thereby excluding new players from the industry and limiting consumers' choices.

I was just looking at the major players' LTE patent portfolios, and was surprised to see how much LTE IP Samsung has. If Samsung is allowed (as the source quoted in this article suggests) to evade FRAND licensing for its LTE IP, then Apple is indeed in a great deal of trouble, because Samsung could make it impossible for Apple to produce any LTE device at a reasonable price. I'm sure you're not arguing in favor of this, right?

Edit: The more I look at it, the more I think that Apple's only chance to survive in the wireless device market is to reach a cross-licensing agreement with Samsung ASAP, unless Apple confirms that it can obtain LTE IP under (truly) FRAND terms. Samsung simply has far too much LTE IP for Apple to fight.

Maybe if you looked at each company separately and alone yes. Samsung owns twice as many patents, however Apple has partners in this arena. RIM, Microsoft, Ericsson are all part of a consortium which owns LTE patents - a consortium that Apple is also a part of. Add those to Qualcomm's (assuming Qualcomm's chip is in the iP5) and Apple has a formidable team with a large number of LTE patents. If I remember correctly I believe Samsung's 900+ patents equals about 12% of all LTE patents, not a number that can't be overcome.

As it is anyways, the number of patents will most likely be irrelevant. If Samsung really is going to sue then they must know what part of the LTE radio in the iP5 is infringing (given the fact the exec is quoted as saying they would sue Apple if they ever came out with an LTE phone seems oddly vague and general) and the number of patents won't make any difference. Apple's patents all came for Nortel, one of the leaders in LTE development. Qualcomm was also part of that leading team (as was Samsung).

 

[pc-proud]

This is getting way out of hand. Also, just from a consumer standpoint how is LTE not standards essential patents if all the carriers are using them? Can't we all just get along...

Ok so how are rectangle phones with rounded corners any different? Or wedge shapes laptops? (I heard apple filed a patent for the wedge shape in regards to the air laptop).. I will give apple the icon design argument but not the shape of the phone.

 

[jrswizzle]

Ok so how are rectangle phones with rounded corners any different? Or wedge shapes laptops? (I heard apple filed a patent for the wedge shape in regards to the air laptop).. I will give apple the icon design argument but not the shape of the phone.

The "rectangular phone with rounded edges" line is a bit. Their trade dress suits were not simply about the shape of the phone, rather the overall look and feel of the phone....including UI similarities concerning Samsung's touchwhiz.

Do yourself a favor and stop repeating Android fanboy rhetoric. Google themselves told Samsung to cut the copying. If you want to look to a great example of innovation look at Microsoft. WP8 is unlike anything on the market and while I'm not a fan I respect them completely for coming up with a brand new UI that doesn't look like anything currently in production. Pick up a Nokia Lumia 920. That phone in no way resembles an iPhone in design OR UI. The point of all this is innovation CAN happen without copying. Just because we all think the design of the iPhone is so obvious now doesn't mean it was always that way. And it also doesn't mean every option has been exhausted.

If Samsung could design and innovate like that, they wouldn't be in this mess.

 

[k995]

Lol duh....

----------



Samsung may have the most alone, but if you add Apple's with the consortium they are a part of and Qualcomm's, I don't know if Samsung even still has more patents.

And as has been stated, it's not about the number of them, its about which ones each company has. An interesting story will follow from this I'm sure. Only time will tell.

Ifg quallcomm has a license agreement then it matters otherwise apple & co had around 300

 

[kdarling]

Furthermore, Samsung wanted to base its calculation of the "Maximum Cumulative Royalty rate" on the entire cost of the iPhone, rather than just on the price of the broadband chip that featured Samsung's IP ...

That is not unique to Samsung. Almost every GSM/3G/LTE license starts as a percentage of the total device price.

This is partly to encourage phone makers to be more reasonable with their prices, so that more people can afford one. Basically, higher priced devices subsidize the lower priced devices.

This makes royalties affordable to those makers who sell low cost phones to the world at incredibly low profit margins (2-5%). When they're only making $5-10 per device, they cannot afford $30-50 royalties.

Without those low profit phones, there would not have been the mass adoption and network buildout that has now allowed far more lucrative smartphones to proliferate... including allowing Apple make their huge (45-60%) profit margins without having invested for decades like the companies before them.

Most importantly for this dicussion, the US DOJ approved this practice in their famous 2002 letter to the 3G3P, in which the DOJ agreed that the platform licensing plans did not violate anti-trust laws.

"In return for a Standard or Interim license, the licensee is obliged to pay the licensor a royalty based on a standard percentage rate applied to the licensee's net sales of licensed products".

- Section C. The Licensing Process, DOJ letter

 

[k995]

Maybe if you looked at each company separately and alone yes. Samsung owns twice as many patents, however Apple has partners in this arena. RIM, Microsoft, Ericsson are all part of a consortium which owns LTE patents - a consortium that Apple is also a part of. Add those to Qualcomm's (assuming Qualcomm's chip is in the iP5) and Apple has a formidable team with a large number of LTE patents. If I remember correctly I believe Samsung's 900+ patents equals about 12% of all LTE patents, not a number that can't be overcome.

As it is anyways, the number of patents will most likely be irrelevant. If Samsung really is going to sue then they must know what part of the LTE radio in the iP5 is infringing (given the fact the exec is quoted as saying they would sue Apple if they ever came out with an LTE phone seems oddly vague and general) and the number of patents won't make any difference. Apple's patents all came for Nortel, one of the leaders in LTE development. Qualcomm was also part of that leading team (as was Samsung).

Why would those other companies help apple and pool pattents? If they have agreements they would but it wont be charity.

As for qualcomm, manufaturing is different from using.

 

[jrswizzle]

Why would those other companies help apple and pool pattents? If they have agreements they would but it wont be charity.

As for qualcomm, manufaturing is different from using.

I don't know why, but they are all a part of an LTE IP consortium.

I understand manufacturing is different than using but look at it from Qualcomm's perspective. If the radio is infringing they would HAVE to know. They would also HAVE to know if Apple (depending on if they needed it or not) had a usage licensing agreement with Samsung. Given that the iPhone 5 is expected to sell roughly 10 million devices in the first WEEK, Qualcomm would be very invested in this partnership.

That being said don't you think they'd be willing to throw their patents into the mix? If Apple can prove the LTE radio was built and designed using patents that either they own, Qualcomm owns or their consortium owns, Samsung can't win.

That's my point in bringing up the group. And the fact that Nortel (Apple's patents) and Qualcomm were at the forefront in developing LTE tech, I'd venture to say they have some pretty damn important patents, most likely pertaining to design, build and implementation.

 

[Oletros]

I don't know why, but they are all a part of an LTE IP consortium.

I understand manufacturing is different than using but look at it from Qualcomm's perspective. If the radio is infringing they would HAVE to know. They would also HAVE to know

No, Samsung is not suing them like Nokia didn't sue Qualcomm

 

[jrswizzle]

No, Samsung is not suing them like Nokia didn't sue Qualcomm

I didn't say Samsung was suing them. But IF Apple shows the LTE radio was made using Qualcomm/Apple/Consortium patents...obviously Samsung has nothing.

And my entire point is that given Qualcomm's and Nortel's involvement in the development of LTE, it is entirely possible the patents Apple has at its disposal are equally as important as Samsung's and could render Samsung's threat mute.

 

[Oletros]

I didn't say Samsung was suing them. But IF Apple shows the LTE radio was made using Qualcomm/Apple/Consortium patents...obviously Samsung has nothing.

If Samsung patents are SEP your only way to build an LTE device is using
Samsung, Qualcomm and Nortel patents

And my entire point is that given Qualcomm's and Nortel's involvement in the development of LTE, it is entirely possible the patents Apple has at its disposal are equally as important as Samsung's and could render Samsung's threat mute.

If this is your point, why do you write again and again and again that Qualcomm has to know or Samsung doesn't sue Qualcomm?

 

[jrswizzle]

I didn't say Samsung was suing them. But IF Apple shows the LTE radio was made using Qualcomm/Apple/Consortium patents...obviously Samsung has nothing.

If Samsung patents are SEP your only way to build an LTE device is using
Samsung, Qualcomm and Nortel patents



If this is your point, why do you write again and again and again that Qualcomm has to know or Samsung doesn't sue Qualcomm?

Because Qualcomm is supposedly the one making the damn things. You think they would design and build an LTE radio, sell millions to Apple and have no clue if the design or use was infringing? And yet Samsung is supposed to know exactly what is infringing?

I see what you are saying. But then it comes down to a very simple question - did Apple pay the necessary licensing. If everyone knows all that you guys are claiming they know, it would be extremely dense (or stupid if they blatantly ignored) of Apple to simply say "Ehh, we don't feel like paying." Why would they do that after winning such a huge suit?

 

[k995]

I don't know why, but they are all a part of an LTE IP consortium.

Yes rockstar but even with those, apple has nowhere near the patents samsung has.

I understand manufacturing is different than using but look at it from Qualcomm's perspective. If the radio is infringing they would HAVE to know. They would also HAVE to know if Apple (depending on if they needed it or not) had a usage licensing agreement with Samsung. Given that the iPhone 5 is expected to sell roughly 10 million devices in the first WEEK, Qualcomm would be very invested in this partnership.

Depends if apple is certain they have the patents to back it up, qualcomm doesnt care, its apples problem .

Again it depends on licensing . Plenty of cases known where smartphone manufacturers used SOC's with parts disabled because they didnt have licenses.

If apple buys parts with LTE but hasnt got the license or patents it can simple be disabled, thats apple's choice.

That being said don't you think they'd be willing to throw their patents into the mix? If Apple can prove the LTE radio was built and designed using patents that either they own, Qualcomm owns or their consortium owns, Samsung can't win.

No, but with thousands of patents (and lets not forget anyoner can patent anything and its a court case that determins who is right) anything can happen. After all samsung has been freed of charges or condemned just because it look simular, and here its actuall hundreds of technical issues. If they once more start to sueing each other in different countrys ...

That's my point in bringing up the group. And the fact that Nortel (Apple's patents) and Qualcomm were at the forefront in developing LTE tech, I'd venture to say they have some pretty damn important patents, most likely pertaining to design, build and implementation.

Dont know, dont care, all I hope this stops everyone trying to sue everyone , if they cant compete with devices (wich they also designed while looking at other lets not forget) they shouldnt start sueing .

Here its more technical then the apple "it looks like an iphopne/ipad" even more stupid case , but still I dont doubt both have enough IP to even things out.

 

[Oletros]

Because Qualcomm is supposedly the one making the damn things. You think they would design and build an LTE radio, sell millions to Apple and have no clue if the design or use was infringing? And yet Samsung is supposed to know exactly what is infringing?

My God, after a lot of messages do you still are saying that Qualcomm is the responsable?

Please, can you explain why Nokia sued Apple about 3G patents when the chip builder was not Apple? Ah, and Apple paid Nokia.

 

[k995]

Because Qualcomm is supposedly the one making the damn things. You think they would design and build an LTE radio, sell millions to Apple and have no clue if the design or use was infringing? And yet Samsung is supposed to know exactly what is infringing?

What you forget is that apple buys of the shelve, samsung no doubt has samples of what will end up in the iphone 5 .

And yes if apple wants qualcomm will make something they will never be able to use. Why wouldnt they its not their problem.

 

[jrswizzle]

My God, after a lot of messages do you still are saying that Qualcomm is the responsable?

Please, can you explain why Nokia sued Apple about 3G patents when the chip builder was not Apple? Ah, and Apple paid Nokia.

Holy crap.....read the whole post! Here let me spell it out for you:

1) I get that there is a difference between manufacturing license and usage license. I'm simply stating the fact that if Samsung knows everything about the LTE radios in the iP5 it would be a safe bet Qualcomm does as well. THAT'S ALL. Stop putting words in my mouth. Therefore,

2) What I'm saying is that Apple would have to be DELIBERATELY ignoring the licensing fees for Samsung to have a suit (which wouldn't be for an injunction rather for payment of backed licensing fees). Given the fact they went through this dance with Nokia (and lost) and just won a major suit against Samsung, do you really think Apple would be that stupid?

----------

What you forget is that apple buys of the shelve, samsung no doubt has samples of what will end up in the iphone 5 .

And yes if apple wants qualcomm will make something they will never be able to use. Why wouldnt they its not their problem.

So you are saying Apple knowingly purchases millions of LTE radios from Qualcomm that both parties know they won't be able to use?

Hopefully you aren't running any businesses. I'm going to leave it at this.

There is more information here than any of us know. Samsung and Apple will be at each other's throats for years, and tbh the end result probably won't matter much except the lawyers will get richer. But I am SURE Apple wouldn't just blatantly purchase useless LTE radios unless they knew they'd be able to get around Samsung's patents. You all are making it seem so obvious and cut and dry - if that was the case, Apple would be the dumbest company on earth (and I'd say since they are the world's most valuable, they probably aren't that dumb....ruthless maybe but not dumb).

I'll continue to buy the tech I prefer as should all of you. The End.

 

[k995]

So you are saying Apple knowingly purchases millions of LTE radios from Qualcomm that both parties know they won't be able to use?

They will only buy them if they are quite certain they can use them.

But dont you think every other manufacturer who get ever sued thought the same?

Again patents are an uncertainty its not because you HAVE a patent you can enforce it, same reverse, its not because you have a patent you can use it.

What if a judge rules that certain patents apple ahs now, are invalid ? Or they missed something pattented in the design, or simular technices described different with different patents but actually the same? ...

Its what happened before

Hopefully you aren't running any businesses.

Why?

I'm going to leave it at this.

There is more information here than any of us know. Samsung and Apple will be at each other's throats for years, and tbh the end result probably won't matter much except the lawyers will get richer.

I'll continue to buy the tech I prefer as should all of you. The End.

Oh I do, but apple has been going too far imho, they seem to lack ideas and just started sueing to keep competition back.

 

[Oletros]

Holy crap.....read the whole post! Here let me spell it out for you:

1) I get that there is a difference between manufacturing license and usage license. I'm simply stating the fact that if Samsung knows everything about the LTE radios in the iP5 it would be a safe bet Qualcomm does as well. THAT'S ALL. Stop putting words in my mouth. Therefore,

And Qualcomm knowing all doesn't means nothing. Qualcomm doesn't care nothing about what Apple infringes or not. Can you understand it or not? Qualcomm has nothing to do in this, it is between Apple and Samsung.

2) What I'm saying is that Apple would have to be DELIBERATELY ignoring the licensing fees for Samsung to have a suit (which wouldn't be for an injunction rather for payment of backed licensing fees). Given the fact they went through this dance with Nokia (and lost) and just won a major suit against Samsung, do you really think Apple would be that stupid?

Stupid? Negotiation

 

[jrswizzle]

They will only buy them if they are quite certain they can use them.

But dont you think every other manufacturer who get ever sued thought the same?

Again patents are an uncertainty its not because you HAVE a patent you can enforce it, same reverse, its not because you have a patent you can use it.

What if a judge rules that certain patents apple ahs now, are invalid ? Or they missed something pattented in the design, or simular technices described different with different patents but actually the same? ...

Its what happened before




Why?



Oh I do, but apple has been going too far imho, they seem to lack ideas and just started sueing to keep competition back.

Well to each his own. Being that Apple has stated they will vehemently defend their patents, I doubt they would "miss something" on their end. And as for it happening before (I'm assuming you mean the Motorola case?) wouldn't that give them more incentive to take extra lengths to ensure it wouldn't happen again?

I think you are assuming I am some Apple fanboy who thinks Apple can do no wrong and that its not fair for Samsung to be suing. I've never said that and in fact have stated the contrary. I'm simply pointing out that there is more to this story than people see (from an Apple perspective as samcraig was doing the same from the Samsung perspective). That is all. Before cursing Apple for suing other companies (when in reality they get sued more, it's just not national news) let's wait to hear all the facts.

I have always maintained my posts were nothing more than my opinions and musings on the story given the current level of evidence. Of course as new facts get released I would amend those thoughts based on the facts at hand.

I always try to look at every angle and think about things logically, staying away from stereotypes and generalizations as much as possible. It actually helps me learn quite a lot....I suggest you try it sometime.

----------

And Qualcomm knowing all doesn't means nothing. Qualcomm doesn't care nothing about what Apple infringes or not. Can you understand it or not? Qualcomm has nothing to do in this, it is between Apple and Samsung.



Stupid? Negotiation

*sigh* just read my above post....

 

[k995]

Well to each his own. Being that Apple has stated they will vehemently defend their patents, I doubt they would "miss something" on their end.

Its simply a very complicated matter.

I think you are assuming I am some Apple fanboy who thinks Apple can do no wrong and that its not fair for Samsung to be suing.

No not really. I simply said I am tired of it.

I suggest you try it sometime.

Dont knpw where this comes from but again, dont like the patent system and dont like companys taking advantage of it.

 

[codelode84]

At&t

This just in AT&T is suing every phone provider for voice over the phone technology!

 

[jrswizzle]

Its simply a very complicated matter.



No not really. I simply said I am tired of it.


Dont knpw where this comes from but again, dont like the patent system and dont like companys taking advantage of it.

True it's complicated, but with the small countries of lawyers these companies employ, I'd venture a guess they have it covered.

I agree, the patent system is horribly broken. But lets not crucify Apple for being only one of the tech companies who take advantage of it. Truth is, they all do it, and until the system is fixed, they will ALL continue to do it.

 

[chrissurra]

This just in AT&T is suing every phone provider for voice over the phone technology!

Actually its nothing like that at all. They technology is licensed from ATT, Tmobile Verizon and Sprint for use in the phones.

Samsung controls the tech of how the phones speak to the network.

If Apple uses the same tech then they are infringing on the patent.

Either both companies will settle and stop with this foolishness or tech just took a huge step backwards.