or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › Samsung loses 'important' patent decision to Apple in Netherlands
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Samsung loses 'important' patent decision to Apple in Netherlands

post #1 of 56
Thread Starter 
Samsung suffered a legal setback on Wednesday in the Netherlands, where a court sided with Apple on a FRAND patent dispute that was characterized as both "important" and "highly meaningful."

The decisions from the District Court of The Hague, Netherlands, was summarized by Florian Mueller of FOSS Patents, who explained that Samsung cannot pursue injunctive relief as long as Apple is willing to negotiate a license agreement under FRAND terms for wireless patents. Samsung is obligated to license certain essential patents under FRAND terms, meaning fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory.

In addition, the court also ruled that Samsung cannot assert its 3G/UMTS wireless patents against Apple's latest smartphone, the iPhone 4S. Mueller explained this is because of "patent exhaustion."

"Apple is licensed by extension since it purchases baseband chips from Qualcomm, and Samsung's attempt to terminate its license agreement with Qualcomm as far as third-party beneficiary Apple is concerned failed because Samsung had made a commitment to ETSI, the standards body in charge of 3G, that it would grant irrevocable licenses to its 3G/UMTS essential patents," he wrote.

Mueller declared the decision an "meaningful victory" for Apple, in part because the court's position on FRAND patents means Samsung is unlikely to get much money out of the current litigation.

"So far, Samsung has not been able to prevail with any of its offensive claims against Apple anywhere on this planet," he explained. "Today's ruling is only the latest in a series of losses."

Samsung and Apple currently have more than 30 lawsuits between them in what is a growing legal battle. In its most recent filing, Samsung sued Apple earlier this month in South Korea, seeking to block sales of the iPhone 4S and iPad 2 for alleged violation of three patents.

Even in the face of the legal showdown between Samsung and Apple, Samsung still remains a vital partner for Apple in supplying the company with key components. In particular, Samsung is believed to be the lead manufacturer of Retina displays for Apple's new iPad.

[ View article on AppleInsider ]
post #2 of 56
Next... Motoroogle.
Hmmmmmm...
Reply
Hmmmmmm...
Reply
post #3 of 56
Apple is doomed....

Oops. Wrong thread.
"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 #4 of 56
Wow... so Samsung hasn't won a single lawsuit against Apple anywhere? Kinda weird. What I don't understand is how my Android friend so vehemently states that Apple is this evil litigation giant just bullying everyone around. It sounds like Apple has the right of it...
post #5 of 56
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post

Apple is doomed....

Oops. Wrong thread.

Yep and $591 and climbing I love this doom!
From Apple ][ - to new Mac Pro I've used them all.
Long on AAPL so biased
"Google doesn't sell you anything, they just sell you!"
Reply
From Apple ][ - to new Mac Pro I've used them all.
Long on AAPL so biased
"Google doesn't sell you anything, they just sell you!"
Reply
post #6 of 56
I had a strong suspicion this would happen. I didn't see any legal standing for Samsung's suits. This also could have significance for Motorols'a suits, and they have other problems.
post #7 of 56
Just realised something

Google is pushing its fibre business pretty heavy with it already rolling out in test markets in the US.

It is supposedly even faster than anything else out on the market now.

The question is.....with the developments we see now, will it be possible that Google rolls out their fibre in a wider area to more customers while at the same time NOT submit any patents on it as FRAND, keeping the whole thing proprietary?

In other words, is Google planning to become a service provider that plays by its own rules?

Maybe Apple should start looking into the service side as well cause you wouldn't want a situation like that to develop. Especially with things like Apple TV on the way. A cheap speedy connection from Google that is totally proprietary may end up gaining traction in the market and cause problems for competitors.
post #8 of 56
Quote:
Originally Posted by sleepy3 View Post

Just realised something

Google is pushing its fibre business pretty heavy with it already rolling out in test markets in the US.

It is supposedly even faster than anything else out on the market now.

The question is.....with the developments we see now, will it be possible that Google rolls out their fibre in a wider area to more customers while at the same time NOT submit any patents on it as FRAND, keeping the whole thing proprietary?

In other words, is Google planning to become a service provider that plays by its own rules?

Maybe Apple should start looking into the service side as well cause you wouldn't want a situation like that to develop. Especially with things like Apple TV on the way. A cheap speedy connection from Google that is totally proprietary may end up gaining traction in the market and cause problems for competitors.

I don't know of anything in Google's rollout other than they are paying for it. From what can be determined, there is nothing propriatary about it. It's just standard stuff.
post #9 of 56
Quote:
Originally Posted by brutus009 View Post

Wow... so Samsung hasn't won a single lawsuit against Apple anywhere? Kinda weird. What I don't understand is how my Android friend so vehemently states that Apple is this evil litigation giant just bullying everyone around. It sounds like Apple has the right of it...


Ah, but Android users do consider Apple and Microsoft evil because they developed all of the technology that they've patented that they aren't allowing Google to just steal and use for free.

After all, Google actually made the comment that they are so innovative, and that these other companies are holding innovation back because they aren't just giving Google all the technologies they want.
post #10 of 56
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross View Post

I had a strong suspicion this would happen. I didn't see any legal standing for Samsung's suits. This also could have significance for Motorols'a suits, and they have other problems.

Yeah, but I wonder now whether Samsung and the other non-motarola phone makers will just decide that Android/Google isn't worth the effort now that they are losing and Google is in the Phone-Design business!

I think they will seriously look at WIN/8 because the marketplace App System has to be better than Androids POC that has no chance of keeping customers on their devices like iTunes does for iOS users!
post #11 of 56
Quote:
Originally Posted by sleepy3 View Post

Just realised something

Google is pushing its fibre business pretty heavy with it already rolling out in test markets in the US.

It is supposedly even faster than anything else out on the market now.

The question is.....with the developments we see now, will it be possible that Google rolls out their fibre in a wider area to more customers while at the same time NOT submit any patents on it as FRAND, keeping the whole thing proprietary?

In other words, is Google planning to become a service provider that plays by its own rules?

Maybe Apple should start looking into the service side as well cause you wouldn't want a situation like that to develop. Especially with things like Apple TV on the way. A cheap speedy connection from Google that is totally proprietary may end up gaining traction in the market and cause problems for competitors.

That would be a monopoly and eventually the courts would handle it much like they did with Microsoft.
post #12 of 56
If Samsung is sueing licencies who support Apple with their products then they should sue themselves? I would imagine that Samsung holds a lot of patents for the screens that they are selling to Apple for the iPhone, iPad etc.
post #13 of 56
Quote:
Originally Posted by alienzed View Post

That would be a monopoly and eventually the courts would handle it much like they did with Microsoft.

What, bow down to them and let them get off scott free?
post #14 of 56
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross View Post

I don't know of anything in Google's rollout other than they are paying for it. From what can be determined, there is nothing propriatary about it. It's just standard stuff.

Didn't you know? Fibre is the just next step of many in communications for Android phones!
post #15 of 56
Funny thing about Google, is that they give you the impression that they are so innovative when in actuality they just hire companies to do the work for them and then they take the credit. Sure, they probably come up with the idea, but aren't smart enough to implement it so they go looking outside.
They just sit back and let us grunts do all of the work while they get the credit. Sounds just like the reason I got the hell out of advertising.
post #16 of 56
Quote:
Originally Posted by alienzed View Post

That would be a monopoly and eventually the courts would handle it much like they did with Microsoft.

You mean they will dither around for years and years wasting everyone's time and then eventually decide that the best remedy is to split the company up into multiple entities and then turn around and *don't* do that but instead just let it slide?
post #17 of 56
Quote:
Originally Posted by John541 View Post

Yeah, but I wonder now whether Samsung and the other non-motarola phone makers will just decide that Android/Google isn't worth the effort now that they are losing and Google is in the Phone-Design business!

I think they will seriously look at WIN/8 because the marketplace App System has to be better than Androids POC that has no chance of keeping customers on their devices like iTunes does for iOS users!

It's an interesting question, because I don't know where else they can go. There's no evidence so far that WP7 has any momentum at all. Samsung remember, has been a WP7 maker from the beginning.
post #18 of 56
It must be quite awkward for these two companies when they lay down together at night.

TechnoMinds

We are a Montreal based technology company that offers a variety of tech services such as tech support for Apple products, Drupal based website development, computer training and iCloud...

Reply

TechnoMinds

We are a Montreal based technology company that offers a variety of tech services such as tech support for Apple products, Drupal based website development, computer training and iCloud...

Reply
post #19 of 56
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bsginc View Post

Didn't you know? Fibre is the just next step of many in communications for Android phones!

Well, the estimate to serve all the people in the USA with fiber is about $10 trillion. As far as I know, Google doesn't have that.
post #20 of 56
Quote:
Originally Posted by sleepy3 View Post

The question is.....with the developments we see now, will it be possible that Google rolls out their fibre in a wider area to more customers while at the same time NOT submit any patents on it as FRAND, keeping the whole thing proprietary?

In other words, is Google planning to become a service provider that plays by its own rules?

Google - a service provider? Unlikely, not with fibre at least.

Fibre may be cheap, the equipment maybe cheapish (economy of scales), but digging up the road and sending people up poles, the whole 'final mile' thing is excruciatingly expensive.

Plus there is the small problem of competition.

An example if I may.

The Channel Tunnel between the UK and France was meant to destroy the ferry business. What could be better? A direct tunnel that takes 25 minutes.

They ran into two problems a) the cost of a ticket was so high that it didn't capture the whole market, just a percentage of it, b) they never expected the ferry companies to compete - which they did by slashing their fares which in turn made the tunnel even more expensive in comparison.

So although Google might roll out a network in a district, they need a huge take up, and they are expecting no resistence from the existing telcos. Remember that Google's sole "Unique Selling Point" is that they are Google - they have very little to differentiate themselves from anyone else after that.
post #21 of 56
Quote:
Originally Posted by alienzed View Post

That would be a monopoly and eventually the courts would handle it much like they did with Microsoft.

And by handle it you mean... do essentially nothing?
post #22 of 56
Quote:
Originally Posted by sleepy3 View Post

Just realised something

Google is pushing its fibre business pretty heavy with it already rolling out in test markets in the US.

It is supposedly even faster than anything else out on the market now.

The question is.....with the developments we see now, will it be possible that Google rolls out their fibre in a wider area to more customers while at the same time NOT submit any patents on it as FRAND, keeping the whole thing proprietary?

In other words, is Google planning to become a service provider that plays by its own rules?

Maybe Apple should start looking into the service side as well cause you wouldn't want a situation like that to develop. Especially with things like Apple TV on the way. A cheap speedy connection from Google that is totally proprietary may end up gaining traction in the market and cause problems for competitors.

Do you know anything about large scale backbone networks? The king of all that is Alcatel-Lucent. Ma Bell's Lucent Labs is the king of all patents in this area. Google isn't going to threaten Verizon or anyone for fiber, never mind the fact they don't have right-of-way due to Federal Laws.
post #23 of 56
If Apple is able to recover damages from these lawsuits, then pretty soon, Apple may own Samsung, Motorola and perhaps a good chunk of Google.
post #24 of 56
Samsux is toast, Trollarola will be left to twist in the wind. Samsux can cut a deal now with Apple for what ever they can get or turn into dead meat when Apple's big screen decimates their TV business, which represents their main source of income. Google will dump Trollarola as soon as Samsux exhausts its leagal options (soon).
post #25 of 56
Is there any possible way for Apple to go thru the skies for coverage in the near future?
Lightsquare seemed to have a good idea. But I don't think they had the Smarts to get it done.

You would think Apple has the funds to launch as many satelites needed.
post #26 of 56
Quote:
Originally Posted by juandl View Post

Is there any possible way for Apple to go thru the skies for coverage in the near future?
Lightsquare seemed to have a good idea. But I don't think they had the Smarts to get it done.

You would think Apple has the funds to launch as many satelites needed.

22,000mi up, down, up, down for every packet. Screw that.
post #27 of 56
Quote:
Originally Posted by AppleInsider View Post

[...] "So far, Samsung has not been able to prevail with any of its offensive claims against Apple anywhere on this planet," he explained. "Today's ruling is only the latest in a series of losses." [...]

Oh well, there's always Mars. Right?

But seriously, maybe Samsung's legal department knew all along that they had no chance of winning. Maybe Samsung's executives told them to sue Apple anyway. Just to make it look like they were doing something. To keep their stock value up.

By putting up the appearance of "fighting the good fight," Samsung just might be trying to calm down panicky investors. Wouldn't look good for Samsung to get smacked down by Apple in the fastest-growing segment of their business, mobile. Would it?

Sent from my iPhone Simulator

Reply

Sent from my iPhone Simulator

Reply
post #28 of 56
Quote:
Originally Posted by SockRolid View Post

Oh well, there's always Mars. Right?

But seriously, maybe Samsung's legal department knew all along that they had no chance of winning. Maybe Samsung's executives told them to sue Apple anyway. Just to make it look like they were doing something. To keep their stock value up.

By putting up the appearance of "fighting the good fight," Samsung just might be trying to calm down panicky investors. Wouldn't look good for Samsung to get smacked down by Apple in the fastest-growing segment of their business, mobile. Would it?

Or maybe Samsung just needs new legal representatives. Preferably ones who can tell the difference between an iPad and a Tab.
"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 #29 of 56
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mightymike View Post

Samsux is toast, Trollarola will be left to twist in the wind. Samsux can cut a deal now with Apple for what ever they can get or turn into dead meat when Apple's big screen decimates their TV business, which represents their main source of income. Google will dump Trollarola as soon as Samsux exhausts its leagal options (soon).

Revenue source for Samsung is pretty diversified.

TV's isnt their "main source" of income.

Perhaps a little research would do wonders for ya.

"Like I said before, share price will dip into the $400."  - 11/21/12 by Galbi

Reply

"Like I said before, share price will dip into the $400."  - 11/21/12 by Galbi

Reply
post #30 of 56
Quote:
Originally Posted by brutus009 View Post

Wow... so Samsung hasn't won a single lawsuit against Apple anywhere? Kinda weird. What I don't understand is how my Android friend so vehemently states that Apple is this evil litigation giant just bullying everyone around. It sounds like Apple has the right of it...

Your premise is "Samsung hasn't won".

Your conclusion is "Apple is not evil".

But that doesn't follow. The argument is not cogent.
post #31 of 56
This wouldn't make much sense financially, but could Samsung refuse Apple's business?
post #32 of 56
Quote:
Originally Posted by AppleBeer View Post

This wouldn't make much sense financially, but could Samsung refuse Apple's business?

Sure. There is nothing forcing Samsung to have any customers at all but customers are how you make money so it behooves them to do so.

If Samsung weren't supplying any of the displays for the G3 iPad Apple would have other vendors pick up the slack. Perhaps not quickly or with the same cost per display, but the slack would be picked up so all Samsung would do is end up hurting themselves.

This bot has been removed from circulation due to a malfunctioning morality chip.

Reply

This bot has been removed from circulation due to a malfunctioning morality chip.

Reply
post #33 of 56
Quote:
Originally Posted by AppleBeer View Post

This wouldn't make much sense financially, but could Samsung refuse Apple's business?

Yes, theoretically they could.

But even the Korean stock market will punish them like they have not been, before. Their global investors will have fled by then.
post #34 of 56
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post

Or maybe Samsung just needs new legal representatives. Preferably ones who can tell the difference between an iPad and a Tab.

Or maybe they should be like Apple and just photoshop the difference.
post #35 of 56
Well, the court had BETTER side with Apple on this FRAND issue -- otherwise, companies who benefit from licensed standards could come back after the fact and charge thousands of dollars more than the phone for all the tiny moving parts that make it work as a device.
post #36 of 56
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross View Post

Well, the estimate to serve all the people in the USA with fiber is about $10 trillion. As far as I know, Google doesn't have that.

That sounds like a made up fantasy number. That's $30,000 for every single person in the country or over $100,000 for every household - which just doesn't seem even close to reasonable. Even if accurate, that's a meaningless number. First, there's no reason to have every single person in the USA on fiber. Second, much of the fiber infrastructure is already in place and not currently being used.

As with everything else, Fiber will first be used for the Internet backbone (actually, this is already largely in place). Then it will start being used for high-density locations (companies, apartments, etc). Then individual households in large cities. It's going to be years before fiber makes it to every remote location (there are plenty of places that don't even have cable yet). It's silly to suggest that it's of no use until every person in the country has it.
"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 #37 of 56
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fake_William_Shatner View Post

Well, the court had BETTER side with Apple on this FRAND issue -- otherwise, companies who benefit from licensed standards could come back after the fact and charge thousands of dollars more than the phone for all the tiny moving parts that make it work as a device.

Yep. This one had to go that way.

Now, it's possible that they could have slightly modified the standards by changing the interpretation of how far the licensee needed to go to accept FRAND terms, but to completely throw it out is absurd.

A very big win for Apple is the ruling that affirms that FRAND means a lifetime license and the licensor can't simply terminate the license (as Motorola tried to do with Qualcomm).
"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 #38 of 56
Quote:
Originally Posted by I am a Zither Zather Zuzz View Post

Your premise is "Samsung hasn't won".

Your conclusion is "Apple is not evil".

But that doesn't follow. The argument is not cogent.



What it MEANS is that Samsung needs to examine it's practices, and it has Manufacturing facilities that directly conflict with the Marketing of its own products. It gets privileged information and technology from customers.

In response to infringing on Apple's copyrights, they've gone with a poorly thought out legal strategy on suing Apple based on their technology patents -- in ways that would make their technology standards anathema to all their OTHER customers.

Samsung losing and Apple winning so many cases, isn't REALLY about good or evil -- it's that there is a big conflict of interest inherent in Samsung's widely focused corporation, and they are listening to the wrong legal advice.

Apple, after having been stung and lost so much IP in the past, has invested heavily in a very top notch legal team. They also have the benefit of relying on either standards or their own creative talents -- so they are less likely to run afoul of the courts. Because they are in such a hugely litigious realm of software, technology and creative media, however, Lawsuits are just going to be part of their business model.

>> It's ALSO not going to hurt Apple, that messing with them in court is a very risky proposition.
post #39 of 56
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post

Yep. This one had to go that way.

Now, it's possible that they could have slightly modified the standards by changing the interpretation of how far the licensee needed to go to accept FRAND terms, but to completely throw it out is absurd.

A very big win for Apple is the ruling that affirms that FRAND means a lifetime license and the licensor can't simply terminate the license (as Motorola tried to do with Qualcomm).

Well, if it had gone the OTHER way, it would have created a president where FRAND was untenable -- you'd basically have blood in the streets and Lawyers everywhere would be working overtime.

Sure, THEY'D make a bundle, but all consumer electronics would have to go back to vacuum tubes.
post #40 of 56
Quote:
Originally Posted by AppleBeer View Post

This wouldn't make much sense financially, but could Samsung refuse Apple's business?

They could, but they won't. It's too great a percentage of their total.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: General Discussion
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › Samsung loses 'important' patent decision to Apple in Netherlands