or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › Samsung wins 3G patent case against Apple in Dutch court, seeks damages
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Samsung wins 3G patent case against Apple in Dutch court, seeks damages

post #1 of 55
Thread Starter 
Samsung will reportedly seek compensation from Apple after the company won a 3G patent dispute in the Hague District Court in the Netherlands.

Apple was found by the court to be infringing on European Patent 1188269, entitled "Apparatus for Encoding a Transport Format Combination Indicator for a Communication System," The Verge reported on Wednesday. The patent in question is a FRAND patent, meaning it must be licensed under fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory terms, which means Samsung cannot seek a ban on sales or import of Apple's devices.

The Apple devices found to have infringed on Samsung's 3G patent are the iPhone 3G, iPhone 3GS, iPhone 4, first-generation iPad, and iPad 2.

Samsung said in a statement to AllAboutPhones that the company will "recover adequate damages" from Apple in accordance with the court's rulings. It said the decision verifies "that Apple makes free use of our technological innovations."

Last year, a judge in the Netherlands denied Samsung's request to halt sales of the iPhone and iPad. That decision was also based on 3G patents owned by Samsung.

iPhone 4


But while Samsung couldn't bar sales of Apple's devices, it could now collect damages from them. The decision in the Netherlands is one of few legal victories Samsung has seen in its ongoing legal spat with Apple, which spans dozens of complaints across 10 countries.

But intellectual property expert Florian Mueller of FOSS Patents said in his analysis on Wednesday that Samsung's victory is only a "consolation prize" that only amounts to a "symbolic" victory for the company.

"Tiny amounts of money won't get Apple to settle," he said. "Samsung was trying hard to win an injunction, but failed. From a strategic point of view, it had already lost 99.9% of these cases even before today's liability ruling came down. This really is nothing more than symbolic."
post #2 of 55

Does anyone know what other companies pay to license this patent? It will be interesting to see what the actual cost is. It may be that Apple gets a better deal than what Samsung was hoping for, since it is a frand patent.

post #3 of 55
Quote:
Originally Posted by nealg View Post

Does anyone know what other companies pay to license this patent? It will be interesting to see what the actual cost is. It may be that Apple gets a better deal than what Samsung was hoping for, since it is a frand patent.

Samsung doesn't care if they only get one dollar

 

All they care about is winning cases to use as precedents so they can sue some more when apple sue some more, which will make them sue some more, then apple will sue some more

 

......and so it will go until one day through litigation we will live in a world where either 

 

a) ALL products are banned for one stupid reason or the other (see xbox 360)

b) all products are ridiculously expensive since at some point lawyer fees will be passed on to the consumer. 

 

Oh, what a world we live in

 

 

EDIT: By the way, anyone else find this funny that its OLD stuff Apple and Samsung are arguing about? The iphone 3gs?, ipad 2? galaxy tab 10.1?

These are all products that have successors and are probably hardly even made by the manufacturer anymore. What's the point of apple and Samsung going through with these? Its all a big schoolyard 5-year-old fight

post #4 of 55
Quote:
Originally Posted by AppleInsider View Post

But while Samsung couldn't bar sales of Apple's devices, it could now collect damages from them. The decision in the Netherlands is one of few legal victories Samsung has seen in its ongoing legal spat with Apple, which spans dozens of complaints across 10 countries.

In reality one of the few legal victories for either side. This one is more symbolic than anything and it was never about money. 


Edited by Gatorguy - 6/20/12 at 7:50am
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #5 of 55
Poor Mr. Cook, he's so right to hate litigation. Those who live by litigation are quite likely to get burned by it.
post #6 of 55
Quote:
Originally Posted by markbyrn View Post

Poor Mr. Cook, he's so right to hate litigation. Those who live by litigation are quite likely to get burned by it.

 

Read the article. 

post #7 of 55
Quote:
Originally Posted by sleepy3 View Post

 

 

EDIT: By the way, anyone else find this funny that its OLD stuff Apple and Samsung are arguing about? The iphone 3gs?, ipad 2? galaxy tab 10.1?

These are all products that have successors and are probably hardly even made by the manufacturer anymore. What's the point of apple and Samsung going through with these? Its all a big schoolyard 5-year-old fight

 

 

Samsung is going after damages based upon  Apple stealing its tech.  The money, plus interest, is an adequate incentive.

 

Apple seeking to enjoin sales of obsolete products makes much  less sense to me.

post #8 of 55
Quote:
Originally Posted by sleepy3 View Post

Samsung doesn't care if they only get one dollar

 

All they care about is winning cases to use as precedents so they can sue some more when apple sue some more, which will make them sue some more, then apple will sue some more

 

......and so it will go until one day through litigation we will live in a world where either 

 

a) ALL products are banned for one stupid reason or the other (see xbox 360)

b) all products are ridiculously expensive since at some point lawyer fees will be passed on to the consumer. 

 

Oh, what a world we live in

 

 

EDIT: By the way, anyone else find this funny that its OLD stuff Apple and Samsung are arguing about? The iphone 3gs?, ipad 2? galaxy tab 10.1?

These are all products that have successors and are probably hardly even made by the manufacturer anymore. What's the point of apple and Samsung going through with these? Its all a big schoolyard 5-year-old fight

 

Yep, It be crazy times. 

post #9 of 55
Samsung will get less from licensing fees Apple has to pay than the 800,000 Euros Samsung has to pay Apple.

Samsung asked for 2.4% licensing fee which the cout ruled last year was excessive. And this was 2.4% of the price of the baseband chip, not the entire phone. So Samsung isn't going to get very much out of this. They wanted an injunction but got table scraps instead.
post #10 of 55
Quote:
Originally Posted by Quadra 610 View Post

Read the article. 

I did read the article and I'd guess that Samsung will extract more than enough money out of Apple to pay it's on-going legal fee's to defend against Apple's lawsuits. The costly stalemates continue.
post #11 of 55
Quote:
Originally Posted by sleepy3 View Post

a) ALL products are banned for one stupid reason or the other (see xbox 360)
b) all products are ridiculously expensive since at some point lawyer fees will be passed on to the consumer. 
Uh, lawyer fees are already passed onto the consumer as they are company employees. They get paid a salary whether they watch the clock move or sit in a courtroom.
Winning a lawsuit will simply ensure they remain employed. The lawyers don't get 40%.
post #12 of 55
Quote:
Originally Posted by nealg View Post

Does anyone know what other companies pay to license this patent? It will be interesting to see what the actual cost is. It may be that Apple gets a better deal than what Samsung was hoping for, since it is a frand patent.

FRAND rules require that everyone pays the same. If we were to look at the Apple side of this, we may find that Samsung wanted more than everyone else pays. Or they may have demanded one or more forms of payment that Apple wouldn't agree to.

Often companies will be working on several patent deals at once. It is legit if the two companies have a deal going on a non FRAND patent for that patent to be used as part of the payment for the FRAND one. For example, I have a FRAND patent on A and you want to license it. The cost is $1k. You have a non FRAND patent on 1 and you have agreed to let me license it for $500. Rather than me writing you a check for $500 and you writing me a check for $1k, you 'pay' me with the license for 1 and a check for the difference. On the flip if you don't want to license 1 to me, I can't refuse to license A to you unless you change you mind.

In several of these FRAND cases, the issue has been either trying to ask for more because this or that company can afford it, trying to force the inclusion of non FRAND patents etc. companies like Apple know they will lose and will be forced to back pay but so long as the terms are FRAND they won't care, they were willing to pay that anyway. And while companies like Samsung try to paint it as their victory, the truth of how they weren't playing by the rules either gets out so they take a PR on 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 #13 of 55
Quote:
Originally Posted by nealg View Post

Does anyone know what other companies pay to license this patent? It will be interesting to see what the actual cost is. It may be that Apple gets a better deal than what Samsung was hoping for, since it is a frand patent.

FRAND rules require that everyone pays the same. If we were to look at the Apple side of this, we may find that Samsung wanted more than everyone else pays. Or they may have demanded one or more forms of payment that Apple wouldn't agree to.

Often companies will be working on several patent deals at once. It is legit if the two companies have a deal going on a non FRAND patent for that patent to be used as part of the payment for the FRAND one. For example, I have a FRAND patent on A and you want to license it. The cost is $1k. You have a non FRAND patent on 1 and you have agreed to let me license it for $500. Rather than me writing you a check for $500 and you writing me a check for $1k, you 'pay' me with the license for 1 and a check for the difference. On the flip if you don't want to license 1 to me, I can't refuse to license A to you unless you change you mind.

In several of these FRAND cases, the issue has been either trying to ask for more because this or that company can afford it, trying to force the inclusion of non FRAND patents etc. companies like Apple know they will lose and will be forced to back pay but so long as the terms are FRAND they won't care, they were willing to pay that anyway. And while companies like Samsung try to paint it as their victory, the truth of how they weren't playing by the rules either gets out so they take a PR on 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 #14 of 55
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris_CA View Post


Uh, lawyer fees are already passed onto the consumer as they are company employees. They get paid a salary whether they watch the clock move or sit in a courtroom.
Winning a lawsuit will simply ensure they remain employed. The lawyers don't get 40%.

When you have multiple lawasuits going on in multiple countries in multiple languages your legal fees go up. Obviously no company keeps so much law representation on the books thinking its gonna be in court all over the world at the same time. And this what is happening. Sure you will have legal fees every month as per normal, but this situation is far from "normal"

post #15 of 55
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

In reality one of the few legal victories for either side. This one is more symbolic than anything and it was never about money. 


It was FRAND, so the issue never really was about whether Apple had to pay to license it. All the Dutch court did was rule that the two sides needed to strike a licensing deal. It was part of a broader lawsuit.

post #16 of 55
Quote:
Originally Posted by JerrySwitched26 View Post

 

 

Samsung is going after damages based upon  Apple stealing its tech.  The money, plus interest, is an adequate incentive.

 

Apple seeking to enjoin sales of obsolete products makes much  less sense to me.

I can already see the headlines

 

"Oracle successfully obtains injunction on Nintendo 64"

"Apple succeeds is obtaining ban on Motorolla Startac"

"Samsung wins patent dispute over Apple Newton"

post #17 of 55
Quote:
Originally Posted by EricTheHalfBee View Post

Samsung will get less from licensing fees Apple has to pay than the 800,000 Euros Samsung has to pay Apple.
Samsung asked for 2.4% licensing fee which the cout ruled last year was excessive. And this was 2.4% of the price of the baseband chip, not the entire phone. So Samsung isn't going to get very much out of this. They wanted an injunction but got table scraps instead.

As I recall Samsung was demanding a fee off the price of the full phone from Apple. Which is why the courts said it was excessive. It should be only on the part that uses said tech. If that is how Samsung is licensing to everyone else, they would need to win this or risk lawsuits from the other companies for 'overcharging'

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 #18 of 55
Quote:
Originally Posted by charlituna View Post


FRAND rules require that everyone pays the same.
 

 

 

That is not true.  Many factors enter into it.  Some companies  deserve better prices and terms than others might get.

post #19 of 55

Samsung was always going to "win" this one.

 

Apple knew it had to pay to licence the patents, but did not believe the price Samsung quoted was appropriate under FRAND. So they paid nothing, knowing they would be sued to have the court to set the FRAND licencing fee. Now the court will set the fee and Apple will pay its back licencing and pay going forward.  

 

This was always going to happen.

 

What was unclear was whether Samsung would get to demand a crazy amount, like 2.4% of the price of the phone. Instead the judge has already said 2.4% of the price of the baseband chip is excessive, which is exactly what Apple wants and believed would happen.

post #20 of 55

Good thing it wasn't Qualcomm bringing suit, altho their FRAND licensing royalties have come down over the past few years. They only want around 3.5% of the entire finished device cost now (based on BOM I believe) rather than upwards of 5% they originally asked for their CDMA, then 3G standards license. Before someone claims they only ask for a royalty based on a chipset price rather than a finished ready-to-sell handset, read the links.

 

I've no idea why the Hague court believed 2.4% of only the chip price to be excessive. Even Nokia was said to be asking a "fair" 2.5% royalty for a single FRAND-pledged patent, 3.5% for two, topping at 5% for 10 or more.

http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/fortune_archive/2006/12/25/8396726/index.htm

http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/qualcomm-files-arbitration-demand-against-nokia-to-resolve-dispute-over-license-agreement-57908132.html

http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/fortune_archive/2000/05/15/279766/index.htm

melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #21 of 55
Quote:
Originally Posted by markbyrn View Post


I did read the article and I'd guess that Samsung will extract more than enough money out of Apple to pay it's on-going legal fee's to defend against Apple's lawsuits. The costly stalemates continue.

It's neither costly, nor do consumers really care about it. 

 

Apple has a LONG history of this sort of litigation, FROM DAY 1. The purpose of which is just another way to help them differentiate themselves from everyone else. Apple's litigious behaviour is part and parcel of their policy to litigate rather than license. It has always been this way, ever since the early days of Apple. And if you're an enthusiastic Apple-user (and a relieved non_MS user) then you can thank you're lucky stars that Apple behaved this way. 

 

This is a part of Apple's history. There is much, much more to Apple's litigation strategy than mere dollars and cents and the assumption that they're just interested in acting like jerks or "bullies."


Edited by Quadra 610 - 6/20/12 at 11:21am
post #22 of 55

All these IP specialists.

I wonder why Apple is paying a fee to hire lawyers.
They should just fire their legal team and ask for help on AI.

post #23 of 55
Quote:
Originally Posted by JerrySwitched26 View Post

Interesting facts are in those cites, including:

 

Qualcomm says the average it charges Nokia - and 130 other licensees - is just below 5 percent of the wholesale price of applicable phones and other devices. 

 

Qualcomm collects a royalty of about $10 for each CDMA phone sold

 

----------------

 

Given those facts, I'm not sure why the 2.4% figure  I've seen is considered excessive.

 

Maybe it is because 2.4% of a $700 smartphone is so much more than 5% of a $200 dumb phone?  I don't know.  But it is said that Microsoft is getting licensing fees of $15/phone from some Android makers.  For a $600 phone, that is 2.5%.

I believe some of the complaints stem from variations in what licensors consider a completed device (along with competitive issues only somewhat related).

 

In Qualcomm's case I understand royalties are derived from the Bill of Materials (BOM) for that device. As an example, teardowns indicate Apple's cost of materials/hardware for the 4S could be about $188, giving Qualcomm a royalty payment of about $6.58 on every one produced. Unclear if they've always determined royalties this way. Moto attaches their royalties on a finished device too, but use the selling price rather than the BOM. Big difference, with Moto's fee jumping to $13 or more using their method.

 

Motorola isn't the only licensee using the selling price as the royalty base (Nokia reportedly uses the same valuation standard as does Microsoft), nor are they apparently inconsistent or discriminate on either the rate or basis according to court reports. But they're certainly in the news a whole lot more lately with FRAND questions, and thus a high-profile target. Certainly one of FOSSPatents favorites.

melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #24 of 55
Quote:
Originally Posted by JerrySwitched26 View Post


Samsung is going after damages based upon  Apple stealing its tech.  The money, plus interest, is an adequate incentive.

Apple seeking to enjoin sales of obsolete products makes much  less sense to me.

According to FOSS Patents this victory will likely be rather hollow for Samsung, even financially. The ruling only covers the Dutch market so the fees for previously sold infringing items only covers a market of 16 million potential customers. Also Samsung has to pay Apple's legal fees for the 3 patents that they claimed were infringed but weren't (75% of Apple's legal fees basically). So in the end they might actually be out money to Apple on this case.
post #25 of 55
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

In reality one of the few legal victories for either side. This one is more symbolic than anything and it was never about money. 

Yes, this is a legal victory for Apple.

Apple agreed ages ago to pay FRAND fees, but Samsung wouldn't accept that. They wanted more from Apple than from anyone else. The court said that they can't do that. Apple wins - they'll pay exactly what they agreed to a long time ago.
Quote:
Originally Posted by JerrySwitched26 View Post


Samsung is going after damages based upon  Apple stealing its tech.  The money, plus interest, is an adequate incentive.

Apple seeking to enjoin sales of obsolete products makes much  less sense to me.

I think you have it backwards. Apple agreed to pay FRAND a long time ago. The court just told Samsung that they can't extort more from Apple. By making the patent FRAND, Samsung agreed a long time ago to certain terms and just tried to change the terms (and the court wouldn't go along).

Apple, OTOH, never agreed to FRAND for its patents and therefore has the right to enforce them.

The fact that some of the cases cover obsolete patents is irrelevant. First, Apple can still collect royalties if they win. Second, it makes it easier for Apple to win against current products. But the most important reason it matters is that it sends a message - which Samsung seems to have gotten. Look at the Galaxy SIII. It's not a near-exact copy of the iPhone, unlike earlier Samsung phones. Apple basically got the message across - make your own product instead of copying ours.
"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 #26 of 55
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post


Yes, this is a legal victory for Apple.
Apple agreed ages ago to pay FRAND fees, but Samsung wouldn't accept that. They wanted more from Apple than from anyone else. The court said that they can't do that. Apple wins - they'll pay exactly what they agreed to a long time ago.
I think you have it backwards. Apple agreed to pay FRAND a long time ago. The court just told Samsung that they can't extort more from Apple. By making the patent FRAND, Samsung agreed a long time ago to certain terms and just tried to change the terms (and the court wouldn't go along).
Apple, OTOH, never agreed to FRAND for its patents and therefore has the right to enforce them.
The fact that some of the cases cover obsolete patents is irrelevant. First, Apple can still collect royalties if they win. Second, it makes it easier for Apple to win against current products. But the most important reason it matters is that it sends a message - which Samsung seems to have gotten. Look at the Galaxy SIII. It's not a near-exact copy of the iPhone, unlike earlier Samsung phones. Apple basically got the message across - make your own product instead of copying ours.

Got any citation for your claim that Samsung wanted a higher royalty from Apple than anyone else? I missed that one.

melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #27 of 55

So really, the title of this story should be "Apple Successfully Defends Against Samsung's Excessive FRAND Claims".

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply
post #28 of 55

By the way, here's a FOSSPatents article I had missed awhile back. I'm sure most of the regulars are aware he writes (often!) that Motorola's basic 2.25% device royalty is outrageous and almost unheard of? According to his article on IPComs FRAND IP claims against HTC, he wrote that IPCom considered it'sdemand for "a royalty rate of 2.5 to 3.5 percent for a single patent is reasonable, and that this also applies to standards-essential patents.

 

While the court doesn't affirmatively support this particular royalty rate, the court would not have set such a high value in dispute if IPCom's claims had failed to pass a basic plausibility test.

HTC could try to object to this order, but I can't see how it could realistically convince the court that the value in dispute does not reach (easily, in fact) the legal maximum of 30 million euros."

 

So Mueller  states no objection at all to an even higher FRAND rate than Moto seeks as long as it's against a MS competitor, yet writes that Moto's royalty claims are ridiculous if it's vs. Apple or Microsoft.

Hmmmm.... 

 

http://www.fosspatents.com/2011/12/ipcom-demands-25-to-35-percent-of-htcs.html

melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #29 of 55
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

By the way, here's a FOSSPatents article I had missed awhile back. I'm sure most of the regulars are aware he writes (often!) that Motorola's basic 2.25% device royalty is outrageous and almost unheard of? According to his article on IPComs FRAND IP claims against HTC, he wrote that IPCom considered it'sdemand for "a royalty rate of 2.5 to 3.5 percent for a single patent is reasonable, and that this also applies to standards-essential patents.

 

While the court doesn't affirmatively support this particular royalty rate, the court would not have set such a high value in dispute if IPCom's claims had failed to pass a basic plausibility test.

HTC could try to object to this order, but I can't see how it could realistically convince the court that the value in dispute does not reach (easily, in fact) the legal maximum of 30 million euros."

 

So Mueller  states no objection at all to an even higher FRAND rate than Moto seeks as long as it's against a MS competitor, yet writes that Moto's royalty claims are ridiculous if it's vs. Apple or Microsoft.

Hmmmm.... 

 

http://www.fosspatents.com/2011/12/ipcom-demands-25-to-35-percent-of-htcs.html

 

The percentage itself is only important in relation to the actual amount that is referred. Two point five percent of one tenth of a penny is hugely different from two point five percent of seven hundred dollars.

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply
post #30 of 55
^ I didn't see anything mentioning whether that 2.5-3.5% was on a component or device price.

Motorola is asking based on device price. What's worse, for Windows Motorola wants 2.25% of the total price of the hardware it runs on, when it really should be based on the Windows license fee. Why should I pay more to Motorola for H.264 because I'm using a more expensive machine?
post #31 of 55
Quote:
Originally Posted by Quadra 610 View Post

It's neither costly, nor do consumers really care about it. 

Apple has a LONG history of this sort of litigation, FROM DAY 1. The purpose of which is just another way to help them differentiate themselves from everyone else. Apple's litigious behaviour is part and parcel of their policy to litigate rather than license. It has always been this way, ever since the early days of Apple. And if you're an enthusiastic Apple-user (and a relieved non_MS user) then you can thank you're lucky stars that Apple behaved this way. 

This is a part of Apple's history. There is much, much more to Apple's litigation strategy than mere dollars and cents and the assumption that they're just interested in acting like jerks or "bullies."

Samsung is no Pystar and if Apples believes that Samsung has ripped them off with Android and device design, they're not winning that legal battle and Samsung has responded by exploiting their own patents against Apple. Of course Apple has plenty of cash to flush down the toilet on fruitless litigation but they haven't slowed down the Android juggernaut in the least. If and when Samsung starts loading their devices with clones of iOS as Psytar did with Mac OS X, maybe Apple will have a case to stand on. In the meantime, Apple should be more focused on improving it's eco-system - even with iOS 6, they're looking a bit long in the tooth.
post #32 of 55
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post


Yes, this is a legal victory for Apple.
Apple agreed ages ago to pay FRAND fees, but Samsung wouldn't accept that. They wanted more from Apple than from anyone else. The court said that they can't do that. Apple

 

What a surprise...Apple's stock could plummet by 50% tomorrow, and you would still claim it was an "Apple victory" :)

 

In regards to Samsung not accepting Apple's licensing offer, I was always under the impression that it was because Apple wanted to license the patent under FRAND and maintain the option to challenge the patent. Samsung's assertions was that those were unacceptable terms, and that Apple would need to forfeit their right to challenge the patent as is typically done under FRAND licensing. Apple declined to accept that offer, and proceeded to use Samsung's IP anyways without a licensing agreement. Where are you coming up with the idea that Samsung was trying to charge more from Apple than anyone else???

post #33 of 55
Quote:
Originally Posted by SpamSandwich View Post

 

The percentage itself is only important in relation to the actual amount that is referred. Two point five percent of one tenth of a penny is hugely different from two point five percent of seven hundred dollars.

With the German court ordering a $40 million US bond (the statutory limit) to cover possible royalties for the single patent that IPCom is asserting, and considering it applies only to product sold in Germany, the royalty basis would logically need to be a completed device as I can't imagine HTC sold more than 10 million or so of the named devices in Germany alone. I'm trying to find confirmation tho.

melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #34 of 55
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post


Yes, this is a legal victory for Apple.
Apple agreed ages ago to pay FRAND fees, but Samsung wouldn't accept that. They wanted more from Apple than from anyone else. The court said that they can't do that. Apple wins - they'll pay exactly what they agreed to a long time ago.
I think you have it backwards. Apple agreed to pay FRAND a long time ago. The court just told Samsung that they can't extort more from Apple. By making the patent FRAND, Samsung agreed a long time ago to certain terms and just tried to change the terms (and the court wouldn't go along).
Apple, OTOH, never agreed to FRAND for its patents and therefore has the right to enforce them.
The fact that some of the cases cover obsolete patents is irrelevant. First, Apple can still collect royalties if they win. Second, it makes it easier for Apple to win against current products. But the most important reason it matters is that it sends a message - which Samsung seems to have gotten. Look at the Galaxy SIII. It's not a near-exact copy of the iPhone, unlike earlier Samsung phones. Apple basically got the message across - make your own product instead of copying ours.

Yep just like the iPad huh?

 

Too bad this came from 2006

samsung-ipad-photo-frame.jpeg

post #35 of 55
Quote:
Originally Posted by sleepy3 View Post

Samsung doesn't care if they only get one dollar

 

All they care about is winning cases to use as precedents so they can sue some more when apple sue some more, which will make them sue some more, then apple will sue some more

 

......and so it will go until one day through litigation we will live in a world where either 

 

 

 

European law system does not work based on precedents and one ruling can not be used in other cases as precedents therefore you may have two completely opposite rulings in similar cases.

 

In USA the legal system is screwed, no more comments about it.

Marquiz d' Gabber von Gabberaarde

... and Windows Vista...
... fails on the Moon...
... 6x slower!
Reply
Marquiz d' Gabber von Gabberaarde

... and Windows Vista...
... fails on the Moon...
... 6x slower!
Reply
post #36 of 55
Quote:
Originally Posted by JerrySwitched26 View Post

 

 

Samsung is going after damages based upon  Apple stealing its tech.  The money, plus interest, is an adequate incentive.

 

Apple seeking to enjoin sales of obsolete products makes much  less sense to me.

 

Apple is not stealing samsungs tech, Samsung wanted 2.24 % of the total revenue from the end products of the iPhone 4 , iPad and iPhone 3GS, no company in there right mind would agree to such extortion.  What the court just said was that samsung will get the royalties they deserve for the chip inside made by qualcomm that uses there patent, which amounts to about 25 cents to 50 cents per chip not the 2.24% they were asking of the price of the entire iPhone which is rediculous.

post #37 of 55
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

With the German court ordering a $40 million US bond (the statutory limit) to cover possible royalties for the single patent that IPCom is asserting, and considering it applies only to product sold in Germany, the royalty basis would logically need to be a completed device as I can't imagine HTC sold more than 10 million or so of the named devices in Germany alone. I'm trying to find confirmation tho.

 

I think you're misunderstanding what the bond is for.  IPCom would have to pay the bond in order to enforce an injunction against HTC.  In the event that IPCom lost the eventual trial the bond would reimburse HTC for lost sales due to an injunction of a product not found to actually infringe any patents.  The bond is not at all related to IPCom's royalties for their patents.  This is the way any injunction case works.  That's why Motorola had to put up 300 million against Apple recently in Germany.

post #38 of 55

Thanks Greg. I very obviously used incorrect terms. You're absolutely correct on what purpose is served by a bond.

 

The $40 million value ascribed by the court was an "order by the Karlsruhe Higher Regional Court setting the value in dispute for purposes of the determination of court fees and the part of IPCom's legal expenses that HTC will have to pick up under the applicable "loser pays" system"

     

"The appellate court explained that the key criterion for determining the value in dispute is IPCom's "[economic] interest" in the enforcement of its rights, which in this case is based on the "expected license fees". The court notes that IPCom argued that in this industry ("electronics or, respectively, telecommunications"), a royalty rate of 2.5 to 3.5 percent for a single patent is reasonable, and that this also applies to standards-essential patents."

http://www.fosspatents.com/2011/12/ipcom-demands-25-to-35-percent-of-htcs.html

 

Thanks again for prompting the correction!

melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #39 of 55

I can't tell if you're being sarcastic or serious.  The article you link doesn't mention bond at all, only final judgement.


Edited by GregInPrague - 6/20/12 at 4:39pm
post #40 of 55

Which is why I thanked you for bringing it to my attention. A polite and honest thank you wasn't good enough I guess?

 

EDIT: Thanks Greg for editing your post. All's good.

 

EDIT 2: I see you changed it again. Yes I'm serious. Thank you.

You apparently never saw my original link since you thought there wasn't one. There was, and I do appreciate your mention that I used the wrong word to describe that court's valuation of IPCom's patent, which relied on likely royalties for specific HTC handsets sold in Germany.

 

I'm not typically snarky and disrespectful to other members. That's sadly somewhat rare at AI so I understand your suspicion when someone actually says "Thank you" for pointing out an inaccuracy.


Edited by Gatorguy - 6/20/12 at 6:18pm
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: General Discussion
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › Samsung wins 3G patent case against Apple in Dutch court, seeks damages