or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › Apple tells Samsung it will only license out 'lower level patents'
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Apple tells Samsung it will only license out 'lower level patents'

post #1 of 83
Thread Starter 
In its ongoing legal battle with Samsung, Apple has told its rival that it owns a "thicket of patents," but it will only license "lower level patents" to competing companies.

The revelation comes from a 65-page document Apple filed in Australian court last week, after the iPad maker was granted a preliminary injunction against Samsung's Galaxy Tab 10.1. Florian Mueller of FOSS Patents went through the filing, and declared it "one of the most interesting court orders I have read in connection with mobile devices."

In the filing, Apple revealed that it is prepared to allow Android device makers the ability to license "some lower level patents." But Apple also wants to keep many of its inventions exclusive to its own iOS products.

Mueller said the document shows that Apple did not begin pursuing legal action against Android device makers simply to obtain a licensing deal. That's in contrast to Microsoft, which is believed to receive $5 per unit for every Android device sold by HTC.

Microsoft's licensing deal with HTC is believed to be so lucrative that some pundits have speculated that the company could make more money off of Google's Android platform than it does from its own Windows Phone 7. But Apple has taken a different approach.

"Apple optimizes for product differentiation," Mueller wrote. "Apple isn't Microsoft, which concluded a license deal with Samsung as well as eight other Android device makers. Those two companies have different business models in general and with respect to patents in particular."

Microsoft and Samsung announced in late September that Microsoft will receive royalties for Samsung's Android-powered smartphones and tablets. The two companies also agreed to cooperate in the development and marketing of the Windows Phone platform.

Apple has had the upper hand in its legal encounters with Samsung, successfully securing the injunction against the Galaxy Tab 10.1 in Australia, as well as another, separate injunction in Germany. But Samsung has not found as much success, as last week a Dutch judge ruled in favor of Apple and denied Samsung's request to halt iPhone and iPad sales in the Netherlands.
post #2 of 83
That's a pretty anti-competitive statement. Oh well.
post #3 of 83
Quote:
Originally Posted by AppleInsider View Post

In the filing, Apple revealed that it is prepared to allow Android device makers the ability to license "some lower level patents." But Apple also wants to keep many of its inventions exclusive to its own iOS products.

There's got to be more to the story than this. Does any hardware or software manufacturer license all of their IP to competitors?
post #4 of 83
Apple has never licensed out any patents its invented, not sure why they would start now.
post #5 of 83
Quote:
Originally Posted by MacTel View Post

That's a pretty anti-competitive statement. Oh well.

I disagree. Apple is not against competition ..... but they are wary of spending their resources (time and money) to develop superior devices, only to watch lazy companies steal their designs and ideas under the guise of competition. If others want to compete ... do so .... but use your own ideas .... no?
See, in the record business, you can show someone your song, and they don’t copy it. In the tech business, you show somebody your idea, and they steal it. (Jimmy Iovine)
Reply
See, in the record business, you can show someone your song, and they don’t copy it. In the tech business, you show somebody your idea, and they steal it. (Jimmy Iovine)
Reply
post #6 of 83
Quote:
Originally Posted by newbee View Post

I disagree. Apple is not against competition ..... but they are wary of spending their resources (time and money) to develop superior devices, only to watch lazy companies steal their designs and ideas under the guise of competition. If others want to compete ... do so .... but use your own ideas .... no?

Agreed.
Enjoying the new Mac Pro ... it's smokin'
Been using Apple since Apple ][ - Long on AAPL so biased
nMac Pro 6 Core, MacBookPro i7, MacBookPro i5, iPhones 5 and 5s, iPad Air, 2013 Mac mini.
Reply
Enjoying the new Mac Pro ... it's smokin'
Been using Apple since Apple ][ - Long on AAPL so biased
nMac Pro 6 Core, MacBookPro i7, MacBookPro i5, iPhones 5 and 5s, iPad Air, 2013 Mac mini.
Reply
post #7 of 83
That seems like a dangerous strategy. What's going to happen when Apple needs to licence patents from other people?
post #8 of 83
Quote:
Originally Posted by zindako View Post

Apple has never licensed out any patents its invented, not sure why they would start now.

Untrue.

Originally posted by Relic

...those little naked weirdos are going to get me investigated.
Reply

Originally posted by Relic

...those little naked weirdos are going to get me investigated.
Reply
post #9 of 83
Quote:
Originally Posted by zindako View Post

Apple has never licensed out any patents its invented, not sure why they would start now.

The famous $150 million investment Microsoft made in Apple in 1997 including patent cross-licensing and ended their patent disputes.
post #10 of 83
Quote:
Originally Posted by MacTel View Post

That's a pretty anti-competitive statement. Oh well.

On the contrary. It's a very competitive statement.

"Apple should pull the plug on the iPhone."

John C. Dvorak, 2007
Reply

"Apple should pull the plug on the iPhone."

John C. Dvorak, 2007
Reply
post #11 of 83
Quote:
Originally Posted by zindako View Post

Apple has never licensed out any patents its invented, not sure why they would start now.

Not sure where you got this from. They license plenty of patents. They generally license their patents through consortiums (like MPEG Consortium or Khronos Group), but they do direct licensing too (like recently with Nokia). This is basically why Motorola's patents were not very good for legal defense (or is it offense... not sure with our mutually assured destruction patent system) because they are licensed through various consortiums for open standards.
post #12 of 83
Quote:
Originally Posted by Daniel001 View Post

That seems like a dangerous strategy. What's going to happen when Apple needs to licence patents from other people?

OMG, what if Coca-Cola needs to license patents from Pepsi? They'd better share the forumla for Coke, no?

"Apple should pull the plug on the iPhone."

John C. Dvorak, 2007
Reply

"Apple should pull the plug on the iPhone."

John C. Dvorak, 2007
Reply
post #13 of 83
What does "lower level" mean in regards to patents?

This article doesn't explain. And neither does the original article that this article's based on.
post #14 of 83
Quote:
Originally Posted by am8449 View Post

What does "lower level" mean in regards to patents?

The article doesn't explain.

My guess is that these are patents that are either more general or are required to implement standards.
post #15 of 83
Forbes wrote that Microsoft will make billions of Android.
Between 700-1000 million just next year. This is much more then their Windows Mobile division does earn and probably will ever earn.

In lastest Google report they say that Google makes 2.5 billion on mobile advertising. Some less intelligent news sites have reported that "Android generates 2.5 billion". No, its all mobile devices with Google search engine including Android and iOS.

Microsoft makes more money on Android then Google does, since licensing is free money.

Android is so far the most expensive "free" (linux) OS in the world. Google have spent upwards 20 billion on buying stuff like Android, patents from IBM and Motorola mobile. They have also lost patent cases with their Linux code in Android.

If Google had some self criticism they would not have launched Android and instead continued to pay phone makers to make Google the default search engine. Far cheaper.

Google could also have invented something themselves, so they did not have to buy patents and license stuff.

And this is just the beginning. The ruling Apple Vs HTC / Samsung will probably cost Android OEMs even more.

I would have no problem with Google if the simply had developed their own OS like WebOS. But that is not their culture. Google buys stuff and release it. They settle after the fact, like the royalties Google have to pay for all Youtube videos.
post #16 of 83
Quote:
Originally Posted by poke View Post

The famous $150 million investment Microsoft made in Apple in 1997 including patent cross-licensing and ended their patent disputes.

Microsoft also payed a settlement fee that have not been disclosed. Indirectly they admitted to do wrong things. (Like Intel paying AMD and so on...)

If Apple had not been near bankruptcy in 1997, they would not have accepted those terms. MSFT made a bargain. Especially since they sold the 150 million Apple stocks with a large profit.
post #17 of 83
Quote:
Originally Posted by ConradJoe View Post

There's got to be more to the story than this. Does any hardware or software manufacturer license all of their IP to competitors?

Sure it is. I belive that deal is about A4, A5 chips
post #18 of 83
Smack!!
post #19 of 83
Apple better make sure they don't step on Samsung's patent-holding toes with any future product or they better be prepared to develop a new or different way to achieve or implement it. I know I'm making a generalized statement but there are so many patents to make so many CE products function that Samsung probably has oodles of key patents covering everything from TVs to cellular and general telephony technology to computers and chips. How does one establish where the line is drawn between low-level and high-level patents? Seems subjective to me, and I think it would be difficult for any given Judge to decide where the line is, also.


Does anyone here know with any certainty whether or not Samsung is infringing on an important, key patent unique to Apple products, which makes their function that much more superior, or is this more of a smokescreen to allow Apple to monopolize in a sneaky kind of way? In other words, is Apple not playing nice in the sandbox or is there a truly unique and legitimate patent to protect, and if the shoe was on any other CE company's foot would that company be fighting with as much vigor as Apple?


Survey: Apple...

Running scared and engaging in unfair practice to protect market share?

or

Fighting for what they believe in, protecting their IP and forcing other to innovate, invent and invest to the same extent as they do?

Why does Apple bashing and trolling make people feel so good?

Reply

Why does Apple bashing and trolling make people feel so good?

Reply
post #20 of 83
Quote:
Originally Posted by Daniel001 View Post

That seems like a dangerous strategy. What's going to happen when Apple needs to licence patents from other people?

It's not complicated at all.

If it makes more $$ for them to do so, these 'other people' will. If it doesn't, they won't.

In the latter case, then Apple had better innovate, and do it differently/better.
post #21 of 83
The strategy is really simple. License other companies' IP but don't let other companies license Apple's own IP. That way, Apple will always have the best devices. Who can argue with this strategy?

Nokia/Samsug/Motorola etc are just stupid to buy into this 'standards' thing, especially Nokia, if they'd have kept their IPs to themselves in the first place and never license to anybody, they'd have been able to shut down Apple's iPhone long time ago and it won't be in such misery right now.
post #22 of 83
Quote:
Originally Posted by drobforever View Post

The strategy is really simple. License other companies' IP but don't let other companies license Apple's own IP. That way, Apple will always have the best devices. Who can argue with this

I can.

If you are following Foss's blog and AppleInsider articles you will know that Apple is a participant and key contributor to a number of open standards. Apple also cross licenses with others like Nokia who have genuinely original and useful IP.

But it is becoming increasingly clear that Apple has some original IP around capacitive miltitouch, the stuff Jobs was referring to in his keynote intro of the original iPhone when he said "and boy have we patented it!" If another manufacturer has equally powerful and valuable IP I am sure Apple will be happy to cross-license, as they did with Nokia. Otherwise, the companies that don't do R&D (or dont succeed at it) are probably out of luck.

Apple is absolutely and passionately committed to being Different. They succeed by product differentiation above all else. This is their business model and thus they won't license important IP that contributes to that differentiation.

Macintosh 512Ke.......

Reply

Macintosh 512Ke.......

Reply
post #23 of 83
If the current patent disputes are an indication, then maybe the "lower level patents" cover underlying technology, as opposed to patents on aspects of the technology that are apparent to users, and thus contribute to product differentiation.
post #24 of 83
Obviously for strategic reasons.
post #25 of 83
"I sold the E, to Samsung, they're Samesung now" - Devon Banks
post #26 of 83
Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post

If the current patent disputes are an indication, then maybe the "lower level patents" cover underlying technology, as opposed to patents on aspects of the technology that are apparent to users, and thus contribute to product differentiation.

Agreed. Apple developed and subsequently made their Webkit browser engine an open standard (it now powers Safari and Chrome among others) but would never open-source or license the interface elements of Safari, OSX or iOS.

Macintosh 512Ke.......

Reply

Macintosh 512Ke.......

Reply
post #27 of 83
Quote:
Originally Posted by Obi-Wan Kubrick View Post

"I sold the E, to Samsung, they're Samesung now" - Devon Banks

I just 'slavishly' copied your post to make my own.
post #28 of 83
Quote:
Originally Posted by shompa View Post

Forbes wrote that Microsoft will make billions of Android.
Between 700-1000 million just next year. This is much more then their Windows Mobile division does earn and probably will ever earn.

In lastest Google report they say that Google makes 2.5 billion on mobile advertising. Some less intelligent news sites have reported that "Android generates 2.5 billion". No, its all mobile devices with Google search engine including Android and iOS.

Microsoft makes more money on Android then Google does, since licensing is free money.

Android is so far the most expensive "free" (linux) OS in the world. Google have spent upwards 20 billion on buying stuff like Android, patents from IBM and Motorola mobile. They have also lost patent cases with their Linux code in Android.

If Google had some self criticism they would not have launched Android and instead continued to pay phone makers to make Google the default search engine. Far cheaper.

Google could also have invented something themselves, so they did not have to buy patents and license stuff.

And this is just the beginning. The ruling Apple Vs HTC / Samsung will probably cost Android OEMs even more.

I would have no problem with Google if the simply had developed their own OS like WebOS. But that is not their culture. Google buys stuff and release it. They settle after the fact, like the royalties Google have to pay for all Youtube videos.

You must hate Siri and multitouch then if you hate Android because Google bought it :-/

It's not like Google bought Android in 2005 then released it as was...they'd invested countless dollars and hours into R&D to continuously evolve the Android platform.

What they bought in 2005 is essentially the skeleton of what they have now in 2011...don't discredit them simply because they bought a skeleton 6 years ago therefore there is nothing they added.

And the Youtube example is weak because Google doesn't actually upload upwards of 99.999% of their content.

If I post a full episode of Modern Family on Youtube, that is not Google's fault.
post #29 of 83
Quote:
Originally Posted by ConradJoe View Post

There's got to be more to the story than this. Does any hardware or software manufacturer license all of their IP to competitors?

Do they? Hell no.
post #30 of 83
Quote:
Originally Posted by AbsoluteDesignz View Post

You must hate Siri and multitouch then if you hate Android because Google bought it :-/

It's not like Google bought Android in 2005 then released it as was...they'd invested countless dollars and hours into R&D to continuously evolve the Android platform.

What they bought in 2005 is essentially the skeleton of what they have now in 2011...don't discredit them simply because they bought a skeleton 6 years ago therefore there is nothing they added.

And the Youtube example is weak because Google doesn't actually upload upwards of 99.999% of their content.

If I post a full episode of Modern Family on Youtube, that is not Google's fault.

Apple owns Siri.
post #31 of 83
Quote:
Originally Posted by Obi-Wan Kubrick View Post

"I sold the E, to Samsung, they're Samesung now" - Devon Banks

I traded my D to their second S = Samdung !

Just kidding !!
post #32 of 83
Apple isn't interested in bargaining and feels they hold the important cards in this fight. And by law, they don't really have to. This is an interesting place for patent law in court in that usually these disputes are settled by one party writing the other a large check. But what if the patent holder doesn't want their money, just relief? The law as written says that Apple can have that remedy. Microsoft is perfectly happy earning money off the Android system...they aren't making that much money on their own phones anyway. Apple on the other hand is flush with cash as it is. They just want Samsung's Android phone/tablet business to go away. So far, Samsung doesn't have enough cards at this poker table to force Apple to accept settlement and the courts agree (so far).
post #33 of 83
deleted
post #34 of 83
Quote:
Originally Posted by AbsoluteDesignz View Post


If I post a full episode of Modern Family on Youtube, that is not Google's fault.

Try uploading that to Facebook and see how long it lasts.

Same with videos that have commercial songs as the soundtrack. Facebook analyzes the soundtrack on upload and if it matches another song's fingerprint, it's removed for copyright infringement.

So, I suspect that there could be more effective file screening on YouTube.
post #35 of 83
Quote:
Originally Posted by mdriftmeyer View Post

Apple owns Siri.

Point was they purchased it.
post #36 of 83
Quote:
Originally Posted by ltcompuser View Post

Try uploading that to Facebook and see how long it lasts.

Same with videos that have commercial songs as the soundtrack. Facebook analyzes the soundtrack on upload and if it matches another song's fingerprint, it's removed for copyright infringement.

So, I suspect that there could be more effective file screening on YouTube.

They do remove many things. I know people who upload scenes from breaking bad do so in reverse to avoid screening.

They probably could have more effective screening measures though. But I know they have some.
post #37 of 83
Quote:
Originally Posted by shompa View Post

If Apple had not been near bankruptcy in 1997, they would not have accepted those terms. MSFT made a bargain. Especially since they sold the 150 million Apple stocks with a large profit.

Any idea what those stocks would be worth now if Microsoft had held onto them?
post #38 of 83
It doesn't appear as if either Oracle or Apple are slowing down Android's smartphone market share growth. It's like those two companies are dicking around, spending money and getting nothing in return from the courts. Google doesn't seem to be slowing down at all. I don't hear analysts talking about investor's fears of Android being shut down like they talk about Android's threat to iOS and iPhone market share. No one is expressing fear that Android OS will be crippled at all.

All I hear is that every freaking quarter it's Android grabbing another X% of market share while every platform except iOS is losing market share. Do you see any Android smartphone vendors looking to move elsewhere? Nope. They're sticking with Android because they don't think Android is going anywhere or likely to be defeated. Only Microsoft seems to be the one freely benefiting from anything to do with Android. Oracle's suit is taking forever and Apple is likely to get zilch cooperation from the U.S. courts who likely favor Android over iOS.

I was looking forward to Android get blown out by the court system, but I've given up on that happening. America believes in free enterprise and if you have to steal to get it, it's all well and good. Google portrays itself as a good guy's underdog and Apple as the bully and the courts are buying it.
post #39 of 83
Quote:
Originally Posted by MacRulez View Post

Now the company that controls 82% of the desktop is well motivted to make Android as successful aa possible.

No they won't. Making Android successful means MS will loss to Google search and services. MS will only support Android devices if they have MS services on them.

It is more like the OS that was supposed to be open and free is not open and free anymore.
post #40 of 83
deleted
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: General Discussion
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › Apple tells Samsung it will only license out 'lower level patents'