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's Chief Patent Litigator Profiled as Samsung Threatens Lawsuits over iPhone 5
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Samsung will eventually bankrupt themselves by putting their emotions in front of their cases. I bet Apple is not even tickled by this threat.
----------
More chance for you to shine then I guess
----------
More chance for you to shine then I guess
Not true.
License terms are enforceable if defined in accordance with the law.
If the license terms specifically exclude transfer, patent exhaustion laws do not apply.
First sale doctrine only applies to copyright, not licensing of patents.
Simple: UMTS/3G is an ENTIRELY different technology than LTE and at this point, LTE is far from being a standard that is as ubiquitous as UMTS. In a few years, the picture will be different. But today it's a brand-new and NOT widely used technology that certainly does not fall under any special "FRAND" regulations.
Apple should learn to pay for other people's technology and share their own stuff under FAIR agreements, then we wouldn't have this ridiculous legal sitcom.
The court date of a lawsuit doesn't mean that's when it was filed. The court proceedings have been coming for a long time. And usually there are discussions between the companies' legal teams before the suit gets filed, which can also take months.
Not to mention that you can't really sue over a patent that has yet to be granted. You can act tough, but they may not take you seriously if they don't think you'll get the patent.
Mmmm yes, Apple started it. I believe it was actually Nokia that started the handset manufacturers suing one another. (For reference, I believe Apple started non-provoked suits in March 2010 with their suit against HTC)
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/8460899.stm
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704224004574489221111114540.html
http://news.cnet.com/apple-sued-over-iphone-screen-tech/
http://www.loopinsight.com/2009/12/04/apple-sued-for-infringing-digital-camera-patent-with-iphone/
http://www.cbsnews.com/2100-205_162-2349900.html
http://www.macobserver.com/tmo/article/netairus_sues_apple_over_iphone_concept/
court systems?
You mean as opposed to the well-reasoned, "Samsung's version is not as cool" argument we received from a well-trained and tenured judge in another country? Or the patent infringement decision for the iPad name in another particular country where the plaintiff had clearly not kept up its terms of a point of sale and yet got away with $60mill USD.
I agree the system could use some fixing, but this case made better use of evidence and logic than we've seen on many other fronts. Don't let your dislike of all things American get in the way of your reasoning.
You mean as opposed to the well-reasoned, "Samsung's version is not as cool" argument we received from a well-trained and tenured judge in another country? Or the patent infringement decision for the iPad name in another particular country where the plaintiff had clearly not kept up its terms of a point of sale and yet got away with $60mill USD.
I agree the system could use some fixing, but this case made better use of evidence and logic than we've seen on many other fronts. Don't let your dislike of all things American get in the way of your reasoning.
Are you aware of any negotiations between Apple and Samsung regarding LTE patents. I didn't think so.
So many clueless posters here are still bitter about the other lawsuit. It's not just a patent involving round corners; it is however a component of the lawsuit boiling down to copying the entire "look & feel" of the iPhone. The Samsung internal docs speak for themselves.
This is different to the LTE patents, because it's not standard to implement Apple's designs, whereas LTE patents will at some point be required by carriers. Apple is also not directly licensing it off Samsung, so this is a ridiculous and pretty pathetic attempt at retribution.
This is different to the LTE patents, because it's not standard to implement Apple's designs, whereas LTE patents will at some point be required by carriers. Apple is also not directly licensing it off Samsung, so this is a ridiculous and pretty pathetic attempt at retribution.
Right now it's not a requirement from carriers. It's a competitive differentiator. So I don't think that argument holds much water. When/if it become MANDATORY - then that's a different matter. Until then - it's not much of a leg to stand on.
Not true.
License terms are enforceable if defined in accordance with the law.
If the license terms specifically exclude transfer, patent exhaustion laws do not apply.
First sale doctrine only applies to copyright, not licensing of patents.
However, I doubt that Qualcomm would license LTE technology to put into chips that it can't sell to whomever it wants. Otherwise, what use is that license to them? If Samsung is going to try to dictate to Qualcomm who they can and cannot sell LTE chipsets to, they may have more than just the EU and Korea's FTC investigating them for antitrust violations.
Please stop arguing this point, it doesn't hold water. No handset maker HAS to implement 3G, as they could all use EDGE or the CDMA equivalent, yet the patents surrounding it are still FRAND.
Could they not include a provision that the chips can be used in any data device except a cell phone. Or they can be used in only cell phones but not other devices? I'm asking. My point is - you aren't necc the target of antitrust because you limit usage.
----------
Thank you for missing my point and bringing in irrelevant information.
This business will get out of control. It will get out of control and we'll be lucky to live through it.
-The Admiral Josh Painter
Hunt for Red October
-The Admiral Josh Painter
Hunt for Red October
Brilliant analysis. WHAT EXACT ONES is what matters - not how many.
(By the way, I have TWICE AS MANY coins in my hand as the guy holding a Quarter and a Penny. It would OBVIOUSLY be worth more to have 4 coins rather than 2 - right???)
Maybe you could, but why would Qualcomm agree to that? They are in the business to sell as many chipsets as possible to whomever wants to buy them. And they have lots of patents that Samsung and others need, so it's doubtful they could be strong-armed.
Also, if Samsung licenses Qualcomm to sell chips using their technology to HTC and Motorola to use in phones, but not Apple, that could run afoul of antitrust concerns. I think they'd need to be consistent. Plus, as others have pointed out, if the patent holders start putting in too many restrictions, LTE in its current form might not be ratified as a standard.
Not true.
License terms are enforceable if defined in accordance with the law.
If the license terms specifically exclude transfer, patent exhaustion laws do not apply.
First sale doctrine only applies to copyright, not licensing of patents.
See the related article: Exhaustion doctrine
All that technically has to happen is Samsung authorizing Qualcomm to sell chips to customers with the patented technology. Once that is done, Samsung loses control of the use of the chip once it is sold. The first-sale doctrine as you refer to it is just one aspect of the exhaustion doctrine, which I used to make the point clear. The general rule of thumb is basically the same in both cases, with the exception that the patent holder can tell Qualcomm not to sell the chips. This has obviously not happened.
However, since the exhaustion doctrine is something you have to show as the defendant, there's nothing stopping Samsung from suing here. It's not like the court will throw out the case unless Apple gives enough reason in preliminary motions.
As for the other claim: US law supersedes clauses in a contract, as I already said. As a more obvious example: I draw up a contract where the other signing party agrees to embezzle money for me from the company they work for. It even stipulates how much I should get per month from that party. They sign the contract, and then deliver nothing. Can I sue to get my money? Well, I can, but the contract is effectively void as US law supersedes it.
No contract can go around the law, as the force contracts carry is supported by the law. I cannot enforce any contract clauses that cause someone to violate the law, or any clauses that violate the law themselves. In some cases, the clauses are struck in court when it is discovered. In others, the entire contract is struck.
That's kinda important, because it means I cannot grant myself patent privileges that the law itself does not give me via a contract with a third party.
Verizon has said that LTE is required for any new smart phone.
https://www.macrumors.com/2012/01/1...lte-compatibility-for-all-future-smartphones/
Right, that's the way I thought it should work also, how can Samsung be suing someone when they are using a chip that should have already secured the rights? Anyone know what is going on here?
Edit: Ah, maybe deals with antenna design?
"These are new and highly-valued"
I'm pretty sure LTE, in the broad sense, is a telecom standard subject to the same FRAND terms as 3G. I'm also pretty sure Apple's lawyers thought to include indemnification provisions and licenses in their agreements with LTE chip suppliers (i.e. Qualcomm). Makes a nice headline for Samsung though
I'm pretty sure LTE, in the broad sense, is a telecom standard subject to the same FRAND terms as 3G. I'm also pretty sure Apple's lawyers thought to include indemnification provisions and licenses in their agreements with LTE chip suppliers (i.e. Qualcomm). Makes a nice headline for Samsung though
More chance for you to shine then I guess
I highly doubt it looking all the IP experts here in the thread.
Apple Sues to Protect Itself
That's a funny answer to the prior poster. He noted that Nokia and the others weren't worried about Apple's entry into the handset market... until Apple did it better. Apple had to sue because these other firms (who had seemingly stalled in innovation) decided the only way to compete with Apple was to copy Apple.
You'd be pretty ticked too if your competitors took that approach with whatever product you developed.
That's a funny answer to the prior poster. He noted that Nokia and the others weren't worried about Apple's entry into the handset market... until Apple did it better. Apple had to sue because these other firms (who had seemingly stalled in innovation) decided the only way to compete with Apple was to copy Apple.
You'd be pretty ticked too if your competitors took that approach with whatever product you developed.
Last edited: