or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPhone › Samsung accuses Apple of refusing to license 3G patents
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Samsung accuses Apple of refusing to license 3G patents

post #1 of 32
Thread Starter 
Samsung has asserted in court that Apple has refused to enter into negotiations to license essential 3G patents for the iPhone and iPad.

The details came out of the first day of the patent infringement trial between Samsung and Apple on Monday. In the opening proceedings, Samsung said Apple refuses to negotiate for the use of essential 3G patents in its mobile devices, according to IDG News Service.

Specifically, Monday's hearing was focused on two of the three patents that Samsung has accused Apple of violating. The two patents in question are related to power control and the format of packet headers in 3G connections.

Neil Young, an attorney representing Samsung, told the court that Apple has "refused to engage in negotiations." The Korean electronics maker hopes that Justice Annabelle Claire Bennett will separate its own complaint from Apple's patent infringement suit.

Australia has been an important battleground between Apple and Samsung as the two have filed patent infringement suits against each other around the world. The same justice overseeing the current trial opted to ban sales of Samsung's Galaxy Tab 10.1 late last year, though the injunction was later overturned by an appeals court.

3g-120723.jpg


In the latest showdown, Samsung has alleged that Apple's iPhone 4 and iPhone 4S, as well as the iPad 2, are in violation of three 3G data transmission patents. Those accusations were leveled in a cross-claim against Apple in response to the original complaint, in which Apple accused the Galaxy Tab of infringing on its own touchscreen patents.

The current trial between Apple and Samsung in Australia is scheduled to run through the rest of the week. The two companies have other sessions set with the court that run through the month of October.
post #2 of 32
Drop Samsung as a supplier already! There's LG, Toshiba, Sharp, Panasonic, TSMC, AMD, Intel... I'm sure they'd gladly take over Samsung's role in Apple's supply chain of components and chip fabricators. End this drama already!
post #3 of 32

Most likely, given the nature of the patents, Samsung is a) attempting to double dip, licensing fees already having been paid by the chipmaker, and b) only asking for licensing fees for these because FRAND patents are all they have. Apple is most likely right to ignore them.

post #4 of 32

If they're essential, then surely they're FRAND-obligated?  And if they're FRAND-obligated, doesn't the licensing need to be non-discriminatory?  And if the licensing needs to be non-discriminatory, then surely there's no need for negotiations, because there should be a set licensing cost?

censored

Reply

censored

Reply
post #5 of 32
Quote:
Originally Posted by marokero View Post

Drop Samsung as a supplier already! There's LG, Toshiba, Sharp, Panasonic, TSMC, AMD, Intel... I'm sure they'd gladly take over Samsung's role in Apple's supply chain of components and chip fabricators. End this drama already!

AMD isn't a supplier. Global Foundries is what you're thinking on.

post #6 of 32

Apple was licensed to these patents, under the terms of an agreement Samsung made with Qualcomm in 1993, they terminated this agreement in April 2011 when Apple launched their first suit against them.

 

If licensing these patents is important to Samsung, then why did they terminate them in the first place?

A problem occurred with this webpage so it was reloaded.A problem occurred with this webpage so it was reloaded.A problem occurred with this webpage so it was reloaded.A problem occurred with this...
Reply
A problem occurred with this webpage so it was reloaded.A problem occurred with this webpage so it was reloaded.A problem occurred with this webpage so it was reloaded.A problem occurred with this...
Reply
post #7 of 32

Seriously? You don't have to "engage in negotiations". That is like two kids saying on the playground "but he didn't talk to me, I want him to talk to me".

 

 


Tim Cook using Galaxy Tabs as frisbees

 

Reply

 

 


Tim Cook using Galaxy Tabs as frisbees

 

Reply
post #8 of 32
Quote:
Originally Posted by Crowley View Post

If they're essential, then surely they're FRAND-obligated?  And if they're FRAND-obligated, doesn't the licensing need to be non-discriminatory?  And if the licensing needs to be non-discriminatory, then surely there's no need for negotiations, because there should be a set licensing cost?

 

They are FRAND obligated, Samsung is attempting to argue that that doesn't apply under Australian law because the European Telecommunications Standards Institute (ETSI) is based in France.

 

Australia is an associate member of ETSI.

A problem occurred with this webpage so it was reloaded.A problem occurred with this webpage so it was reloaded.A problem occurred with this webpage so it was reloaded.A problem occurred with this...
Reply
A problem occurred with this webpage so it was reloaded.A problem occurred with this webpage so it was reloaded.A problem occurred with this webpage so it was reloaded.A problem occurred with this...
Reply
post #9 of 32

Well, I hope Neil Young will remember
A Southern man don't need him around anyhow. 

post #10 of 32
Am I alone in not realizing that Apple even had 3G patents that Samsung, or anyone, thinks are essential?

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

 

Goodbyeee jragosta :: http://forums.appleinsider.com/t/160864/jragosta-joseph-michael-ragosta

Reply

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

 

Goodbyeee jragosta :: http://forums.appleinsider.com/t/160864/jragosta-joseph-michael-ragosta

Reply
post #11 of 32
Quote:
Originally Posted by Crowley View Post

If they're essential, then surely they're FRAND-obligated?  And if they're FRAND-obligated, doesn't the licensing need to be non-discriminatory?  And if the licensing needs to be non-discriminatory, then surely there's no need for negotiations, because there should be a set licensing cost?

Even under FRAND the licensing costs can vary according to a number of parameters relating to use, so some negotiation would probably still be necessary.
post #12 of 32
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post

Am I alone in not realizing that Apple even had 3G patents that Samsung, or anyone, thinks are essential?

You may be alone in expecting a grammatically accurate article.
post #13 of 32
Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post

You may be alone in expecting a grammatically accurate article.

My comment was based solely on the title. Having just read the article this statement. "Specifically, Monday's hearing was focused on two of the three patents that Samsung has accused Apple of violating. The two patents in question are related to power control and the format of packet headers in 3G connections." sound like the exact opposite of the title.
Edited by SolipsismX - 7/23/12 at 8:46am

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

 

Goodbyeee jragosta :: http://forums.appleinsider.com/t/160864/jragosta-joseph-michael-ragosta

Reply

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

 

Goodbyeee jragosta :: http://forums.appleinsider.com/t/160864/jragosta-joseph-michael-ragosta

Reply
post #14 of 32
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post

You may be alone in expecting a grammatically accurate article.

MY comment was based solely on the title. Having just read the article this statement. "Specifically, Monday's hearing was focused on two of the three patents that Samsung has accused Apple of violating. The two patents in question are related to power control and the format of packet headers in 3G connections." sound like the exact opposite of the title.

No - I agree. It was the article title that I was referring to.
post #15 of 32

If they aren't FRAND, Samsung can eat it.

 

Now, my question is this:

 

If Samsung (or Samsung and others, as perhaps parties to a joint claim) can demonstrate that these *should* be FRAND, can the courts shuffle them under the FRAND roof, 

thus compelling Apple to license them? If so, how long might such a process take?

post #16 of 32

Glad I am not the only one who misunderstood the title of the article, I thought it was a case of UK English and US English having different meanings!

 

Anyway, can someone who know better please explain this 3G dispute a little better to me as I am confused and don't spend too much time on the patent dispute threads.

 

My understanding is that Apple has refused to negotiate with Samsung who hold a particular 3G wireless patent (which is also a FRAND patent) because they believe that the chip which makes specific use of this patent is already covered by Qualcomm's own licensing agreement with Samsung?

 

Surely this is covered in pretty simple terms in the license that Qualcomm has, if not then the chip would be worth less and Qualcom would have to state clearly to Apple what the agreement was.

 

If Qualcom sold a chip to Apple and misrepresented the license then Apple would be suing Qualcomm and that doesn't seem to be happening.

 

On top of that Samsung's complaint would also be with Qualcomm but I don't see Samsung trying to Qualcomm in the dock?

 

Also if the chip turns out not to be properly licensed, would this then cause a problem with other phone and tablet providers who use similar Qualcomm chips.

 

On the other hand why would Samsung pursue this if they had no grounds whatsoever, so are Apple using the chip in a way Samsung didn't license this technology to be used?

 

I am genuinely confused but maybe this ground has all been covered in previous threads, can anyone clarify for me?

post #17 of 32
This thread definitely demonstrates that a lot of people don't read past the title...
post #18 of 32
Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post

This thread definitely demonstrates that a lot of people don't read past the title...
lol yup
post #19 of 32
Quote:
Originally Posted by Just_Me View Post


lol yup

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post

This thread definitely demonstrates that a lot of people don't read past the title...

Really?, two people have questioned whether the title is appropriate as a leader to the rest of the article and both made it perfectly clear that they must have read the article as well............or didn't you read the rest of the posts?

post #20 of 32
Very very confusing twixt Title and article.
Of only one thing I'm sure...we are deep into heavy petting territory here. ;/)
post #21 of 32
Quote:
Originally Posted by anonymouse View Post

Most likely, given the nature of the patents, Samsung is a) attempting to double dip, licensing fees already having been paid by the chipmaker, and b) only asking for licensing fees for these because FRAND patents are all they have. Apple is most likely right to ignore them.

 

Very likely something like that. 

 

Or Samsung is asking for a fee that Apple feels is not reasonable and was set so high because it is Apple. When it comes to such games the only way to right the situation often is willfully violate the patents to force it to court to expose what is typically confidential info and then to have the courts tell the controllers to set proper terms. It's actually a common ploy when it comes to FRAND patents

post #22 of 32
Quote:
Originally Posted by Crowley View Post

If they're essential, then surely they're FRAND-obligated?  And if they're FRAND-obligated, doesn't the licensing need to be non-discriminatory?  And if the licensing needs to be non-discriminatory, then surely there's no need for negotiations, because there should be a set licensing cost?

 

Yes and no. There isn't just an issue of the cost but also the forms of payment. We've seen Google trying to get access to non FRAND patents by trying to claim the 'de facto standard' BS. For all we know Samsung was asked for a license and said yes but not for cash. They might have been demanding access to a non standard patent that Apple isn't obligated to license and thus refused. And basically told them that until that was off the table and Samsung brought a cash request the talks weren't happening. Which Samsung would deem 'not negotiating' because it makes them look like victims

post #23 of 32
Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post

This thread definitely demonstrates that a lot of people don't read past the title...

I always read the article but sometimes I do have a comment to make soley on what I read in the title and I obviously read the title before I read the article. Another thing to consider is that these aren't like titles of books but are usually presented as single sentence declarations of the article's subject.

After I read the title I then read the summary paragraph, as one would expect. In this case it reinforces the title because of it ambiguity. It almost seems deliberate. They could have written,"Apple has refused to enter into negotiations to license Samsung's essential 3G patents for the iPhone and iPad." That is shorter and yet clearly removes any ambiguity or the odd title statement. Getting to paragraph three before I get an M. Night Shyamalan-ian twist doesn't make for good reading and it is the responsibility of the writer to make their point as clear as possible for their readers.

Mentioning Shymalan reminds me of this clip from South Park: http://www.southparkstudios.com/clips/155705/just-some-kid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

 

Goodbyeee jragosta :: http://forums.appleinsider.com/t/160864/jragosta-joseph-michael-ragosta

Reply

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

 

Goodbyeee jragosta :: http://forums.appleinsider.com/t/160864/jragosta-joseph-michael-ragosta

Reply
post #24 of 32

Sounds like Samsung is using Motorola's playbook. In the Apple/Moto lawsuits, how has Apple done in arguing that they were covered by Qualcomm's license when the bought chips from Qualcomm that used Moto IP? It seems like Apple should have easily won based on a) being covered as a customer of Qualcomm b) FRAND principles against discriminatory terms. But hasn't Apple been having a rough go with the various courts with their moto cases?

"My 8th grade math teacher once said: "You can't help it if you're dumb, you are born that way. But stupid is self inflicted."" -Hiro. 

...sometimes it's both
Reply

"My 8th grade math teacher once said: "You can't help it if you're dumb, you are born that way. But stupid is self inflicted."" -Hiro. 

...sometimes it's both
Reply
post #25 of 32
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post

Mentioning Shymalan reminds me of this clip from South Park: http://www.southparkstudios.com/clips/155705/just-some-kid

Requires flash. I don't have the "full" web on my iPad. :o)
post #26 of 32
Quote:
Originally Posted by festerfeet View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by Just_Me View Post

lol yup
Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post

This thread definitely demonstrates that a lot of people don't read past the title...
Really?, two people have questioned whether the title is appropriate as a leader to the rest of the article and both made it perfectly clear that they must have read the article as well............or didn't you read the rest of the posts?

I read all the posts. I responded to Soli's, agreeing that the title was misleading. Then 15 and 16 appeared, both clearly not having read the article or the subsequent posts. In any case, my comment was just an observation and not intended to come over as critical as it did - my mistake.
post #27 of 32
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post

Am I alone in not realizing that Apple even had 3G patents that Samsung, or anyone, thinks are essential?

 



Maybe Samsung is referring to iPhone 3G - they want a license for copying its design.

post #28 of 32
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tulkas View Post

Sounds like Samsung is using Motorola's playbook. In the Apple/Moto lawsuits, how has Apple done in arguing that they were covered by Qualcomm's license when the bought chips from Qualcomm that used Moto IP? It seems like Apple should have easily won based on a) being covered as a customer of Qualcomm b) FRAND principles against discriminatory terms. But hasn't Apple been having a rough go with the various courts with their moto cases?

 

That case ran into Posner and his anti patents except for pharmaceuticals agenda.

A problem occurred with this webpage so it was reloaded.A problem occurred with this webpage so it was reloaded.A problem occurred with this webpage so it was reloaded.A problem occurred with this...
Reply
A problem occurred with this webpage so it was reloaded.A problem occurred with this webpage so it was reloaded.A problem occurred with this webpage so it was reloaded.A problem occurred with this...
Reply
post #29 of 32

Quote:
Monday's hearing focused on two of the three patents -- Australian patents No. 2005202512 and No. 2006241621 -- that Samsung alleges Apple has violated.

 

I'm confused.

If this case is about Apple violating Samsung patents, why is Samsung arguing that Apple refuses to license patents to Samsung?

post #30 of 32
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris_CA View Post

Quote:
Monday's hearing focused on two of the three patents -- Australian patents No. 2005202512 and No. 2006241621 -- that Samsung alleges Apple has violated.

I'm confused.
If this case is about Apple violating Samsung patents, why is Samsung arguing that Apple refuses to license patents to Samsung?

Just bad wording in the article I think - Samsung is complaining that Apple is refusing to negotiate a license from Samsung. Maybe the authors are unaware that the verb "to license" means to grant authority, not to receive it.
post #31 of 32
Got it.
Thanks!
post #32 of 32
Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post


I read all the posts. I responded to Soli's, agreeing that the title was misleading. Then 15 and 16 appeared, both clearly not having read the article or the subsequent posts. In any case, my comment was just an observation and not intended to come over as critical as it did - my mistake.

 

No problem, I was being snappy and should probably have left it.
Note to self: I shouldn't drink so much coffee!
 
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: iPhone
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPhone › Samsung accuses Apple of refusing to license 3G patents