Thats what needs to happen, but Samsung is rightfully annoyed at Apple for doing the same thing with their own products in Australia. Apple should have expected something like this and paid a reasonable fee for the patents when they were given the chance.
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.
Companies Lining Up in Support of Apple Ahead of Potential Older Model iPhone/iPad Ban in U.S.
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Thats what needs to happen, but Samsung is rightfully annoyed at Apple for doing the same thing with their own products in Australia. Apple should have expected something like this and paid a reasonable fee for the patents when they were given the chance.
Did Samsung state how much Apple wanted to pay contrasted with how much Samsung wanted?
Rubbish. If you genuinely believe that Apple 'started' this whole suing business, or that they're any different to other companies when it comes to patent wars, then you've bought Samsung's marketing hook, line and sinker.
All companies are just as, if not more aggressive, as Apple when it comes to the courtroom. Difference is, they're just not as well documented in the public eye.
But this is a FRAND patent. This isn't 'we patented rubber-banding and somebody stole it'.
And finally, I didn't realise that having an opinion implied I'm defending my precious Apple, as you so eloquently phrased it. Might help to be a little less rude in future if you want people to listen to your points.
And exactly how it is contrary to FRAND?
And talking about the article, it would be good that the ITC had something more than bans when there is infringement
----------
And what FRAND means?
Samsung is entitled to a reasonable royalty. That's what they ask of everyone else, since it's a FRAND patent. They shouldn't get a product ban over it. That's what Verizon, AT&T, Intel, et. al are arguing.
The difference between the patents Apple was suing Samsung over and the ones that Samsung sued Apple over are that Samsung didn't need to use Apple's patents to build a functional phone. Samsung's patents are "standards essential," meaning that because the standards setters decided to use Samsung's method instead of someone else's (which might have worked equally well), everyone has to use it. In return, the companies promise to license them on reasonable terms.
This was likely a matter better resolved by federal courts who could have imposed a reasonable royalty rate on both parties, rather than the ITC, whose only remedy is a product ban.
I agree with you. BUT defining "essential" when it becomes part of that "international standard" and what that "set fee" $hould be are things that could hold up a lot of this in the same way as lawsuits.
Now if the "set fee" were high enough (but reasonable) for the first few years, companies would be competing to be that standard.
Or if it was more of an x-prize for the next standard....
Gary
Exactly, this is a dispute over how much should be paid, not whether someone should be paid. There are courts to figure this out... a product ban for this kind of thing is ridiculous and unprecedented.
Samsung offered to license the patent to Apple at the standard FRAND rate they charged other companies. Not their fault that Apple balked.
Absolutely. Of course it's not surprising they're going for Apple first -- the animosity between the two companies is well documented -- but the fact is that if this goes through, no phone manufacturer is safe.
If it's essential to a standard, absolutely not. Samsung is REQUIRED to offer it to any and all, under fair and reasonable terms. They have NO right to "protect" it; just to draw some fair and reasonable royalties. That is part of the process of creating a standard-- the owners of the essential patents have to agree to this before it is approved as a standard.
Since you provided nothing to verify this claim, your posting is essentially worthless.
If you know this with certainty, it should be trivial to provide a reference.
But Apple are notorious for not wanting to pay standard rates; they'd want to be paying below typical/FRAND costs - which Samsung are allowed to decline.
A FRAND licensor has the right to protect its IP if the licensee doesn't offer willing negotiation.
From what I understand: and I will have to try and see if i can find all the reading again, cause it was mroe a glancing read.
Samsung had the Patents. They are deemed FRAND. Apple and Samsung was in talks to use these patents. Apple wanted to pay Rate Y, Samsung wanted Rate X. (How far these were, i dont know, and what Samsung wanted compared to what they charge for everyone else using the FRAND i dont know either).
Either way. Talks broke down and in the end, Apple did not end up paying for a license.
They did however, continue to use the patents anyway, despite no license agreement.
Court deemed Apple was willingly infringing upon the patent despite not licensing it and has issued the only thing in their power to do. Ban the sales of the devices using it.
--------------------------
What gets my goat though about these forums. Samsung loses patent battle with Apple and get products banned and there's vast rejoicing and "the courts did ti right!"
But when the opposite is true. The courts are terrible and doing a gross injustice and should be ignored!
Justice goes both ways. I don't know, nor care who started the whole thing of SUE SUE SUE SUE. but once you enter into the game, you're just as fair game as the other guy. Apple if they expect everyone else to honour and respect their patents, need to play fair and honour and respect other's patents too. it is not up to them to skirt the rules when it best suits them
Samsung had the Patents. They are deemed FRAND. Apple and Samsung was in talks to use these patents. Apple wanted to pay Rate Y, Samsung wanted Rate X. (How far these were, i dont know, and what Samsung wanted compared to what they charge for everyone else using the FRAND i dont know either).
Either way. Talks broke down and in the end, Apple did not end up paying for a license.
They did however, continue to use the patents anyway, despite no license agreement.
Court deemed Apple was willingly infringing upon the patent despite not licensing it and has issued the only thing in their power to do. Ban the sales of the devices using it.
--------------------------
What gets my goat though about these forums. Samsung loses patent battle with Apple and get products banned and there's vast rejoicing and "the courts did ti right!"
But when the opposite is true. The courts are terrible and doing a gross injustice and should be ignored!
Justice goes both ways. I don't know, nor care who started the whole thing of SUE SUE SUE SUE. but once you enter into the game, you're just as fair game as the other guy. Apple if they expect everyone else to honour and respect their patents, need to play fair and honour and respect other's patents too. it is not up to them to skirt the rules when it best suits them
Yes, FRAND patents cover real technology while most Apple patents are trivial design patents. Blame the American patent system for the results.
It seems to me the issue is narrower here. Since Samsung is required to license the technology to Apple under FRAND, this is a monetary dispute. But the ITC is not allowed to issue a monetary judgement against Apple-- their only recourse is an import ban. This appears to be in contradiction to the goals of FRAND, as it gives Samsung an incentive not to settle on reasonable terms. The result is that having a standards-essential patent is providing Samsung some undue monopoly power. That seems to be what all the third-party filings are about. I think all the third parties would be perfectly happy if the ITC imposed a monetary judgement on Apple, but that is not within their power.
Actually, Samsung did not - according to the trial info. In the case, it has been lowered for other companies as it was unsustainably high (2.4%).
How much of a difference is there and what should the actual rate be?
Well, one guy wheeled in as part of the case had mentioned that the FRAND patent was actually worth about 0.01% of the actual technology (it's a small piece of code within the technology, not the UTMS technology itself as some people have been reporting) or to put it another way accounts for 0.000375% of the UMTS standard. Or at least that is what Dr. Niles Rydbeck former CTO at Erikson mentioned.
So yeah, I guess Apple did balk at getting ripped off by the world's largest cell phone manufacturer. I think I would too.