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

Glaucus said:
What ever you say FRAND is legally bound in many countries as showen by court cases.
Click to expand...

You realise that there are no 'bounds' around FRAND in pretty much every country, it's purely be precedence, which can and has been overridden, that's the whole point of it, rather than being fixed in stone it can change and adapt over time.

CAT-THE-FIFTH said:
The chap is a paid Oracle blogger(the company had to release this information) and does work for Microsoft.
Click to expand...

*that we know of....
 
Where have I ignored it?

You can't say something is 'legally bound' when it is based on precedence, which by it's very nature changes over time, there are no bounds, there are no fixed outcomes, only previous cases to use as a guideline, nothing more.

Yes most outcomes will be roughly the same, but you are treating this as black and white whilst arguing with someone who is looking at it more realistically as something that is in the middle.
 
SKILL said:
Where have I ignored it?

You can't say something is 'legally bound' when it is based on precedence, which by it's very nature changes over time, there are no bounds, there are no fixed outcomes, only previous cases to use as a guideline, nothing more.

Yes most outcomes will be roughly the same, but you are treating this as black and white whilst arguing with someone who is looking at it more realistically as something that is in the middle.
Click to expand...

No I'm not treating it as black and white, I'm treating it like precedence is in law. Until its overturned in an appeals court which it has not achieved yet. Then it is effectively law. It's upto the courts to decide. Yes it can change over time and I've agreed which that.

But when people say FRAND is not set in any law is just rubbish. If it was not set in any law, then courts would throw it out, that hasn't happened. As the courts have shown the fact a patent is a FRAND is extremely important and changes the outcome drastically.
 
Glaucus said:
Yes I'm aware of that. A lot of law detail is made by precedent. That's how it works, you seem to ignore this.
Click to expand...

Without getting into the exact details of this case or series of cases precedent doesn't always have to be followed. A case may be prima facie in point but a judge can choose to distinguish it - effectively saying "don't much like that result even though on first glance they look like similar cases".

You're right that precedent is important and the hierarchy of the court system means that it's usually going to be followed but it's far from impossible to distinguish a case and get a different result.
 
Glaucus said:
No I'm not treating it as black and white
Click to expand...
Then I suggest you think more carefully about what you type as that's how it comes across.

Glaucus said:
But when people say FRAND is not set in any law is just rubbish. If it was not set in any law, then courts would throw it out, that hasn't happened. As the courts have shown the fact a patent is a FRAND is extremely important and changes the outcome drastically.
Click to expand...
Really? That's your best justification? "It must be law or the courts would throw it out"? If you don't mind I'll just wait here while you look up and quote me where I can find the statutes enacting FRAND? Or perhaps it's that FRAND commitments are enforceable under contract law?
 
Look up the court ruling and the fact non have been overturned.

It's really as simple as that. It does not need to be specifically written into law.

Have you got any idea how much of our law is based on set precendce? It's a huge amount.

The fact is courts have ruled in many countries, that FRAND licenses have to be oxidized by. That really is that. You can't argue it isn't written specifically in law. But that makes no difference if courts set precedence and these precendence are not over turned. It has in effect become law. Just like huge amount of our legal system.

Again people who say FRAND means nothing in a legal sense are simply wrong.

But we're going around in circles, you carrying on believing FRAND means nothing in law. I'll carrying look at the court cases in several countries that proves that wrong.
 
Last edited:
Has the FRAND in full or in the acronym specifically been mentioned in the ratio decidendi of these cases?

Interestingly I found that "'deception' during the standard setting process alone is insufficient to be an abuse of a dominant position under EU competition law."

So basically when creating and setting a standard, a company can just fail to disclose patents they hold on it, then patent ambush other other manufacturers. It's only applicable if you don't already have market dominance though, but would mean that the company couldn't be done for anti-competition breaches.
 
Last edited:
This is also interesting: http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20120902120442355

Particularly the bit that where it appears that Google were not sitting around but were ready to defend it's own products specifically the Galaxy Nexus device that Apple had initially banned by the courts.

Go to the "Apple in Discovery" section just below the image of a tablet


The primary issue for the Court to resolve, however, remains the timing of Google’s document production.

Google has committed to produce testimony regarding the accused functionality, and has already offered one deposition that Apple has refused to take.

Google has also committed to produce source code compiled into the accused device, and could have completed this production in time for Apple’s brief had Apple served its subpoenas when it should have, on February 22, 2012. But by April 5, when Apple decided to serve its subpoenas, Google could not, by the Court’s deadline for Apple’s reply brief, complete the complex and interdependent processes of locating, gathering and collecting documents; ensuring that its collection was complete; assembling and training a document review team; supervising and completing responsiveness review; resolving any second-level questions generated during this review; reviewing for privilege; and formatting and verifying the documents for production.

Apple tenders a single, sad excuse for its delay: it claims that it could not subpoena Google before asking the Samsung defendants and counterclaimants (“collectively, “Samsung”) to produce the source code running on the Galaxy Nexus.

But Apple cannot square this excuse with the now-too-long history of Apple’s Android-related litigation, which shows Apple’s firm understanding that only Google could provide the source code underlying the Galaxy Nexus.
Click to expand...



From what I can make out, Google were ready to defend it's property but Apple did not serve it's subpoenas in time and actually REFUSED to take a prior deposition from Google. They were meant to serve them by Feb 22nd but did not do it till 5th April meaning Google could not get into a position in time to get the required documents etc.

Apple state that they could not subpoena Google until it had asked Samsung for the source code even when they knew (like everyone else) that the source code for the Google devices is supplied by Google themselves....


Perhaps Google haven't been "sitting on their hands" by their own will....




Edit:

Apple has known that OEMs control the build process for non-lead devices, but that Google controls the build process for lead devices, providing OEMs only with compiled binaries. (See supra § A.) Armed with this knowledge, Apple has sought and received lead-device source code from Google at least four times. (Id.) Despite this actual knowledge, in this action Apple engaged in a sham attempt to obtain from Samsung information it knew Samsung did not have, seeking delay in order to engineer an emergency.
Click to expand...

Did they use this "emergency" to help their case for a ban on the Nexus device? If so, naughty Apple....
 
Last edited:
So, it goes on..

Quick recap:
June - Apple are granted a temporary injunction on the Galaxy Tab 10.1 based on their design patent (rounded corners, black rectangle etc). The district court didn't see the need for the ban, but the Federal court did and ordered the ban.

August - Samsung lose the case. The tab 10.1 is found by the jury not to infringe the design patent but does infringe on others.
Apple request an injunction for 8 devices to be banned, hearing date is December.
Meantime Samsung ask for the temporary injunction to be dissolved.
Court gives Samsung a date in September for the dissolution hearing.
Apple oppose this, saying it should all be sorted in one go. Court disagrees.
Apple are now saying the temporary ban should stay in place, because although the device doesn't infringe on the patent it was banned for they will be asking for a ban based on other patents.

Crazy, more detail here: http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=2012091111482629

They are also trying to ignore some of the jury findings : http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20120910173105532

Interestingly HTC have popped in to the picture and said they will be suing Apple if they launch the iphone5 with LTE : http://www.techradar.com/news/computing/apple/where-next-for-apple-1093312
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom