Why not just start at 1 won instead of 10?
This type of litigation is only legit/allowed in Korean courts, so this has little effect elsewhere (I.e. the current battle in the U.S. court).
Also, I find it humorous that the Galaxy Tabs are banned; this will probably cost Samsung literally HUNDREDS of dollars in sales.![]()
Well obviously it's not FRAND, or atleast Samsung did nothing wrong, since the court ruled in Samsungs favour over it.
Stop bashing on these lawyers. These are corporate lawyers paid a salary regardless of the outcome. They aren't the ambulance chasers that take 50%
Why not just start at 1 won instead of 10?
No you are wrong about the FRAND you quoted. Korean court found apple guilty for "not" trying hard enough to license the FRAND. That's what the judge ruled. Apple didn't negotiate hard enough and undervalued of FRAND patents. Samsung provided the details regard licenses with other companies on same FRAND showing they are getting paid more than apple wanted. This gave the judge an impression that Apple didn't give enough efforts. If Apple matched the price with other companies then Samsung would've guilt of not provide FRAND.
I found that all of apple related sites don't give full details of how the ruling went. It gives an impression that Apple and Samsung were tied. No it didn't. It hurt Apple more than Samsung.
Here's the full details that macrumors skipped/didn't let us know.
1.Only bounce back patent found that Samsung breached. Patents such as rectangular shape with round corners have been denied; judge ruled people can't confuse between iphone and SG and therefore, Samsung did not copy the iphone.
2. Grid of icons found is free of guilty as well due to similar art has been found.
3. Icons such as phone and texts icons were also found not copying because Samsung showed an evidence that the same exact icons(telephone drawing) in their prior phones back in 2005.
4. Apple has breached 2 patents related to 3g and mobile data transfering. Although those 2 patents are FRAND, as I mentioned above, Apple didn't show enough effort to license it. The burden is on Apple to license it not on Samsung.
So the final verdict was Samsung breached 1 patent(bounceback) and Apple breached 2 patents. Samsung will need to pay 25k USD(just converting simple 1 to 1000) while Apple needs to pay 20k USD per patent a total of 40k. The banned devices macrumors told are the devices that have breached each others patents. Samsung may lift the ban after a software updates showing there are no more bounceback and apple may lift the ban after the license the 2 patents from Samsung.
So I believe these 2 companies will settle with cross licensing it or some sort of.
Pretty subjective though.
What one company deems "fair" might not seem "fair" to another. Which is why the courts are deciding.
And what one company deems "essential patents" another might not.
Both companies are "playing" the same game.
In the U.S., Motorola is attempting to do the same for SEP that impacts both MS and Apple, and so far has met no success, and isn't expected to.
This is Korea, not the US. The Tab 10.1 was discontinued in Korea about 8 months ago. The Galaxy Nexus never went on sale large-scale (as a matter of fact, it is primarily sold in the US, the UK and Germany) in Korea. The SGS II is still being sold as an el-cheapo alternative to the SGS III but I doubt Samsung is making a lot of money on it at this time.
For Apple, things look pretty much the same: the iPhone 4 8gb is still officially on sale (and has been selling extremely well over the last couple of months).
I'd say this really hurts both companies equally.
----------
Actually, I'm certain the outcome will be extremely similar. Samsung will be handed some sales bans (for the 10.1 for sure, probably also for the SGS II) and a massive fine. Apple, on the other hand, will see several of their key patents invalidated - which is going to hurt them much more than the one-time fine Samsung will have to pay.
Guess it's easier to play on the home court. "Apple, you can't sell your new stuff. Samsung, you can't sell the stuff that you're not selling any more anyway." Really fair.
You sure you're reading the news about this and not just ignoring what goes against your argument ? Because I'm pretty sure Motorola met success back in April :
http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2403459,00.asp
But don't let reality get in the way of spreading some FUD about Apple's competitor, carry on!
Guess it's easier to play on the home court. "Apple, you can't sell your new stuff. Samsung, you can't sell the stuff that you're not selling any more anyway." Really fair.
It's not abusing your FRAND patents when suing a player that is refusing to pay the proper FRAND terms for them after negotiating. Before you accuse either Motorola or Samsung of abuse of FRAND patents, wait until there's an outcome in the FCC's investigation about it. They aren't guilty until they've been proven to not have had good faith licensing talks with Apple. And no matter what, this doesn't mean Apple gets to use the technology for free..
Why not just start at 1 won instead of 10?
FRAND does not mean free, something a lot of posters here have a hard time understanding. Apple's argument against Samsung's 3G patents are 2 fold :
- That they have a license to the patents from their buying hardware from a 3rd party with a license. The licensing agreements Samsung hold with Broadcom and Qualcomm show this isn't actually the case, that the license is not transferrable with a hardware purchase. This is how they've won these cases in the past
Why not just start at 1 won instead of 10?
I heard that the licensing agreements between Samsung and Qualcomm state Samsung is supposed to not assert their FRAND patents against Qualcomm's customers.
Really confused at the Galaxy Nexus ban over bounceback.
Stock Android adds a pulse of colour when you hit the end of a list, unlike Samsung's TouchWiz which bounces back just like iOS.