South Korean Court Declares Samsung and Apple Violated Each Other's Patents, Halts Product Sales of Older Devices

[damir00]

Here's the full details that macrumors skipped/didn't let us know.

Thank you for this analysis, it does put the result in a different perspective and is much appreciated.

 

[devilstrider]

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.

Here's another.

Legend has it that Admiral Yamamoto made the following statement shortly after Japan’s 1941 bombing of Pearl Harbor: “I fear all we have done is to awaken a sleeping giant and fill him with a terrible resolve.” While the validity of the statement has never been verified, the principle remains that you should be careful that the enemy you try to tease and poke is not a lion ready to devour you. I have seen a lion first-hand in the wild, and their tails will swat at the flies with nary a concern in the world, but piss them off enough and they will go for blood.

In the last year and a half, Apple has filed over 20 lawsuits against smartphone manufacturers Samsung and HTC for the ways in which they have implemented their hardware designs and Android OS implementations. During that time Google has been largely silent, with the only thing closely resembling a corporate stance being a backhanded statement Google’s Executive Chairman Eric Schmidt made at a conference in Tokyo last year. When asked about whether Google would provide financial support to HTC should they lose a patent case with Apple, Schmidt said: “We will make sure they don’t lose, then.” That however has been the last statement made by Google about the whole mess. Until now.

When Google announced their deal to buy Motorola Mobility in August of 2011, speculation arose as to their motivation to do so, with the blogosphere exploding with word that Google’s true motivation was to gain control of over 17,000 patents that Motorola controlled. Google CEO Larry Page stated in a shareholder conference call about the acquisition:

“The combination of the two companies is going to create tremendous shareholder value, drive great user experiences and accelerate innovation. Motorola also has a strong patent portfolio, which will help protect Android from anticompetitive threats from Microsoft, Apple and other companies.”

With the finalized acquisition of Motorola by Google in May, it seemed like it was only a matter of time before Google would stop letting its hardware partners be attacked by Apple and would take a stand. On Friday Google did just that, filing a patent-infringement lawsuit against Apple for the following seven patents: 5,883,580, 5,922,047, 6,425,002, 6,983,370, 6,493,673,7,007,064 and 7,383,983. The products they are seeking an import ban on are the Apple’s iPod Touch, the iPhone 3GS, 4 and 4S, the iPad 2 and the “new” iPad, as well as the Mac Pro, iMac, Mac mini, MacBook Pro and MacBook Air and all other Apple devices “which utilize wireless communication technologies to manage various messages and content.” Motorola also argues Apple was fully aware of the patents in question.

The obvious worst-case scenario for Apple would be that all of their products would be banned in the U.S. until they resolve the issue. I don’t believe anyone sees the worst-case scenario happening, but it would not be surprising to see some sort of preliminary injunction until the International Trade Commission (ITC) makes a ruling which is scheduled for August 24.

What is obviously interesting in this case, is that Apple would seem to be caught between the proverbial rock and a hard place. Concerning the filing, Motorola states:

“We would like to settle these patent matters, but Apple’s unwillingness to work out a license leaves us little choice but to defend ourselves and our engineers’ innovations.”

It is common practice for a manufacturer to negotiate a license with a patent holder so that they can use the invention or innovation in their products, but Apple seems unwilling to do that with anyone. Samsung also stated almost the same thing in a filing in their current court battle with Apple, that they offered in 2011 a “fair and reasonable” royalty rate for using their standards-essential mobile technology that ”is consistent with the royalty rates other companies charge.” The filing stated that Apple never made a counter-offer, but “Instead, it simply rejected Samsung’s opening offer, refused to negotiate further and to this day has not paid Samsung a dime for Apple’s use of Samsung’s standards-essential technology.” Apple replied that ”Samsung’s royalty demands are multiple times more than Apple has paid any other patentees for licenses to their declared-essential patent portfolios.” That all sounds well and good, but the percentage Samsung was asking for was 2.4% of the entire selling price of Apple’s mobile products that utilized Samsung’s technology, amounting to roughly $16 per iPhone (and roughly $350 million dollars according to court records). Apple on the other hand tried to license to Samsung back in 2010 patents that it felt were being infringed upon, with a royalty fee of $30 per smartphone and $40 per tablet.

Now on the surface it sounds like both are seeking to be reasonable and offer licenses, but let’s look at this from a different perspective. Apple calls Samsung unfair for requesting royalties on industry standard-essential patents and cites their demands as being more than Apple has paid anyone else, but they were the ones who first tried to license to Samsung non-essential design patents which would be subject to perception for a fee which would be more than double what Samsung offered. Who’s really being unfair and unreasonable here?

So now we come back to the Motorola/Google vs. Apple case. With a precedent being shown that Apple is more than willing to try and license their patents and accept royalties, but unwilling to return the favor, I wonder how this case will play out. Google already has a very adept legal team, able to defend itself against baseless attacks (ala Oracle vs. Google), and Apple has been moderately successful around the world but has lost some very recent cases (ala Apple vs. HTC in the UK). Personally I do not feel that Apple will allow themselves to face seeing their main money-makers be banned in the U.S., but I also don’t see them stopping their baseless attacks on innovation around the world. I hope I am wrong, but I do see them turning around and unleashing on Google directly instead of attacking the partners like they have done, which will stifle innovation more than it already has. Seeing as that has been Apple’s modus operandi the last year and a half, it may not be far off from reality.

http://www.xda-developers.com/android/the-sleeping-giant-may-have-awoken/

 

[kdarling]

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".

Motorola likewise had such an agreement with Qualcomm: they would not sue Qualcomm's customers... unless those customers sued Motorola. Apple sued Motorola and Moto invoked the defense clause.

 

[revelated]

Remember this day.

....meh, you're both acting like kids. You stole each other's crap. Pay a small fee and move on to better competition and innovation for the most important in this...YOUR USERS.

The evil Samsung has been vanquished. This type of rampant theft has to be stopped. No, I don't care that you use plastic instead of metal and glass. No, I don't care that Palm did it first. No, I don't care that wireless companies perpetuate these myt...err, facts to customers. Apple applied for a patent and was approved. That gave them the ability to stop your evil. Now we must send a message. Apple's asking a lot but how about just cut it in half. That should be enough of a deterrent.

Steve...we love you.

Mind you, South Korea doesn't care for us very much yet their justice system is a lot more equal all points considered, at least in terms of patent law. And aren't they still communist?

 

[dukebound85]

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.

didnt even read the article huh?

 

[linuxcooldude]

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

Hum, so Samsung gets to charge twice for the exact same 3G chip?!? That got thrown out pretty quickly in the American courts.

 

[KnightWRX]

Hum, so Samsung gets to charge twice for the exact same 3G chip?!? That got thrown out pretty quickly in the American courts.

If Qualcomm is including patent licensing fees in their chip costs without transferring a valid license, then that is not Samsung's fault now is it ?

However, from the lack of evidence presented at trial about those claims, I'd say the verdict was more that Samsung failed to provided evidence of it, having had to spend the majority of their 25 hours of presentation on prior art and all the other Apple claims then on their own claims.

I don't think we even saw them present any evidence to their own claims, spending their 25 hours replying to Apple instead.

We'll just have to see what the next motions are and what Samsung objects to in this trial and the treatment of their evidence and their claims to know for sure.

 

[linuxcooldude]

If Qualcomm is including patent licensing fees in their chip costs without transferring a valid license, then that is not Samsung's fault now is it ?

However, from the lack of evidence presented at trial about those claims, I'd say the verdict was more that Samsung failed to provided evidence of it, having had to spend the majority of their 25 hours of presentation on prior art and all the other Apple claims then on their own claims.

I don't think we even saw them present any evidence to their own claims, spending their 25 hours replying to Apple instead.

We'll just have to see what the next motions are and what Samsung objects to in this trial and the treatment of their evidence and their claims to know for sure.

According to what i found it was Intel that provided the chip that the patent applies too, which had already struck a licensing deal with Samsung.

Apple says that by using Intel chips which had licensed the patents from Samsung, it is protected by "patent exhaustion" (you can't charge someone twice for using the same patent); and that Samsung's pricing, of about 2.75% of the device's price, is unreasonable use of its monopoly.

The patent exhaustion doctrine operates as an affirmative defense, shielding authorized purchasers from infringement claims concerning the use or sale of a patented good after the patent owner authorized its sale.

 

[kdarling]

Mind you, South Korea doesn't care for us very much yet their justice system is a lot more equal all points considered, at least in terms of patent law.

Koreans like America.

I think what young people might not realize, is that a lot of countries that we've helped during the 1940s and 1950s dug themselves out of a wartorn situation by first emulating American lifestyles and products.

They start by making cheap copies, but progress towards more self-identification and self-designs as time goes by. Japan did this after WW-II. So did many other nearly destroyed countries.

So it's not about cheating or disliking. Quite the contrary, it's about wanting to emulate in a good way. It just takes time. The world is not yet perfect

And aren't they still communist?

You're confusing South Korea with the communist dictatorship of North Korea.

 

[Rian Gray]

Mind you, South Korea doesn't care for us very much yet their justice system is a lot more equal all points considered, at least in terms of patent law. And aren't they still communist?

No. Not really. There were several -actually more than thousands- accusation AGAINST Samsung, saying they have infringed other S. Korean companies' patents. Then Samsung would go like, heck, we alone are making 50% of GDP. Do you really think gov/court will hear you? Well, guess what. Government didn't care about infringement till 1990s to early 2000s.

I'm saying this as an korean immigrant, but really, patent law in Korea is actually a lot or wicked (or twisted) than US's.