or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › Netherlands judge denies Samsung's request to halt iPhone, iPad sales
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Netherlands judge denies Samsung's request to halt iPhone, iPad sales - Page 2

post #41 of 69
To MacRulz in particular...

You seem to think that apple owes Samsung frand licensing fees. That might be true or not.

What I think apple will argue, with solid backing, is that since they are using
Qualcomm chips for which qualcomm has already paid the frand licensing (there are your missing "receipts" btw), that asking apple to pay as well is a double payment. I don't know the legal basis for this but it seems to me if you use a licensed product that you should not have to double pay the fees. If one were to buy this arguement then I suppose that the telcos and end users should have to pay as well ad absurdum.

Food for thought or...
post #42 of 69
deleted
post #43 of 69
deleted
post #44 of 69
Quote:
Originally Posted by MacRulez View Post

No argument here. I agree: it might be true.

Unlike so many here who have mystical powers of prognostication with court proceedings, I don't have reason to believe that the judges who haven't yet dismissed these charges as self-evidently stupid are themselves stupid for not doing so. This is a job for the courts to decide.

As usual, you're misrepresenting the case as well as the opinions of people posting here.

I don't think ANYONE said that Samsung's FRAND countersuit was self-evidently stupid - just that they couldn't get an injunction because of FRAND rules and they couldn't stop Apple from using the technology as long as Apple pays the same fees as everyone else. And that's what the judges have consistently ruled.

Quote:
Originally Posted by MacRulez View Post

I'm willing to speculate only the long-term outcome: I have a long-standing wager no one here has yet been confident enough in Apple to take me up on, that by the time all of their suits with Samsung are settled they'll wind up paying out a little more than they take in, just as happened with Nokia.

Maybe because that's a stupid wager.

Even if Apple wins every single case, Apple will be paying out more than the take in. Apple is willing to pay FRAND license fees (as shown by the Nokia case). They are not interested in licensing their proprietary technology, so if Apple wins, they'll be receiving ZERO license fees - because they can stop others from using their technology.
"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 69
Quote:
Originally Posted by MacRulez View Post

It may be that the attorneys at Samsung are indeed high, and that the courts that have not yet dismissed their suits on the grounds of being self-evidently stupid are also high.

But it may be the case that Apple either didn't realize that a payment was due to Samsung, or didn't make that payment for some other reason.

Is it really the case that there is no penalty for attempting to avoid payment?

Just the hard cost of legal fees, nothing more?

So anyone can skip out on any FRAND license fees they want, and the worst that can happen if they get caught is just the same as they would have paid if they had been honest?

Forgive me if I seem a bit dense in this area, but this is the first time I've seen anything like such a concept of a system that encourages non-payment of licensee fees.

Exactly. That's how FRAND works. If you get caught not paying the fees, then you can be assessed back fees and legal expenses - and that's it. Once again, you're babbling on about a subject you don't understand.

FRAND operates under a different set of rules.
"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 #46 of 69
Quote:
Originally Posted by MacRulez View Post

Thanks for the tip. The most recent article at Engadget I could find was this one from 9 September:

:http://www.engadget.com/2011/09/09/g...laxy-tab-10-1/

The word "permanent" does not appear in the article, or anywhere else in the page, but the article does refer to the injunction as "preliminary".

The "pre" in "preliminary" means "pre-trial", so by definition such an injunction can't be permanent per se, since it hasn't even been to court yet.

I was however able to find an article at PC World which refers to the injunction as "permanent":
http://www.pcworld.com/article/23973...ng_tablet.html

That's an interesting concept, quite different from such processes in other countries, since the suit apparently had no trial, simply a decree in a preliminary hearing.

As Mueller notes, the injunction will stay in effect until it is either overturned by the Higher Regional Court in a fast-track appeals proceeding or by the (lower) Regional Court at the end of the full-blown main proceeding, which would probably take about a year.
http://fosspatents.blogspot.com/2011...alaxy-tab.html

Unless Meuller is mistaken, it seems that "permanent" may not be so permanent after all.

It's also noteworthy that for all the dozen or so Samsung phones Apple originally started pulling into the courtroom, the only Samsung product on which they're getting any traction is specifically the Galaxy 10.1. All other Samsung products - phones, tablets, everything - are entirely unaffected by the relatively few injunctions won thus far.

Minor changes in 10.2 will put this entirely behind them - what will AI have left to write about then?

Oy. Did you really have to be on the obnoxious end of the spectrum and define "preliminary?". Here is a link: http://www.engadget.com/2011/09/09/g...laxy-tab-10-1/
note that the title says "upholds" which means that the court agreed with the preliminary hearing. That was the official trial. Samsung has to appeal and win to lift the ban.
2010 mac mini/iPad OG/iPhone 4/appletv OG/appletv 2/ BT trackpad and keyboard/time capsule/ Wii
Reply
2010 mac mini/iPad OG/iPhone 4/appletv OG/appletv 2/ BT trackpad and keyboard/time capsule/ Wii
Reply
post #47 of 69
Quote:
Originally Posted by jd_in_sb View Post

This article talks about blocking iPhone/iPad in Netherlands (which was denied), not any Samsung products.

Lol.....
post #48 of 69
ok apple needs to pay up and stop riding on the fact that they are a client.
post #49 of 69
I can understand why apple would sue. Design is apple's thing. When it comes to features and quality, apple can't beat Samsung. The very touch screen is made by samsung. Maybe ten something years ago, I remember seeing in a korehow, this flip phone that had video conferencing feature. It's standard pretty 'much in the most basic phones in korea curntly for a while now - probably in most of asia. Ohwell.
post #50 of 69
deleted
post #51 of 69
deleted
post #52 of 69
Quote:
Originally Posted by applecider View Post

... What I think apple will argue, with solid backing, is that since they are using
Qualcomm chips for which qualcomm has already paid the frand licensing (there are your missing "receipts" btw), that asking apple to pay as well is a double payment. ...

That's exactly the case, and why Samsung is behaving no differently than Lodsys, trying to jack people with patents that the licensing fees have already been paid for. Desperation and stupidity don't even begin to describe it.
post #53 of 69
Quote:
Originally Posted by MacRulez View Post

No argument here. I agree: it might be true.

Unlike so many here who have mystical powers of prognostication with court proceedings, I don't have reason to believe that the judges who haven't yet dismissed these charges as self-evidently stupid are themselves stupid for not doing so. This is a job for the courts to decide.

I'm willing to speculate only the long-term outcome: I have a long-standing wager no one here has yet been confident enough in Apple to take me up on, that by the time all of their suits with Samsung are settled they'll wind up paying out a little more than they take in, just as happened with Nokia.

You're happy to wager on the long term because the short term is going against Samsung. Apple doesn't want Samsung's money, they can print their own. Actually printing is probably slower than Apple can make it
What Apple wants to do is stop Samsung from selling their knock off products(I know, you don't think they are knock offs). They're having success with this in multiple countries.
post #54 of 69
deleted
post #55 of 69
deleted
post #56 of 69
Quote:
Originally Posted by MacRulez View Post

Is it?

Gosh, if it all looked like Samsung was doomed you'd think I'd have a line out the door of people willing to take such a sucker bet.

You edited out the part of my post that dealt with your bet. That's kinda lame.
post #57 of 69
Quote:
Originally Posted by MacRulez View Post

Stupidity? Maybe not so much:

Two courts recently ruled against Samsung's injunction requests, but not on the grounds that there was no infringement by Apple - merely over the amount of royalties requested.

In the Dutch court Samsung's initial offer was 2.4%
http://9to5mac.com/2011/09/26/apple-...-every-patent/

So what would be a reasonable amount? Half of that? Less than half? 1%? There appears to be no fixed formula for these things, and the judge in the Dutch court noted that it would have to be negotiated between the two parties for that reason.

Not correct. Samsung's initial offer was 2.4% FOR EVERY PATENT. Since Samsung is claiming dozens of patents, that amount is obviously absurd. Even if they only claimed a dozen patents, that's 30% of Apple's retail selling price - which only makes Samsung look greedy and stupid.

For comparison, Microsoft is getting $5 per phone for their license fees - and that is for non-FRAND items. FRAND licenses are typically less.

Quote:
Originally Posted by majjo View Post

And you can assume that losing Samsung as a supplier is not going to have an effect on Apple?

Can Apple easily and quickly find another supplier that can match the quantity, quality, and price that Samsung offers them; Will the switch in suppliers adversely affect Apple products' availability and quality (eg. will we get light leakage on iPad LCDs again)?

Absolutely moot. Apple doesn't HAVE to switch. If they can't find an equal alternative, they can continue to buy from Samsung. But Apple has the option to choose someone else. If Apple does so, Samsung loses.
"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 #58 of 69
deleted
post #59 of 69
deleted
post #60 of 69
Quote:
Originally Posted by MacRulez View Post

Okay, okay, to help you avoid the temptation to engage in name-calling going forward, let's go ahead and reproduce your post in its entirety since it was oh so very important:



Summary: "Apple has tons of money so it's okay if they spend more than they make from these litigation adventures, since it's shutting Samsung's products down."

Having faithfully copied your post in full, let's take a look at what it didn't include:

- Every Samsung device originally submitted by Apple in their complaint has been allowed to continue without interference of any kind, with the sole exception of one model of one device (the Samsung Galaxy 10.1), and only in some jurisdictions.

- The handful of injunctions against that one device are all temporary.

- The CA judge has raised questions about Apple's ability to demonstrate the viability of their design patents.

- The Dutch judge ruled against Apple in every claim related to device design.

- Given that all six points comprising Apple's design patent have utilitarian benefit, the survival of the design patent is very much in question.

- Even if Apple's design patent is allowed to stand, minor changes to the Galaxy 10.2 can completely obviate all of Apple's claims.

- At best, Apple is stopping only one model of one product, which is due for an update long before the case is settled anyway.

So you're right in one small way: Christmas sales will likely suck for Samsung's sales of that one model of that one device in a handful of countries.

Everything else Samsung makes is entirely unaffected, and in most of the world even the one model in question is completely unaffected.

How does any of this suggest Samsung is doomed?

I didn't call you any names. I said editing my post was lame. It was. As lame as lame can be. If you think I'm calling you names report me. I never said samsung was doomed. That's why no one will take your bet in fact. Most people would agree that at some point this will end and hundreds of millions will change hands one way or another. But how many more countries will get put on the ban list before that happens? Samsungs pain is happening now.
post #61 of 69
Quote:
Originally Posted by MacRulez View Post

Are you suggesting that a total cost 2.4% of SRP for all patents would be a reasonable amount?

Such an amount would be far greater than the profits from Apple's components orders.

I didn't say any such thing.

I said that 2.4% for each patent is absurd.

Then I said that Microsoft is receiving $5 per unit from Android handset makers for all of their patents - many of which are not FRAND. And FRAND licensing is generally less.

By comparison, I would expect that Apple would pay less than $5 per handset to license FRAND technologies from Samsung - and much of that has already been paid by the chip manufacturers. But even if you choose $5, that's well under 1% of the price of a handset.
"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 #62 of 69
Quote:
Considering that Apple gets a discount for buying components in bulk and paying upfront with cash, would Samsung be better off replacing Apple with a bunch of smaller clients to whom they do not have to offer a bulk discount?

You answered your own question with the statement in bold. The smaller clients aren't going to give Samsung an upfront cash payment. Most of them are going to buy on credit. Also, one customer buying $8 billion worth of stuff is far more valuable than 10 customers buying a combined total of $8 billion.

I agree though that Apple should consider quality when choosing a supplier. However, Apple has shown that they don't fire from the hip. Chances are that if they've chosen to move to another supplier, they've done their due diligence.

It also may well be that the media is embellishing this. Apple is a large customer. They might be trying to diversify component suppliers because one supplier can't make enough for Apple.
post #63 of 69
deleted
post #64 of 69
Quote:
Originally Posted by vvswarup View Post

You answered your own question with the statement in bold. The smaller clients aren't going to give Samsung an upfront cash payment. Most of them are going to buy on credit. Also, one customer buying $8 billion worth of stuff is far more valuable than 10 customers buying a combined total of $8 billion.

Says who?

First, the $8 B customer is probably paying lower prices than the $800 M customers. Second, most companies intentionally try to diversify and avoid having too many eggs in one basket.

Quote:
Originally Posted by vvswarup View Post

I agree though that Apple should consider quality when choosing a supplier. However, Apple has shown that they don't fire from the hip. Chances are that if they've chosen to move to another supplier, they've done their due diligence.

It also may well be that the media is embellishing this. Apple is a large customer. They might be trying to diversify component suppliers because one supplier can't make enough for Apple.

Of course the press is embellishing. Sometimes simply making things up, as well. That's what the press does.
"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 #65 of 69
Qualcomm paid the frand patent fees.

Apple uses licensed qualcomm chips.

Apple gives samsung a wink and a nod.

Why are we still talking about this?
post #66 of 69
deleted
post #67 of 69
deleted
post #68 of 69
Quote:
Originally Posted by MacRulez View Post

Some reports ponder whether reason will prevail:

Report: Apple May Switch to Inferior, Pricier Chips to Spite Samsung
http://www.dailytech.com/Report+Appl...ticle22841.htm

Not likely.

Now, Apple could switch to alternatives if they had to, but they would only consider doing so for good business reasons. Accepting a more expensive chip which uses more power and is lower quality or performance just out of spite isn't going to happen.
"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 #69 of 69
deleted
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: General Discussion
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › Netherlands judge denies Samsung's request to halt iPhone, iPad sales