Apple vs Samsung, court orders Samsung to show Apple 5 new phones

Glaucus said:
Not much, they aren't suing yet
"if apple release any devices that use LtE"

Those patents will almost certainly be FRAND as they are essential, so it's almost certain smasung can't do that anyway. Unless apple refuse to pay a reasonable amount.
Click to expand...

What do you mean "Samsung can't do that"? FRAND isn't a legal instrument and none of the terms within it have a legal definition. Also the person paying for the license doesn't get to dictate what "reasonable" is. The usual deal with these is cross licensing of patents, something Apple pretty much refuse to do hence the drawn out case with Nokia which they ended up having to pay for.
 
bam0 said:
What do you mean "Samsung can't do that"? FRAND isn't a legal instrument and none of the terms within it have a legal definition. Also the person paying for the license doesn't get to dictate what "reasonable" is. The usual deal with these is cross licensing of patents, something Apple pretty much refuse to do hence the drawn out case with Nokia which they ended up having to pay for.
Click to expand...

It's got legal precedence and all the claims so far with FRAND patents have not gone well at all.
Yes they usually end up paying but less than the extortionate amounts some want to charge and then back dated. Still works out cheaper than what some companies want.

There are people out there, including some you can find quoted in the media, who say that there's a scarcity of caselaw regarding FRAND. While there certainly isn't an abundance of FRAND decisions since earlier cases typically got settled before anything important happened, one of the positive effects of the ongoing wave of smartphone patent disputes is that more FRAND issues than ever do get decided, and so far there's a clear trend across multiple federal districts that FRAND is anything but the empty word that certain notorious abusers would like it to be. District Judge Robart in Washington State, Circuit Judge Posner in Illinois (sitting by designation on a district court), District Judge Crabb in Wisconsin with the order I'm disczussing here and, on a preliminary basis, District Judge Koh in California have all given meaning to FRAND. Moreover, influential U.S. Senators, U.S. Representatives, the Federal Trade Commission and the Department of Justice have spoken out in favor of reasonable interpretations of FRAND. (The context here is U.S. law, but let's not forget about the European Commission.)
Click to expand...
http://www.fosspatents.com/2012/08/us-court-grants-apple-partial-summary.html

Basically people like to say FRAND means nothing, that simply isn't the case.

And let's not think eu is any easier on FRAND patents. Samsung is allready in trouble from the EU and lost several EU cases with FRAND patents.
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/...ation-into-samsungs-3g-frand-patent-lawsuits/

The European Commission announced on Tuesday that it has begun a formal investigation into Samsung's strategy of using FRAND-encumbered patents related to 3G wireless networking standards in lawsuits. The announcement comes after the Commission began a preliminary inquiry into the matter last November and several courts in the EU have struck down Samsung's attempts to use the patents against Apple.
Click to expand...


And investigate Motorola over FRAND as well
http://www.techweekeurope.co.uk/news/european-commission-frand-patents-83078
In April, the European Commission opened a formal antitrust investigation into Motorola Mobility, after Microsoft claimed the mobile firm was abusing its market position by not offering patents under FRAND terms
Click to expand...


http://blog.ksnh.eu/en/2012/02/23/e...and-frand-sharpened-by-smartphone-war-part-1/
Mr Almunia clarified in his speech that he intends to enforce the so called*FRAND principle*(“fair, reasonable, and non-discriminating license”) by the executive power of EU anti-trust law in order to urge owners of standard-essential patents to out-license them under fair, essential and non-discriminatory conditions, so as to also enable further market actors to market standard-conform products. In other words, the respective standards should be available to all market participants in order to prevent the standard degenerating to patent-protected cartels.

This idea, however, is not new as it follows the lines of the 2010 EU Regulations on horizontal agreements (IP/10/1702 and*MEMO/10/676), which also underlined the EU Commission’s approach that FRAND conditions are essential prerequisites for a free access to standardised technologies.
Click to expand...

So want to rethink FRAND means nothing and has no legal backing? People keep saying it throughout this thread, but never back it up.
 
Last edited:
Glaucus said:
It's got legal precedence and all the claims so far with FRAND patents have not gone well at all.
Yes they usually end up paying but less than the extortionate amounts some want to charge and then back dated. Still works out cheaper than what some companies want.


http://www.fosspatents.com/2012/08/us-court-grants-apple-partial-summary.html

Basically people like to say FRAND means nothing, that simply isn't the case.
Click to expand...

I didn't say it meant nothing, I said the terms are not legally defined. And they aren't.
 
bam0 said:
I didn't say it meant nothing, I said the terms are not legally defined. And they aren't.
Click to expand...

And what does that change, it's legally enforceable, like a lot of things it's upto the court to decide.
And certainly not what you implied.
"What do you mean smasung can't do that"

Cross licensing may or may not be common, but it is not essential. Basically FRAND patents have to be licensed and so far courts have given much lower costs, that the company's wanted.

Also
While there are no legal precedents to spell out specifically what the actual terms mean, it can be interpreted from the testimony of people like Professor Mark Lemley from Stanford University, in front of the United States Senate Committee on the Judiciary that the individual terms are defined as follows:
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Apple adding more Samsung devices to the list...its beyond the joke now..at least for myself....I will never understand how they could be allowed to patent slide to unlock or bounce of the edge effect...but it is US afterwards...I bet I could patent way I fart and make noise and then sue everyone ;)
 
I fail to see how the S3 infringes on the slide to unlock patent given that you swipe in any direction anywhere on the screen to unlock it i.e. there is no "icon" to slide and there is no set method on how it is done like on Apple's phones :confused:

Clutching at straws it would seem....
 
Richie said:
I fail to see how the S3 infringes on the slide to unlock patent given that you swipe in any direction anywhere on the screen to unlock it i.e. there is no "icon" to slide and there is no set method on how it is done like on Apple's phones :confused:

Clutching at straws it would seem....
Click to expand...

This, it also doesn't infringe bounce back? Doesn't it have stock android on that.
Unless they're only going after sgs3 on trade dress, but with the massive size difference, the massively rounded corners, the camera set up on the back, I can't see it infringing that either.
 
Nope, no bounce back on it.

The only "infringement" from the old case would be P2Z but as the USPTO themselves are supposed to be looking at the validity of this particular patent, I can't see it holding up.



New infringements (and I use that term loosely) include:

  • Universal search (which Samsung removed about 2-3 months ago on US devices)
  • Method to use data from SMS/Emails to perform an action e.g. tapping a number within the body of an SMS message places it into the phone dialler for you to then dial (something my Nokia 3210 could do)

I need to look into the others as the titles are quite broad e.g. "Missed telephone call management for a portable multifunction device"...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom