They never even got half of a billion.
ITC Rules Apple Infringed on Samsung Patents, Issues Cease and Desist Order for Older Apple Devices
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
They never even got half of a billion.
Trivial? You mean genius!
The iPhone was developed in a time when pressing two buttons on opposite edges of the phone was the norm to unlock a phone and while the iPhone shared the motion one had to perform to unlock it with the Neonode N1, the mechanics and details behind that motion were completely different.
The Neonode N1 used gestures and by chance, they used a swiping motion at the bottom of the screen as a YES gesture, which was also used to unlock the phone, but... the big shortcoming of the N1 was, that you had to memorize this stuff.
Apples Slide-to-Unlock patent is comprised of two parts: The motion and the graphical depiction of the motion one had to use to unlock the phone.
Give someone who has never used or seen someone use this method of unlocking a phone or comparable device, boot the device and let the screen turn off.
Ask them to unlock it, after telling them where they have to press the button to turn on the display.
No one will manage to unlock the Neonode N1 but everybody who can unlock the iPhone.
Because the instruction what he has to do is displayed on the screen, written and via symbols - and they change while he is unlocking the phone, to show the progress of unlocking.
Symbols, text and progress indication are part of the Slide to Unlock-patent and they make Apples method vastly superior to the one used in the Neonode N1 and many methods used in Android devices, which are more nebulous to the user about what he has to do, where he has to move the movable part of the unlocking mechanism.
Saying the Slide to Unlock patent = medieval gate lock is like saying Apple sued Samsung because of rounded corners alone.
And Microsoft has to re-invent themselves, because it turned out that people didn't accept Microsofts compromised "No compromises"-approach to Windows 8 and Metr...Modern UI.
Microsoft fuc...ed up when they released Windows Vista (which i actually liked) but that wasn't desastrous, because they had no real competition in 2006.
Windows 8 is a dud and people have much more choices now, with tablets and/or even smartphones replacing Windows computers, OS X and Linux becoming more important for gaming (Steam!) and fewer people cheering and dancing when Microsoft releases a new version of Office.
Microsoft can't afford to fu...up any more.
j4zb4
macrumors 6502a
On and on and all that happens is that lawyers get rich
There are many people who say this but do you even know that most top corporates have lawyers on board or on retainership... So they get a yearly sum whether or not they represent the company in court... Corporate Lawyers have lots of other stuff they do on a daily basis... And not just court representation... Yes representing the company in court would hve some little extra fees... But, not much more compared to what their retainer already is...
LarryC
macrumors 6502
Oh please, Apple wanted a war, well now it has one. Karma can come back and byte you in the butt.
It should be vetoed, but vetoes are rare. Florian Mueller points out that the ITC refused an import ban and cease-and-desist order to Apple after it ruled that HTC violated a non-standards-essential patent. So why should Samsung get an import ban over a SEP? In the EU, regulators rejected that attempt and began investigating Samsung for anti-trust violations.
----------
How is this karma? Samsung reneged on its SEP requirements, and essentially won a patent-troll victory on the very day that the President said we needed to rein in patent trolls and the powers of the ITC.
Samsung tried this same tactic in the EU, and got slapped down by anti-trust regulators. A Federal Court would also be unlikely to ban products based on Samsung's legal theory.
Whether this prompts the parties to settle remains unclear. However, given that this ruling opens the door for every SEP-holder to seek import bans, it seems highly likely that an appellate court will review this and possibly overturn it.
Oletros
macrumors 603
That door has been open since decades ago and never has been closed
I never said the kid being bullied was little
If it makes you feel any better, I'm a current Apple user and think Apple brought this onto themselves and it was deserved. I like their products but hate their politics.
Apple sued over non-essential patents (i.e. things that Samsung didn't have to copy). Samsung sued over patents that courts around the world have ruled are standards-essential, but it somehow managed to convince the ITC that the patent was "essential" to Apple's implementation yet not "standards-essential."
Samsung tried the same tactic in the EU and got slapped with an anti-trust investigation that, ironically, the US DOJ is also participating in. So one US agency is saying Samsung can get an import ban over the patent while another agency is saying that Samsung might be violating anti-trust law by doing so.
pirg
macrumors 6502a
It's gonna be vetoed or if not apple will win on an appeal. Too ridiculous of an outcome to not be overturned. The silly android rejoicing is funny as hell.
It's comical that people are comparing this decision to apple suing over non essential patents.
kdarling
macrumors P6
There seems to be confusion, where some people think that FRAND means you cannot use an injunction. On the contrary:
The cases where FRAND abuse has been found, were when 1) negotiations had started and/or 2) the patent wasn't submitted as FRAND in time.
- The ETSI FRAND rules do not prohibit injunctions.
- Courts around the world have said that injunctions are available for SEP holders in many situations.
- Even the EU commission (which is also investigating Apple for anti-trust) has explicitly pointed out that a FRAND patent holder does not give up the right to using injunctions, except in the case where a licensee is already negotiating in good faith.
- Injunctions are most especially always available at the ITC, since they are its only enforcement power. Of note: only about 15% of ITC decisions are overturned by the Court of Appeals.
The cases where FRAND abuse has been found, were when 1) negotiations had started and/or 2) the patent wasn't submitted as FRAND in time.
Last edited:
pirg
macrumors 6502a
I think people are taking issue with the possibility that samsung didn't offer a reasonable royalty not the act of trying to get an injunction. Well...not to speak for everyone, but that's why I take issue with it.
If there is a veto or a won appeal, I think it'd be on those grounds.
Why isn't this a FRAND patent?
I was thinking the same thing...how are other devices (made by HTC, LG, etc.) encoding/decoding TFCI in CDMA networks?
pirg
macrumors 6502a
Samsung licensed it to them most probably and probably not at 2.5% although I don't know the numbers to be sure
I'm not really a Samsung fan, but that's just the title of the patent, the details are described in the application. Titles don't say anything about the validity of a patent. And yes, I do support patent holders protecting their actual inventions, such as actual technology and detailed, specific implementation. However, I don't support patents for mere ideas or simple design concepts such as the ones Apple is going after everyone else with.
typeadam
macrumors regular
Samsung fans aren't the ones doing the suing. Samsung is. And I'm sure Samsung fans aren't all that happy about these drawn out legal battles.
pirg
macrumors 6502a
Well the ones in this thread seem to be...saying things like apple deserves it, they started it, etc.
alexkywalker
macrumors member
This is all fine but...
How about a civil lawsuit against AT&T for the "4G" fiasco?
I am still offended that they got away with calling their 3G network "4G", especially when they did not rollout their faster 3G to all markets when they launched the iPhone 4S.
Apple is also not innocent because their iPhone 4S publicity claimed 10Gbps speeds which were never achieved with the 4S at rollout.
That was just wrong.
How about a civil lawsuit against AT&T for the "4G" fiasco?
I am still offended that they got away with calling their 3G network "4G", especially when they did not rollout their faster 3G to all markets when they launched the iPhone 4S.
Apple is also not innocent because their iPhone 4S publicity claimed 10Gbps speeds which were never achieved with the 4S at rollout.
That was just wrong.
typeadam
macrumors regular
Your question makes no sense.
It's bigger than a Mini and cheaper than the newer iPads. That's reason enough.
----------
Lol I love the logic on this forum: When it's Apple suing and winning, they're in the right. When it's Apple getting sued and losing, "something must not be right." It's like someone poked a hole in your perfect world.
Then they are just as bad as the Apple fans saying that Samsung should be sued for everything they have.
kdarling
macrumors P6
Apple seems to want to set the rates themselves. That's not how it works. A patent holder or judge/arbitrator gets to do that.
Recall that Apple had a case thrown out by a US judge who offered to set the rate for paying Motorola. Apple refused to go along unless it was $1 or less, which made the judge realize they were just trying to use courts to lower their rate.
Now, consider this: the last major cell phone ban from the ITC was over Qualcomm chips that it said infringed on a Broadcom patent. The royalty rate for that license was set at $6 per device (!).
Moreover, people act like Motorola or Samsung's starting negotiation rate of ~ 2.5% is high. Yet Apple pays over 3% to Qualcomm. (Q's usual rate is ~3.25% these days.)
--
Edit: interestingly, in that Broadcom injunction, neither the President nor appeals reversed the ITC decision, even though it banned almost every CDMA phone being imported at the time. Since Qualcomm initially appealed and refused to pay, Verizon itself ended up paying Broadcom $6 per phone just to keep from running out of stock.
Last edited:
Ignorance is bliss?
The S3 and S4 are nearly identical in size.
"Samsung consciously kept the design of the S4 very close to that of the S3. They have the same dimensions, almost the same weight (the S4 0.1 is ounces lighter, though this isnt apparent if you hold them both), and only a few aesthetic differences to distinguish them. The most noticeable difference when looking at them side-by-side is the larger display on the S4, and thats only apparently because theres less bezel than on the S3, particularly at the bottom.
Read more: http://www.digitaltrends.com/mobile/galaxy-s4-vs-galaxy-s3-spec-comparison/#ixzz2VLOccZgX
There are plenty of Apple fans who don't like these lawsuits and are also stating that they are happy that Apple got a kick in the pants. Plenty of people are fed up with the lawsuits overall. And the fact that this is an Apple-centric forum - you are going to find people (shocking!) that are "happy" when Apple loses. Not because they are happy that Samsung won - or whoever - but because they want these suits to end.
Dontazemebro
macrumors 68020
The "shoulda left Samsung alone and we wouldn't be in this ish" bed. That's what bed it is.
pirg
macrumors 6502a
And conversely when it's apple suing and winning (for non essential patents mind you) they're "stifling innovation", and when it's samsung suing and winning (on essential patents), "apple deserves this, take that!" It's like someone exposed the hole in your hypocritical world.
the difference of course being essential vs non essential. That's the part that makes the android victory chant seem beyond ridiculous. They're essentially (pardon the pun) cheering for stifled innovation, they're just too dim to realize it.
Apple obviously should not set the rate, but the rate that is offered should be comparable to similar offered rates for the same patent, don't you agree? Like I said I don't know what the royalties are on this patent for other licensees, but that would be an interesting discussion to have. If it's 2.5% to all licenses then yes it's reasonable, if it's not especially if it's well below then it's just samsung trying to milk the money train that is apple. I'm sure things like this are what's going to be considered when deciding a veto or overturning an injunction and not "oh yeah?? Well he started it!"as some people here think.
Working a % can work with other companies since they make phones in a variety of ranges/prices. When it comes to Apple - it's pretty much one small range. The cut is higher out of Apple since their phones (all) sell - for the most part and until recently - at the higher/highest price points. Arguably - 2.5% (for example) would seem unfair to any company who has phones on the higher end of the spectrum.
On the flip side - there's a flat fee model for the patents. But I'm not sure that's attractive to (most) of the other vendors. Especially those that hover at the lower price points.
It's almost like it should be a % or flat fee akin to "2.5% or $5 which ever is greater" or "2.5% up to $5 max."
The 'R' in FRAND stands for Reasonable and refers to the rate, it has to be reasonable. To decide what is reasonable, it seems you would have to have intimate knowledge of the specific case. That leaves some room for debate about the outcome here.
pirg
macrumors 6502a
The 'R' in FRAND stands for Reasonable and refers to the rate, it has to be reasonable. To decide what is reasonable, it seems you would have to have intimate knowledge of the specific case. That leaves some room for debate about the outcome here.
I'm pretty sure when I said I don't know the rate offered to other licensees that means I don't have intimate knowledge