Samsung to sue Apple over LTE patents, partner with Microsoft to avoid Android lawsuits - Page 2

 

In a world in which someone actually thought that tablet-thingy from Space Odyssey: 2001 counts as prior art . . . I'm not surprised. 

Should be interesting how Apple fights back via Rockstar/Nortel patents. If Samsung already had a license agreement with Nortel, it remains valid as one of the terms of the sale approved by the Dept. of Justice.

If Samsung did not have a license from Nortel for their LTE patents, using Samsung's own LTE patents as an offensive strategy sounds like a bad move.

From theregister.co.uk

" Nortel contributed significantly to both 4G standards, WiMAX and LTE, with R&D in key areas including OFDMA and MIMO. According to Reuters, Nortel owns seven of the 105 patent families likely to be essential to LTE. By comparison, Nokia holds 57 and Ericsson 14."


Reasonable Assumptions:


Since Apple already settled with Nokia, I assume their agreement licenses LTE and future tech on FRAND terms, and won't be part of any future legal skirmishes.

Since Ericsson is a partner in Rockstar, I assume Apple is licensing their LTE at FRAND rates.

So if there really 105 patent families, Apple has access to 78 of them at "real" FRAND rates.

When Samsung and Moto make their high royalty demands on FRAND patents, it will look out of line in comparison to other (almost 80%) LTE SEP rates.

Sidenote:
In reference to the idea that it only takes one bullet (patent).

If Moto and Samsung don't have Nortel licenses, Apple has 7 families of bullets that are SEP to the LTE standard.

It's not a good idea to pick a fight with another LTE patent owner.

If you take a step back and look at the big picture, look at all the legal messes that have been caused by Google's "free" and "open" Android OS. Did Google not anticipate any of this or did they just not care about legal situations that they were potentially putting their OEMs into?

I'm surprised that nobody has pointed oit that 'Ativ is "Vita" spelled backward'.

 

Yes... and Adam has a patent on the joystick!

 

… ConradJoe?

 

What is the significance of that name? I see what they did, but what is the meaning?

 

Wasn't ConradJoe just another Teckstud?

Ahh but then how will they differentiate their crap from everyone else's crap? Such a conundrum. Seriously though, isn't that why a lot of Android OEMs make these UI layers in the first place? So they can differentiate?

 

It's the name Sammy gave the new W8 phone -- and Sammy pointed out the 'Ativ is "Vita" spelled backward'.

 

...I suppose that vita means something to somebody???

Samsung now deploying old men and teenagers to defend the company. The CEO is hunkered down in his Seoul bunker, having just married his mistress Eva Kim Braun.

 

. . . come on, someone had to be the first to get the Nazi analogy into this somehow. ;-)

Anybody been watching Network? There's a subplot about trolls. Kinda cool.

 

Just wait until Samsung adds their garbage into Windows Phone, again violating Apple's patents. They just don't seem to care who says what about whatever they do. I hope they are leveled by Apple in a series of patent wins and business acquisitions.

What are you reaching at here? Apple came up with the Sony clone "Jony" phone (that rhymes in such a fun way). Apple is the copycat. Samsung would never try to copy anyone and then "cleverly" try to hide the fact by reversing the name of another product from another product category (that interestingly enough hasn't sold very well) and trying to make bank off of it.

 

Or would they? 

 

As I recall, Microsoft, RIM, Ericsson, and Sony joined with Apple on those patents purchased for LTE and much, much, more, with Apple covering the bulk of the costs and thus being the controlling party in this licensing deal.

 

http://www.tuaw.com/2011/07/11/courts-approve-sale-of-nortel-patents-to-apple-others/

Ahh yes, but then that destroys the concept of "choices". We can't have that. Samsung makes too many amazing choices...you've got the...the...Galaxy...and then um...the Galaxy somethingorother...then the Galaxy 3GS...the Galaxy 4S...the New Galaxy which was in development for years before the upcoming iPhone but won't be released till Apple releases what is likely to be called the "New iPhone". If we have to live in a world where for Apple to win, Samsung has to lose, then I want no part of it. 

 

I want choices.

Bring it on Samesung, Apple is not afraid of you.

 

Samesung is desperate now, there's very little proof available that they are actually able to innovate, so now that their game is up, they are resorting to desperate measures. 

 

Cars don't all look the same, cereal boxes don't look the same - despite all being box shaped!, receivers and amps don't all look the same, speakers don't all look the same, computers (when not blatantly copying the MacBook/Air) don't all look the same, remote controls, books, magazines, glasses (drinking and vision-correcting), etc... - yet those all perform similar-to-the-same functions within their respective categories.

 

Phones will only all look the same if they all copy Apple. You could make a phone that is flat, has no buttons, and there's no reason it has to come out looking indistinguishable from an iPhone unless you're just trying to capitalize on Apple's design work and reputation. There's no other reason.  Clearly the jury came to the same conclusion.  And Samsung's 'suit man' is no visionary leading the industry to new product types and better designs, he looks more like a clone himself. Shocking.

 

(And I'm not saying Samsung's mobile division isn't talented. Being really good at copying other people's work is a talent too!)

What I don't understand here is (just like in the Nokia settlement) how Apple should have any responsibility whatsoever.

 

Apple did not develop their own LTE chipset, nor have they developed any of the associated tech.  They buy LTE chips, amplifiers, transmitters, etc. from other companies.  If those companies have license to manufacture and sell the parts, why should Apple have to buy a license to assemble them into a product?  If there are any royalties to be paid, shouldn't the component manufacturers be paying them (and presumably passing the costs along to their customers.)

 

Am I missing something fundamental about international patent law here?  Or has Apple actually developed some of the LTE tech used in their products?

 

Or am I right and this suit is purely frivolous?
 

God, is that you? :P

 

No, I'm not ConradJoe (whomever that is). Although interestingly, my brother's name is Conrad :)

 

''To prevent war the galaxy is on Orion's belt.''

Sadly, movie quotes won't prevent this war. It's already started...and I think the first thermonuclear munitions have been successfully lobbed by Apple. Now only one company can make iPhones. It's not only not fair, but it's also very discriminatory. Too bad. I really liked the Galaxy iPhone. 

If Samsung try to use LTE FRAND patents against Apple it may be another nail in their coffin

The EU is already investigating Samsung over use of standards essential patents

Samsung could end up being fined more by the EU than they lost to Apple

Thanks for proving Apple's point.

There's no such thing as a 'Galaxy iPhone'. The fact that you call it such strongly supports Apple's contention that Samsung intentionally misled consumers to create confusion.

No one else should be able make iPhones any more than anyone else should be able to make a Buick Enclave. It's a trade-named product from a single manufacturer.

Of course, that doesn't stop Samsung from making phones that are NOT exact copies of the iPhone - and Apple never tried to stop them from doing that.

I'm just glad that my level of sarcasm is clear enough that nobody requires the "/s". 

 

I found this a bit weird.  

 

Samsung started off with a lot of phones that were almost identical to the iPhone, then as the suits started to roll, they actually moved to a more original design with their latest Galaxy phones.  Now, right after they lost the suit, they come out with three phones and two tablets that are all almost indistinguishable from iPhone/iPad at a moderate distance.  

 

It's like they are doubling down on the idiocy.  I hope Apple sues them all over again.

 

This is a really good point that is often overlooked.  Everyone talks about Apple "suing instead of innovating" and blame most of the patent wars on them, but it really was Google that started it all.  

 

IMO, it seems that Google basically just thought that everyone would (like them) ignore the patent issues and embrace "open-ness" (on their terms only of course).  It was a foolish idea based on a juvenile understanding of how the law and the markets would respond.  

 

Google is really the culprit here.  Google is the one that started all of these legal battles and patent wars regardless of who actually hired the first lawyer.  It's their ridiculous teenaged attitude towards some rather grown up laws that's at fault for the whole fiasco IMO.  

This above is Apple's legal argument, that the $10 chip they buy from Intel or Qualcomm is already licensed for SEPs via contracts with Samsung and Moto, respectively. If Apple pays $10 for a chip, and the chipmaker pays the licensor, then, the licensor has no right to double dip for license fees.

Samsung and Moto want to revoke those pass-thru licenses, but only in regards to Apple and no other competitor.

Apple claims Moto and Samsung can't ask them for money too, bc the theory of Patent Exhaustion.

Apple has been trying to get all of the license contracts from the Samsung/Intel and Moto/Qualcomm agreements. Samsung and Moto have been fighting tooth and nail to prevent Apple from seeing those contracts.

IIRC Apple has gotten access to some of the Samsung/Intel/Qualcomm contracts via courts in California. In the past week, Apple won a motion for further discovery, against Moto in Wisconsin, which may allow them to obtain the Moto/Qualcomm license contracts.

It is all going to come down to the legal wording of the license agreements.

If the courts decide in favor of Apple's arguments, Apple might be able to prove anti-competitive behavior under antitrust law, potentially collecting damages. This might also draw attention from the Dept of Justice and FTC, which may start their own investigations, and impose their own damages.

In the long, it seems very risky to sue with FRAND patents, bc the potential losses could be large, but either way, it's going to cause more government scrutiny of the wireless market. This could lead to more government oversight or potential regulations. This is the last thing that wireless industry would desire, the possibility of the government dictating the rules of the free market.

The other wireless SEP owners who license on "real" FRAND terms, are probably pissed at Moto and Samsung, whose actions are causing closer government scrutiny in the EU and US. The other wireless SEP owners don't want the courts or other government bodies to dictate FRAND terms and rates.

Moto and Samsung are creating a huge headache for everyone else in the industry.

Apple buys a chipset that is on the market and throws it inside.  what's the big deal?  If the chips to connect to 4G/LTE are on the market, then why can't they use those chip sets?   I don't get it...

Kind of early to start partnering with MS. Might find themselves tied to a dog and then lose Google as their BFF.
 

Look at the Nokia Lumia phones, they look nothing like this. It's definitely possible to make phone that don't look iphone-ish.

Samsung is hilarious with this nonsense… Here is a company with $14B in the bank threatening another company with 10 TIMES as much money in the bank. I hate Asian companies, I really do. They don't have any creativity - look at all of them, they just copy what they see. The Prius is the only innovative thing to come out of southeast Asia in recent memory, and even that is based on the Atkinson Cycle engine which is a US patent.

 

If the world were a human body, the US would be the brain and Asia would be the hands… sorry to be so blunt, but it's true.

Sadly, Samsung still looks like the most reliable component vendor for a number of parts Apple needs for their phone. Until this changes (especially as it relates to the manufacturing the processor), Samsung will continue trying to stick it to Apple in some way or another.

One thing I'm a little disgusted by is the lack of support that Apple has received from other companies in the U.S.and Europe. Samsung is just as much a threat to the business of Microsoft and Nokia as they are to Apple, and a word of support would go a long way to break the Android fud that the problem here is Apple and their selfish idea that they should protect their innovation in the marketplace.

 

When evil is being done one has to look hard at those who are turning the other way.

 

For now they seem to be doing just fine on their own, so I'm not surprised the others are leaving them to get on with it.

 

If you want to place the condition that your statement will be true in the indefinite future, it automatically becomes unfalsifiable. I automatically dismiss these types of arguments for their rhetorical nature.

 

I don't think Samsung is trying to ban Apple's products, as Apple is doing now.  Samsung will probably ask for a high rate, though a rate far fair, reasonable than Apple's rate, to force Apple to cross-license. 

 

There is really nothing set in stone about "fair" or "reasonable" price.  If Apple can charge $25 per low-end Android device (20%) for their utility patents, I don't see why Samsung can't charge Apple 10% or 15% for all eight.

 

So, in your view, FRAND patents are no different to non-FRAND patents?

No, it looks different from the rear - I'd say different chassis and materials both. Anandtech.com had a few nice photos. From the front, well.

 

I really don't know. If you see similar writing patters, there's that as evidence, but as far as I see, I think Connie is his own variant of psychopath, creating his own slew of repeat accounts.

 

In his view Samsung didn't copy Apple, so there's that. 

Nice how you completely missed good old Europe. I'm guessing no one craves for Ferari, Lambo, Porsche, BMW, Audi, Merc... anymore?