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.
South Korean Court Declares Samsung and Apple Violated Each Other's Patents, Halts Product Sales of Older Devices
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
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.
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 licensing the 2 patents from Samsung.
So I believe these 2 companies will settle with cross licensing it or some sort of.
Last edited:
We'll see about that, but I'm betting that it is FRAND, OR it is IP that should have been included by Samsung in the SEP.
I doubt that we have heard the last of this.
Chances are they are not corporate lawyers but an outside law firm they are paying. Corporate lawyers are not the ones you generally use for things that go to court
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
- That the terms offerred, 2.x% of the cost of the device, is neither fair nor reasonable. Basically, Apple wants to pay no more 1% per chip they use, not per device and they want a flat fee with no cross-licensing deal. Samsung rebutes this by saying all their other licenses are based on per device pricing and that they have cross-licensing setup.
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.
Now, as for the Bounce back patent, the reason this might not hurt Samsung much is simple, this is the same patent that was used against them in the Netherlands for which Apple won an injunction last year :
http://www.brightsideofnews.com/new...e-preliminary-injunction-against-samsung.aspx
The thing is, Samsung removed the functionality before the injunction went into effect and got it lifted. They already have the software fix for it. Now they just need to update Korean devices too with it.
- 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
- That the terms offerred, 2.x% of the cost of the device, is neither fair nor reasonable. Basically, Apple wants to pay no more 1% per chip they use, not per device and they want a flat fee with no cross-licensing deal. Samsung rebutes this by saying all their other licenses are based on per device pricing and that they have cross-licensing setup.
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.
Now, as for the Bounce back patent, the reason this might not hurt Samsung much is simple, this is the same patent that was used against them in the Netherlands for which Apple won an injunction last year :
http://www.brightsideofnews.com/new...e-preliminary-injunction-against-samsung.aspx
The thing is, Samsung removed the functionality before the injunction went into effect and got it lifted. They already have the software fix for it. Now they just need to update Korean devices too with it.
That is something that I don't know but equally the Koreans can ask US why start at 0.01. I believe in general, Asians countries don't use decimals in their currency. Japanese Yen also starts at 1yen I believe.
I don't really see how your lengthy response had anything to do with what I said. It was informative, but irrelevant.
Obviously, you and I differ on this, but the South Korean Court did not set the FRAND pricing, which would have been the normal recourse to an impasse in negotiated fees. The Court bypassed that and went directly to an injunction, something that would be would be very unusual in most of the world's courts.
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.
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!
I agree. Long run this hurts Apple more. Samsung will increase their supply prices to Apple, will increasingly patent around Apple's ecosystem, and generally become much more of a pain in the ass for Apple. And also for potential substitute suppliers to Apple. Most people simply don't realize that in several component categories, Samsung has world leading capabilities and a huge IP porfolio.
The opposite is unlikely to be true. Apple enjoys pricing premiums due to design and brand loyalty, but those distinctions can erode. Accelerating these erosions is that much of what Apple makes is supplied by asian manufacturers who know the secret sauce of the products. Again, this is not an issue for Samsung who is a manufacturer.
The Court stated that Apple infringe, nothing more. Apple's contention is that it is SEP. Motorola wasn't able to get an injunction, which is what both my point and the thread is about: injunctions.
Way to presume innocence in a somewhat racist way. I suppose Britain is Samsung's home court also.
Feel free to criticize the ruling, but I see no reason to believe that a Korean court would side against Apple, considering the amount of trade Apple does with Korea that they could move to other countries.
But, you know, an attitude that Samsung is a company of thieves and therefore Korea is a nation of thieves-it reflects well on you.
Apple isn't going to use the tech for free, but they aren't going to cross license nor pay rates that they believe are not fair and reasonable. In most of the world, the courts will end up deciding the licensing fees if all negotiations have failed.
The South Korean Court has abandoned that. Apple may seek WTO remedies as well as political remedies if the injunction stands.
And as a matter of fact, Motorola has stated that it will use SEP as a "one bullet to kill", something that the licensing organizations and courts are investigating, as you note.
Historical inflation. Wasn't always that way. But you did have instability for quite a few years. And the economy was awful after WWII until http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Park_Chung-hee led them anyway. And he was a fascist. And was assassinated.
Anyone with any knowledge of history in any country knows this is very inflationary.
As we can see here, starting a patent war is a Pyrrhic victory. These big companies have all collected vast patent portfolios, mostly dubious software patents, to engage in a big patent cold war. In the real Cold War, nuclear weapons presented a stark choice of Mutually Assured Destruction should either the US or USSR decide to launch.
When Steve said he was "willing to go thermonuclear", this is what he was talking about. For whatever reason Jobs felt an intense, personal anger about Android, and he was willing to bankrupt and destroy Apple in order to exact revenge.
We can see Tim Cook trying to turn the ship, but with all these patent nuclear warheads flying around, it's going to take some time.
When Steve said he was "willing to go thermonuclear", this is what he was talking about. For whatever reason Jobs felt an intense, personal anger about Android, and he was willing to bankrupt and destroy Apple in order to exact revenge.
We can see Tim Cook trying to turn the ship, but with all these patent nuclear warheads flying around, it's going to take some time.
I heard that the licensing agreements between Samsung and Qualcomm state Samsung is supposed to not assert their FRAND patents against Qualcomm's customers.
It's true that Apple does not have a license, but it was also true that Apple was expected to be safe because of the hardware purchase from Qualcomm.
However, Samsung decided to retroactively exclude Apple from that agreement because Apple sued Samsung for other patents. Whether that's a dick move or there's a valid reason for that, I'm not sure.
There's another summary of that here.
Kinda awkward naming system, would of made more sense if they started with 10kim
You left out the most important part : "as long as Qualcomm's customers do not turn hostile against Samsung". Apple sued Samsung. That put an end to that "truce".
Maybe Apple shouldn't have sued if they didn't want to pay FRAND for 3G tech.