or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPhone › Samsung attempting to block sales of Apple's iPhone 4S in France, Italy
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Samsung attempting to block sales of Apple's iPhone 4S in France, Italy - Page 2

post #41 of 67
deleted
post #42 of 67
Quote:
Originally Posted by mknopp View Post

Is anyone else getting to the point where they feel that IP is more of a problem than a benefit?

the notion of protected IP isn't the issue, It's the games folks keep playing.

If this tech is essential than it should be part of a standard and Samsung could find their patent invalidated in many countries (including the US). Or it could turn out that Apple wanted to pay for a license but Samsung tried to charge them way more than was reasonable or typical so Apple refused. In the end the courts could not only not ban the iPhone but could demand that Apple pay the reasonable amount and Samsung take it. Or it could turn out that Apple got the chips that use the tech from some other company and that company took care of the licensing but Samsung is trying to double dip saying no Apple has to license from them directly and the license with X only covers being allowed to make the chips, not the buyers (which is typically BS and should be)

Only the first bit should invalidate being able to have the IP protected. Otherwise let them have it but make sure they play fair with it.

And remember that in the EU before you can get a temp injunction you have to agree to the damages. Samsung could lose hella big on this because Apple has history of iPhone sales in those countries. Even if they go with only the sales from the 3gs two years ago, in keeping with the whole 'most folks will get a new phone every two years which is why we make Apple care on the phones last for two years' talk, that's a lot of lost sales Samsung will have to agree to pay damages for.

A non tech's thoughts on Apple stuff 

(She's family so I'm a little biased)

Reply

A non tech's thoughts on Apple stuff 

(She's family so I'm a little biased)

Reply
post #43 of 67
Quote:
Originally Posted by sarges View Post

I agree, Samsung should demanding Apple instead to release iPhone 5 instead of this fudge of an update cooked up Mr Cook

The only reason they would demand that is so that they could sue Apple for copying the form.

Also, Mr Cook didn't dream up this update. It was started a good year ago before Steve ever went on leave and was signed and sealed while he was still CEO with the final vote. Cook just gets the hsit for announcing it

A non tech's thoughts on Apple stuff 

(She's family so I'm a little biased)

Reply

A non tech's thoughts on Apple stuff 

(She's family so I'm a little biased)

Reply
post #44 of 67
Quote:
Originally Posted by MacRulez View Post

So if a company willfully avoids paying even FRAND licensing fees, there should be no penalty or such infringement?

FRAND != free.

Of course it's not free - and no one ever said it was.

First, since Apple is buying chipsets from others, some or all of the royalty is being paid by their suppliers.

Second, it's very much like the Nokia case. You can't use FRAND to get an injunction. Rather, you can sue for damages and future royalties. So if Samsung wants to sue Apple for infringement and royalties, they are free to do so and if their demands are FRAND, then Apple will undoubtedly comply - as they did with Nokia. But attempting to get an injunction is not allowed under FRAND rules. Read the Foss Patents article.
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
post #45 of 67
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ronbo View Post

Everything but the outside of the thing got a major overhaul, and you're unhappy. Unreasonable expectations will make your whole life miserable. Did you want a change in the case shape? You obviously didn't hear Jobs talking about one of the interesting bonuses of the 3GS's smooth launch: there were already a million cases available, because the phone was the same shape as the 3. Did you expect LTE? Surely you didn't. I'm in one of the AT&T LTE cities, but most people aren't. Apple didn't launch 3G when a few people could get it. They launched 3G when most people could get it, and when the chips were compact and power efficient. Apple never gets pushed into doing things before they're ready. And certainly not by people whose expectations were set by rumors sites. You need to learn to read these kinds of things and keep a proper perspective about what's actually likely and what's not--otherwise you might want to consider eschewing these kinds of sites, because they'll just make you upset. The iPhone 4S is an excellent phone. Outstanding processor, stunning camera, and amazing antenna tech. And as far as that antenna goes, don't stamp your foot too hard demanding they change the case next time. They may have just gone and done something they think is optimal. That antenna trick is pretty neat.

Cheers.

A 4 inch screen is not an unreasonable request. My year old Samsung Focus has a fantastic 4 inch, Super AMOLED screen that just embarrasses Apple's display in every department except dpi.

Other than the screen issue, I can live with the 4S spec bump.
post #46 of 67
I find with a lot of the discussions about these lawsuits is the implicit idea that American legal norms are universal when clearly this is not true. The Community Design Patents in Germany would have been laughed out of court in the USA for example. So with that in mind, why is there an assumption that FRAND works the same way everywhere around the world? If Samsung's lawyers were smart they would find every country where FRAND does not work like how it's presumed to work in the USA and then apply for bans in those countries.
post #47 of 67
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jetz View Post

I find with a lot of the discussions about these lawsuits is the implicit idea that American legal norms are universal when clearly this is not true. The Community Design Patents in Germany would have been laughed out of court in the USA for example. So with that in mind, why is there an assumption that FRAND works the same way everywhere around the world? If Samsung's lawyers were smart they would find every country where FRAND does not work like how it's presumed to work in the USA and then apply for bans in those countries.

Europe would be the wrong place to look for a court to ignore your FRAND obligations.
post #48 of 67
FREE publicity and spiked early adoption of iP4S for iPhone shipments that managed to elude the ban.
post #49 of 67
Quote:
Originally Posted by iKol View Post

Agreed- I want Siri with the fringe on top.

Only in Oklahoma!
post #50 of 67
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post

Exactly. This is exactly like the Nokia case where Nokia tried to use FRAND patent to bludgeon Apple. Apple's response was "we're willing to pay your normal FRAND license fees, but no more". Same thing here.

You always claim this, but never post anything proving it, why?
post #51 of 67
deleted
post #52 of 67
Quote:
Originally Posted by mknopp View Post

Seriously, why doesn't Apple just go buy some patents for some required wireless technology (shouldn't be hard as there seems to be about a million different patents on the necessary parts of any wireless device) and then Apple and Samsung can sue and block each other into oblivion.

That's precisely what is happening.
post #53 of 67
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post

Of course it's not free - and no one ever said it was.

First, since Apple is buying chipsets from others, some or all of the royalty is being paid by their suppliers.

Second, it's very much like the Nokia case. You can't use FRAND to get an injunction. Rather, you can sue for damages and future royalties. So if Samsung wants to sue Apple for infringement and royalties, they are free to do so and if their demands are FRAND, then Apple will undoubtedly comply - as they did with Nokia. But attempting to get an injunction is not allowed under FRAND rules. Read the Foss Patents article.

Presumably Samsung's legal team, which is no doubt quite as talented and resourceful as Apple's, has considered this and feels they still have sufficient grounds to request an injunction.
post #54 of 67
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ronbo View Post

Everything but the outside of the thing got a major overhaul, and you're unhappy. Unreasonable expectations will make your whole life miserable. Did you want a change in the case shape? You obviously didn't hear Jobs talking about one of the interesting bonuses of the 3GS's smooth launch: there were already a million cases available, because the phone was the same shape as the 3. Did you expect LTE? Surely you didn't. I'm in one of the AT&T LTE cities, but most people aren't. Apple didn't launch 3G when a few people could get it. They launched 3G when most people could get it, and when the chips were compact and power efficient. Apple never gets pushed into doing things before they're ready. And certainly not by people whose expectations were set by rumors sites. You need to learn to read these kinds of things and keep a proper perspective about what's actually likely and what's not--otherwise you might want to consider eschewing these kinds of sites, because they'll just make you upset. The iPhone 4S is an excellent phone. Outstanding processor, stunning camera, and amazing antenna tech. And as far as that antenna goes, don't stamp your foot too hard demanding they change the case next time. They may have just gone and done something they think is optimal. That antenna trick is pretty neat.

Cheers.

In short you need to stop watching Droid commercials. There's this new technology in the TV industry called special effects, they sometimes use it to make things on TV appear to do things not actually possible. A phone can't actually turn your arm into a robot arm or launch you into some epic scifi adventure.
post #55 of 67
Quote:
Originally Posted by John F. View Post

From FOSSPATENTS

Today's announcement by Samsung states that the petitions to be filed today in France and Italy "will each cite two patent infringements related to wireless telecommunications technology, specifically Wideband Code Division Multiple Access (WCDMA) standards for 3G mobile handsets". Very importantly, Samsung's announcement declares those patents to be "essential", which is an incredibly important term in connection with industry standards. If those patents are indeed essential to the standard, then Samsung as a participant in the relevant standard-setting process has an obligation to grant licenses to everyone, including Apple, on FRAND (fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory) terms. Apple already accuses Samsung in other jurisdictions, including but not limited to the U.S., of failing to honor those obligations.

This is what the FRAND issue comes down to: if those patents are essential, then there are two questions to be analyzed by a court: Does Apple have to pay? And if so, how much can Samsung ask for under a FRAND framework? But an injunction can only be justified if and when Apple refuses to pay a FRAND royalty that it owes in the binding opinion of a court of competent jurisdiction.

http://fosspatents.blogspot.com/2011...e-4s-over.html

That's what it is all about. Not just if Apple infringes, but if Samsung is asking fair terms for this 3G patent that is part of a standard.

I agree with you. Samsung is trying to ban Iphon 4S as Apple refuses Frand terms. I would do the same thing just to bring them to the table.

The problem I have Apple is that, it seems, all patents by others were under Frand terms and that their pentents are not. IMO, Apple is taking too much advantages at the back of technologies, under Frand, developed by other companies, while agressively using their absurd patents in courts against real inovator like Samsung. In other words, Apple is abusing patent system around world to the greatest extend.
post #56 of 67
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WCDMA

Really Samsung? YOUR patents?

WCDMA was invented by NTT DoCoMo who are Japanese not Korean and who I suspect own the standard even though it is an international standard.

So let me get this straight, Samsung is trying to get an injunction against Apple for patents relating to a system that Samsung doesn't actually own? Meanwhile Apple is using parts from Qualcomm so if anyone would be infringing (doubtful) it would be them.

I reiterate, maybe North Korea should just nuke its neighbour then Apple would be all sorted. Go Kim Il Jong.
post #57 of 67
Quote:
Originally Posted by ConradJoe View Post

Companies need to protect their valuable IP from copycats. Samsung had no choice.

Right! Look at the Iphone 4S specs they are just like Samsung's. What a copycat Apple.
post #58 of 67
Quote:
Originally Posted by hjb View Post

Right! Look at the Iphone 4S specs they are just like Samsung's. What a copycat Apple.

By your reasoning, only one company could own the "specs" to a class of devices. Unfortunately for you, "specs" are not IP.

It's as plain as it can be that this is a PR move by Samsung to create the appearance of Apple having dirty hands, to balance Samsung's current negative press. I'm sure Samsung's PR consultants have political experience, because this is a classic negative-campaigning move -- if you've done something wrong, make sure the public thinks the other guy is dirty too. In the end, the public hates both sides and stops paying attention to *any* of the negative information. Which is a big big win for the party that is really engaging in wrong-doing.

I am a lawyer, BTW (not an IP lawyer, though). I frequently get asked by clients "can I get sued for this?" The answer is that anyone can sue anybody for anything -- you can't stop someone from filing papers in a courthouse somewhere. That why it's utterly meaningless to send out a press release saying "we sued XYZ Corp for breach of whatever." It's slightly more serious than a Sternly Worded Letter, but it doesn't mean crap until a court gives them some actual relief.

The whole thing is a PR stunt from beginning to end, until we hear otherwise from a court of competent jurisdiction.

Would Samsung's lawyers willingly file a weak claim for an injunction in order to support a PR offensive? I'll bet Samsung pays its lawyers on the order of tens of millions dollars a month. And that revenue stream supports a whole set of inflexible overhead costs (rent, salaries, etc.) that cannot be easily reduced if Samsung fires the lawyers because it doesn't like the legal advice it gets. The complexity of IP law makes it impossible for anyone to conclude at first glance whether a claim is frivolous or not -- and when Samsung's weak hand is exposed they will just quietly withdraw the claim, having achieved their objective of providing some talking points against Apple in the meantime.

Samsung's lawyers face a choice -- file a really weak IP claim in Italian courts, or piss off the biggest and most profitable client they've ever had or are likely to have. At the absolute worst, they might get a slap on the wrist for filing a weak claim. Would you risk a slap on the wrist in exchange for monthly billables in the eight figure range? Yes, you would.

In my mind, the only relevant piece of information in this whole dispute is that a court of law enjoined Samsung from selling its product in two countries because it infringed on Apple's rights -- that's not spin, judges have looked at this and issued broad injunctions against Samsung. Until Samsung gets similar injunctions against Apple, it's all just smoke and mirrors on Samsung's part.

It is *shocking* to me just how much the Galaxy Tab looks and feels like an iPad. I'm a gadget guy, and at first glance they look nearly identical. The chance that an average consumer looking for an iPad would be confused by a Galaxy Tab is significant IMHO.

My take on this situation is this -- Samsung has decided that tablets are the future of consumer electronics, and that extreme measures are required to keep Apple from establishing unbreachable dominance in the segment. Their strategic commitment to this goal is impressive, they are willing to risk injunctions, bad press, and billions in supply contracts with Apple in order to carve out a sizable portion of the tablet market.

Samsung's bet is that the legal process is too slow to stop them - by the time a court gets around to it, their position in the marketplace will be a fait accompli. No judge can issue an order, two or three years after the fact, that can effectively stop them from doing what they are doing today.

That's one hell of a bet, IMHO. And they might well succeed.

But the idea that Samsung has to protect its little old self from those non-innovative IP thieves at Apple is possibly the most laughable thing I've ever read on the internet.

Short version: better pro-Samsung trolls, please.
post #59 of 67
Quote:
Originally Posted by hjb View Post

I agree with you. Samsung is trying to ban Iphon 4S as Apple refuses Frand terms. I would do the same thing just to bring them to the table.

The problem I have Apple is that, it seems, all patents by others were under Frand terms and that their pentents are not. IMO, Apple is taking too much advantages at the back of technologies, under Frand, developed by other companies, while agressively using their absurd patents in courts against real inovator like Samsung. In other words, Apple is abusing patent system around world to the greatest extend.

Apple doesn't have any wireless patents. All the wireless 2G, 3G, 4G tech under FRAND or RAND were made before the original iPhone. There is no FRAND for interface and design patents (i think), like Apple's .

Quote:
Originally Posted by walshbj View Post

Samsung is even copying Apple's legal moves.

LOL that's hilarious.
post #60 of 67
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jetz View Post

I find with a lot of the discussions about these lawsuits is the implicit idea that American legal norms are universal when clearly this is not true. The Community Design Patents in Germany would have been laughed out of court in the USA for example. So with that in mind, why is there an assumption that FRAND works the same way everywhere around the world? If Samsung's lawyers were smart they would find every country where FRAND does not work like how it's presumed to work in the USA and then apply for bans in those countries.

You'd no doubt agree that Apple has every right to use their H.264 patents in a countersuit against Samsung and claim damages relating to almost everything Samsung makes?

Of course this ridiculous scenario is unlikely to happen seeing as Apple pooled those patents under FRAND and they are not grasping at straws.

The hypocrisy that droidtards show is absolutely astonishing.
Better than my Bose, better than my Skullcandy's, listening to Mozart through my LeBron James limited edition PowerBeats by Dre is almost as good as my Sennheisers.
Reply
Better than my Bose, better than my Skullcandy's, listening to Mozart through my LeBron James limited edition PowerBeats by Dre is almost as good as my Sennheisers.
Reply
post #61 of 67
Quote:
Originally Posted by MacRulez View Post

I tried, but that post was so much more laden with his emotional diatribes than even his "normal" writing that I filed it under "TL/DR" and went to groklaw instead.

Obviously Groklaw had nothing worth contributing to the discussion, otherwise you could grace us by sharing the opinions you found there.
Better than my Bose, better than my Skullcandy's, listening to Mozart through my LeBron James limited edition PowerBeats by Dre is almost as good as my Sennheisers.
Reply
Better than my Bose, better than my Skullcandy's, listening to Mozart through my LeBron James limited edition PowerBeats by Dre is almost as good as my Sennheisers.
Reply
post #62 of 67
Quote:
Originally Posted by hjb View Post

Right! Look at the Iphone 4S specs they are just like Samsung's. What a copycat Apple.

The 4S is just a small iPad 2.
Better than my Bose, better than my Skullcandy's, listening to Mozart through my LeBron James limited edition PowerBeats by Dre is almost as good as my Sennheisers.
Reply
Better than my Bose, better than my Skullcandy's, listening to Mozart through my LeBron James limited edition PowerBeats by Dre is almost as good as my Sennheisers.
Reply
post #63 of 67
I've truly come to hate Samsung and their idea that it is OK to steal IP, look and functionality. IP laws may be a mess and in need of improvement, but nothing should allow this shameless YOU-INVENT-IT-WE-STEAL-IT mentality. Apple needs to fight this fight until there is only one left standing. I only hope that there is the will to do that now that SJ is gone.

DON"T BACK DOWN.
AppleInsider = Apple-in-cider. It's a joke!

I've used macs since 1985 when I typed up my first research paper. Never used anything else never wanted to.
Reply
AppleInsider = Apple-in-cider. It's a joke!

I've used macs since 1985 when I typed up my first research paper. Never used anything else never wanted to.
Reply
post #64 of 67
F**k you Samsung go learn a thing or two from Steve Jobs. Go watch his 2005 Stanford speech and come back when you've grown some balls and a brain. Get stuffed ya wankers!!! I didn't buy a Samsung screen recently even though I have been filling my house with it the past few years. I'll be avoiding you as much as possible. Even LG is preferable at this stage.
post #65 of 67
Quote:
Originally Posted by nvidia2008 View Post

F**k you Samsung go learn a thing or two from Steve Jobs. Go watch his 2005 Stanford speech and come back when you've grown some balls and a brain. Get stuffed ya wankers!!! I didn't buy a Samsung screen recently even though I have been filling my house with it the past few years. I'll be avoiding you as much as possible. Even LG is preferable at this stage.

Wow, what did they do to your mother to make you so mad?

Don't worry though, I just got a new samsung monitor and printer and plugged for my Macs to make people like you happy...
post #66 of 67
Apple should exercise some caution with these patent wars. Everyone should because nothing good can come from it long term.

If anything it motivates people to want to retaliate and sue you and pursue an injunction.
post #67 of 67
Each company which has come out with its own phone, ipad after iphone of Apple is a Copy Cat. Samsung is the biggest Copy Cat of all. They do not have any moral right to sue Apple which is a great innovator in the first place. This attempt by Samsung is only to bolster its sagging sales. Samsung should be taught a lesson of a Life time!!!!
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: iPhone
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPhone › Samsung attempting to block sales of Apple's iPhone 4S in France, Italy