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

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

bigchrisfgb said:
The thing is though even if LTE was used in agreement with FRAND, Apple refuse to take part in and agree with FRAND so therefor that still wouldn't solve the situation for Apple.

The only plausible way for Apple is if somehow they don't infringe on Samsung's patents.
Click to expand...

I disagree with your post entirely. First off, you cannot get an injunction with FRAND patents -- you can however sue for financial reimbursement.

Most importantly, if Apple does not directly implement LTE, but only uses components that are licensed for LTE (e.g.: Qualcomm chips) then Apple need not "take part in and agree with" FRAND. There are tons of patents that go into creating a LCD monitor. If I sell kiosks that embed LCD monitors I don't need to go license those patents -- I just need to ensure I buy LCD monitors from suppliers who have obtained proper licensing. Apple need only worry about Qualcomm having proper licensing.

In all likelihood, Qualcomm is also offering indemnification related to LTE patents for their components and as such Qualcomm assumes all liability from Apple in such an event.
 
BC2009 said:
I disagree with your post entirely. First off, you cannot get an injunction with FRAND patents -- you can however sue for financial reimbursement.
Click to expand...

You can get an injunction with FRAND patents,


BC2009 said:
Most importantly, if Apple does not directly implement LTE, but only uses components that are licensed for LTE (e.g.: Qualcomm chips) then Apple need not "take part in and agree with" FRAND. There are tons of patents that go into creating a LCD monitor. If I sell kiosks that embed LCD monitors I don't need to go license those patents -- I just need to ensure I buy LCD monitors from suppliers who have obtained proper licensing. Apple need only worry about Qualcomm having proper licensing.
Click to expand...

Apple didn't implemented 3G directly and they had to pay Nokia
 
BC2009 said:
In all likelihood, Qualcomm is also offering indemnification related to LTE patents for their components and as such Qualcomm assumes all liability from Apple in such an event.
Click to expand...
That may not be the case.
No one knows what the license terms are between Samsung and Qualcomm.

Qualcomm can simply be licensed by Samsung to manufacture the chips with all the LTE functions "available", but require an end user license to enable certain functions.

This is the type agreement Qualcomm has with Nokia, so it's plausible they have a similar agreement with Samsung.

This would put the liability on Apple.
 
BC2009 said:
I disagree with your post entirely. First off, you cannot get an injunction with FRAND patents -- you can however sue for financial reimbursement.
Click to expand...

Depends on the situation and locale. For examples:

  • A German court allowed Motorola to seek injunctive relief against Microsoft and the XBox 360. The judge said that FRAND is simply an offer to waive sole usage of a patent, and is an invitation to negotiations.

  • The EU has stated, "the seeking of enforcement of injunctions on the basis of SEP is also not, of itself, anti-competitive. In particular, and depending on the circumstances, it may be legitimate for the holder of SEP to seek an injunction against a potential licensee which is not willing to negotiate in good faith on FRAND terms."

  • On the other hand, a judge on the UK High Court ruled against an injunction based on the idea that the two companies should be able to come to a FRAND based agreement.

  • In the USA, it's not illegal to ask for a FRAND injunction, but it's generally frowned upon unless one side didn't negotiate at all. Also, the FTC has asked the ITC to reconsider allowing such because of the disruption to major products. Remember 2007 when the ITC stopped CDMA phones using Qualcomm chips from coming in. Verizon finally had to promise to pay the Broadcom royalty themselves to keep from running out of phones!
Most importantly, if Apple does not directly implement LTE, but only uses components that are licensed for LTE (e.g.: Qualcomm chips) then Apple need not "take part in and agree with" FRAND.
Click to expand...

Depends. Qualcomm's hardware chips might be licensed, but maybe the software required to make them work is not.

Or perhaps Samsung has a patent on putting everything together in a certain way. Using your example of LCD monitors, even if I buy all the chips off the shelf that make up an iPod, it still doesn't give me the right to build an iPod :)

In all likelihood, Qualcomm is also offering indemnification related to LTE patents for their components and as such Qualcomm assumes all liability from Apple in such an event.
Click to expand...

Qualcomm protested a bit, but otherwise kept out of the way when Motorola pulled their premission for Qualcomm to license to Apple.
 
Apple's Chief Patent Litigator strikes again

This time she sues a small Polish online grocery website over name and logo:

17167.jpeg


and why not? After the Samsung's jury verdict, I guess, everything goes. I am not sure Polish jurors are as stupid as the North Californian though.
 
lilo777 said:
This time she sues a small Polish online grocery website over name and logo:

Image

and why not? After the Samsung's jury verdict, I guess, everything goes. I am not sure Polish jurors are as stupid as the North Californian though.
Click to expand...

If one does not have a history of protecting their trademark, they could lose it.
 
jrswizzle said:
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.
Click to expand...

Agreed. However, all this mess started by Apple. That is why people crucifying Apple.

Undoubtedly, as a new commer, Apple copied and stole designs and technologies developed by others. And yet they accused Samsung as copycat and sued poor Sammy over 'rounded corners and rectangular shapes'(too obvious, this patent should never been issued- invalid), multi-touch, tap to zoom, slide to unlock (prior arts- invalid).

Apple probably steals other technologies, patents them and sues others using them. (Great artists copies, Great steals. We have been shameless about stealing... by SJ)
 
lilo777 said:
If one has a history of frivolous stupid lawsuits, people start hating it (and deservedly so). What exactly needs to be protected here?
Click to expand...

True for a patent troll. Not anyone else. No one hates Microsoft or Motorola despite their litigious pasts.

Apple has their logo to protect.
 
ahireasu said:
so let me get this staight,when apple sue companies is justice and when other companies sue apple is because they are bitchy?
Doesn't samsung own lte patents?doesn't apple going to launch a lte enabled phone without paying royalty for lte?doesn't samsung have the right to sue apple for that?why because it will look bitchy?where in the law it say if a company sue you and win then you can't sue this company if it violates tech that you own because you look pathetic and bitchy?
Click to expand...

u mad bro?
 
aerok said:
Huh? The government didn't appoint LTE chips... And mind you, Samsung is independant from the American government.
Click to expand...

It didn't appoint chips, but it does appoint spectrum. And any IP related to the standard that uses that spectrum must be FRAND.
 
lukarak said:
It didn't appoint chips, but it does appoint spectrum. And any IP related to the standard that uses that spectrum must be FRAND.
Click to expand...

That's not true at all. Also, governements don't dictate what should and shouldn't be FRAND. Standard bodies do when they decide to publish new industry standard recommendations.
 
KnightWRX said:
That's not true at all. Also, governements don't dictate what should and shouldn't be FRAND. Standard bodies do when they decide to publish new industry standard recommendations.
Click to expand...

I'm sorry, i meant "should be FRAND". But I think that it already is.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back