EU: Samsung trying to illegally hinder competitors

Discussion in 'Apple, Inc and Tech Industry' started by *LTD*, Feb 1, 2012.

  1. *LTD* macrumors G4


    Feb 5, 2009

    What is interesting to note here is that:

    • FRAND patents are essential and obvious. There is no other way to get around them. The design patents Apple has are not. Apple has every right to sue based on the patents it has. Samsung has no right to sue on FRAND patents which are essential for compatibility and connectivity.
    • The investigation takes into account an irrevocable commitment offered by Samsung to the European Telecommunications Standards Institute to abide by FRAND terms.
  2. kdarling macrumors P6


    Jun 9, 2007
    First university coding class = 47 years ago
    Essential, yes. Obvious, no. If they were, the other companies involved in the standard would've challenged them at the time.

    Usually true, because they're part of the standard being used.

    Are not what?

    Essential to make a phone? True, they're not required. FRAND patents are guaranteed income because they cannot be avoided if you want to use the standard. Apple's patents can be gotten around by changing a design.

    Obvious? Judges around the world have warned Apple about obviousness.

    Each has the right to sue over their patents. The main restriction on FRAND patents in comparison to the way that Apple usually uses their patents, is that FRAND ones cannot be used to stop sales while good faith negotiations are going on.

    Of course, the question is, what are appropriate FRAND terms?

    A common misconception is that FRAND means everyone pays the same amount. That isn't true at all.

    The terms can depend on quantity, length of contract, and cross licensing trades to lower the rate.

    Core GSM cellular patents are often priced as a percentage of the retail price of the device. (This was done in order to promote lower phone prices to gain widespread acceptance.)

    Starting date has an effect, due to inflation. The FRAND rate today is likely to be higher than it was ten years ago, or even last year.
  3. KnightWRX macrumors Pentium


    Jan 28, 2009
    Quebec, Canada
    Nokia had F/RAND patents also. Nokia sued Apple. Apple had to pay. If Apple aren't paying Samsung and Samsung has done all the proper offers it had to do under F/RAND terms, then nothing will come of this.

    Apple has to pay Samsung for use of the patents, if they refuse to pay Samsung under F/RAND terms, then Samsung is quite entitled to try to get an injunction.

Share This Page