Which standard-setting process did Apple particpate in for which they refused to license necessary patents on FRAND terms?
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.
Samsung Promises to Fight on in Internal Memo, Seeks to Overturn Galaxy Tab Injunction
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Which standard-setting process did Apple particpate in for which they refused to license necessary patents on FRAND terms?
I can only assume you're speaking in hyperbole. It's easy enough to check Samsung's mobile patents and see for yourself. Dating back far before Apple introduced the iPhone.
That in itself is not a problem. Products are plainly on the market. However, what would be an issue is saying "Samsung put a border here, and a port here, and used this icon over there. Let's do the same." That's essentially what the jury found Samsung to have done with the iPhone.
There's looking for areas of improvement and then there's microanalysing every. little. detail. in order to give the same user experience as iOS.
There is no getting around the fact that Samsung just went into a panic and shamelessly copied them. I thought this whole lawsuit was ridiculous until I saw that, it was far and beyond simply looking for ways to improve your own product. It was shameless copying and they got found out.
Look at windows mobile/Lumia for an example of how you don't need to plainly rip off the competition to come out with your own product.
Honestly before I thought Apple were being a bit ridiculous but now having seen the level Samsung went to to analyze and copy i'm glad a court of law found them guilty.
Hopefully now Samsung can spend some time and money coming up with their own ideas, their own way of doing things, and therefore offer the customers real choice with a product that is unique. It will actually be better for everyone in the end if they can end this outright copying now.
Indeed they shall - by having the customers side with Apple.
Out of curiosity, what exactly does Samsung try saying they innovated with? It seems to me anything great about Android that wasn't copied from iOS was done by Google, not Samsung?
Yea, heck why even have patents? What are they for? Shut down Patent Offices world wide I say!!!
It's hard to know who would or would not have switched carriers. The idea is that once Samsung had a similar product out there, someone could have said "this is just like the iPhone, and doesn't require me to switch, so I'll get it." It's a subjective art, to be sure.
I think consumers might react more positively to Samsung's patent complaints if Samsung hadn't failed so completely on the trade dress front. Samsung willfully and intentionally built products that were made to look and act like Apple products-- this seems indisputable. I really don't think consumers care at all about patent violations, but they sure do know a knock-off when they see one. To the average consumers, a jury just confirmed what they can see with their own eyes. I don't think Samsung is going to get a lot of sympathy.
Apple is not required to license these patents. I doubt they would license them to Samsung.
Going to point out the deal offered Samsung was crap. MS deal was from when Apple was on life support so not the best example.
----------
FRAND Terms is a starting point. Cross licences you get a lower rate. Apple wanted that low cost with out the cross licencing. Other words Apple wanted the cake and eat it 2.
In a way he's right, Apple will need to double down on innovation, becuase everyone else will do same to get ahead of Apple in innovation.
I stil think that anyone who thinks the galaxy s looks like a 3gs anymore than pretty much any other black smartphone is just plain blind. and to those who think they have an iPhone is because that's all they think exists. they think all smart phones are iPhones. You hear iPhone the MOST is the most popular why not think my similar phone is also an iPhone. my 2 year old kNew my old 3gs from my old galaxy s.
What we need is MASSIVE and I mean MASSIVE patent reform. Way to many of Apple patents are crapents.
Apple is running scared as way to much of their profit is tied to a single product which is not a good thing.
Yet confusion in the market place is what these issues often revolve around and this case was no different. Besides the blatant rip off of Apple's research, Samsung also sowed confusion amongst consumers. Most consumers are not walking into an Apple store with a determined knowledge of what they want. A great many buy at third party stores. By Samsung camouflaging their products to look like Apple's products they take advantage of Apple's marketing and get sales. This in turn can cause consumers to be disappointed in the product they have and then reflect that disappoint back at Apple. That's a simple reality of the market place.
----------
What a funny complaint. I have developed a special breed of livestock. Why should I supply my neighbor with that breed so that he can compete for shelf space at the local stores and menu space at the local restaurants? No, I would rather not. Those sales feed my family.
The reality is I do sell some breeder stock but not the top 0.4% - those are only for our farm's breeding program. More importantly, I choose to sell or not sell. You, the government or industry organizations have no business telling me I must sell my genetic stock to other farmers. It's my work and my choice.
Same for Apple.
but you miss the other part of it. Because Apple is not cross licencing they have to pay a higher FRAND rate. Apple wants to pay the same cheap rate on the FRAND patents as others who are cross licencing their patents. If you do not cross licences the patents cost you more. Now does that make since.
well the fact that Apple has been in multiple law suits regarding frand patents speaks volumes
So you have valid no source...
Apple was in courts because FRAND (Free And Non Discriminatory) patent holders e.g Samsung is charging Apple based on a percentage of handset price... which obviously is meant to gouge Apple since Apple's product range is often in the upper end...
Do you understand the concepts of FRAND patent? and the term "non-discriminatory?"