or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › Apple agrees to drop patent claims against Samsung Galaxy S III Mini
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Apple agrees to drop patent claims against Samsung Galaxy S III Mini

post #1 of 33
Thread Starter 
A court document filed on Friday revealed that Apple is dropping all claims against Samsung's Galaxy S III Mini smartphone after the Korean company said it has no plans to formally import and sell the handset in the U.S.

Galaxy S III mini
Samsung's Galaxy S III Mini will be dropped from Apple's assertions. | Source: Samsung


In Apple's filing with the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, a reply in support of a November motion to amend its claims against Samsung, the company agreed to drop the Galaxy S III Mini from the suit in response to the Galaxy maker's opposition of adding new products to the upcoming case.

Apple looked to broaden assertions with a proposed Nov. 23 motion which added the Galaxy Note II, Galaxy S III with Android 4.1, Galaxy S III Mini, Rugby Pro, Galaxy Tab 8.9 Wi-Fi and Galaxy Tab 2 10.1 to a suit scheduled to be heard in 2014.

Samsung countered by saying it is not ?making, using, selling, offering to sell or importing the Galaxy S III Mini in the United States," and opposed the inclusion of the Galaxy Tab 8.9, Galaxy Tab 2 10.1, and Galaxy Rugby Pro, because ?Apple did not serve its claim charts for these products until November 30, after the November 23 date identified by the Court.?

According to Friday's filing, Apple will not contest the partial opposition and claimed it misunderstood a Nov. 15 court order regarding a limitation on assertions, a stipulation Samsung pointed to in its retort. If the Court agrees with Samsung's reading of the order, which concludes that all new contentions made after Nov. 23 are invalid, Apple "will of course voluntarily withdraw any infringement contentions" made after that date.

As for the Galaxy S III Mini, Apple noted that the handset can be purchased at retail outlets like Amazon.com's U.S. storefront, but agreed to withdraw its claims as long as they can be reinstated if the device was to see official sale in America.

The case, which involves the iPhone 5 and Galaxy S III flagship smartphones, is set to start hearings on Mar. 31, 2014.

post #2 of 33

They did indeed reach an agreement when they met...

post #3 of 33
Probably because the smaller screen would look too similar to the iphones.
post #4 of 33
You can't believe a word that corrupt organization says. They won't import or sell in the US, but you can bet your bottom dollar that grey imports of these devices will make their way into the US. Samescum. A lying, cheating, corrupt and immoral business that should not be trusted by ANYONE!

http://www.kernelmag.com/features/report/3028/samsung-power-corruption-and-lies/
post #5 of 33

deleted


Edited by MacRulez - 3/15/13 at 10:05am
post #6 of 33

I believe he means Apple can't believe a word Samsung is saying. Apple is only dropping the Galaxy S III because Samsung says it won't market and sell it in the U.S. But Apple dropped the device without prejudice; meaning they can add it to the suit at a later date should Samsung renege on the promise.

post #7 of 33
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kr00 View Post

You can't believe a word that corrupt organization says. They won't import or sell in the US, but you can bet your bottom dollar that grey imports of these devices will make their way into the US. Samescum. A lying, cheating, corrupt and immoral business that should not be trusted by ANYONE!
http://www.kernelmag.com/features/report/3028/samsung-power-corruption-and-lies/

That would be an issue for Apple to take to the customs office. Which is a bigger mess. As long as Samsung tells folks like Amazon they can't ship said phone to the US they have done their side. Apple is asking for permission to sue later if thy find Samsung isn't following through

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 #8 of 33
Well, there might be a $15b fine coming Samsung's way so I think that's enough of a problem for them to deal with:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2012/dec/26/samsung-multibillion-fine-apple-europe

Probably not that much but at the very least, Samsung will hopefully try and avoid using standards essential patents to retaliate.
post #9 of 33
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marvin View Post

Well, there might be a $15b fine coming Samsung's way so I think that's enough of a problem for them to deal with:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2012/dec/26/samsung-multibillion-fine-apple-europe
Probably not that much but at the very least, Samsung will hopefully try and avoid using standards essential patents to retaliate.

Am I correct in thinking it would be the largest fine ever paid in Europe by a company?


edit: I can't find any fine in the world that is more than $4B.

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

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

Reply

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

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

Reply
post #10 of 33
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marvin View Post

Well, there might be a $15b fine coming Samsung's way so I think that's enough of a problem for them to deal with:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2012/dec/26/samsung-multibillion-fine-apple-europe

 

Such a penalty doesn't make sense until there's a rule to be broken.

 

Currently there is no EU-wide policy or law about SEP injunctions.     In both the US and the EU, courts and commissions are divided on the topic and have ruled both ways.

 

So the whole point of this particular EU commission is to decide, once and for all, if an injunction can be requested if the licensee has already started negotiations.

 

ONLY AFTER such a rule is made, does it make sense to start handing out fines.   Otherwise, it smacks of a retroactive money grab.

post #11 of 33
Originally Posted by KDarling View Post
Such a penalty doesn't make sense until there's a rule to be broken.

 

Of course the Anti-Apple Brigade is the first to jump on the very idea that they could have ever possibly done anything wrong whatsoever.

Originally posted by Relic

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

Originally posted by Relic

...those little naked weirdos are going to get me investigated.
Reply
post #12 of 33
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marvin View Post

Well, there might be a $15b fine coming Samsung's way so I think that's enough of a problem for them to deal with:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2012/dec/26/samsung-multibillion-fine-apple-europe
Probably not that much but at the very least, Samsung will hopefully try and avoid using standards essential patents to retaliate.

The thing I dislike about this kind of article is it's really an extended headline rather than an article. Aside from that these supposed fines are always talked up early on. Remember the one around Google's circumvention of privacy settings. The final amount was a fraction of what it started. In this case it's not clear whether they can impose a fine at all. The article makes no mention of basis or anything. While I try to avoid looking like an armchair attorney, every time I read such a discussion, the missing information glares at me.

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

 

Of course the Anti-Apple Brigade is the first to jump on the very idea that they could have ever possibly done anything wrong whatsoever.


Since when does he count as the anti-apple brigade?

post #13 of 33
Quote:
Originally Posted by KDarling View Post

 

Such a penalty doesn't make sense until there's a rule to be broken.

 

Currently there is no EU-wide policy or law about SEP injunctions.     In both the US and the EU, courts and commissions are divided on the topic and have ruled both ways.

 

So the whole point of this particular EU commission is to decide, once and for all, if an injunction can be requested if the licensee has already started negotiations.

 

ONLY AFTER such a rule is made, does it make sense to start handing out fines.   Otherwise, it smacks of a retroactive money grab.

 

The Commission believes -- after studying the situation for more than a year -- that simply asking for injunctions on SEPs is anti-competitive. While I don't think Samsung has to worry about such an outrageous fine, they will be penalized should they not cooperate and/or settle the dispute with the Commission. The fact that they dropped their requests for injunctions works in their favor. The Commission will at the very least request/impose a modest fine as a warning to others.

 

EDIT: quoting is messed up on my MBA. Didn't catch the mistake till after I hit submit button.

post #14 of 33
Quote:
Originally Posted by ronn View Post

The Commission believes -- after studying the situation for more than a year -- that simply asking for injunctions on SEPs is anti-competitive. 

 

I agree with your other comments, however this sentence is incorrect.   As I and others have pointed out before, the Commission is ONLY deciding if injunctions are bad for ONE particular situation, and that is if the licensee had already shown that they were willing to negotiate a FRAND rate.

 

Quote:

"Today's Statement of Objections sets out the Commission's preliminary view that under the specific circumstances of this case, where a commitment to license SEPs on FRAND terms has been given by Samsung, and where a potential licensee, in this case Apple, has shown itself to be willing to negotiate a FRAND licence for the SEPs, then recourse to injunctions harms competition.

 

Since injunctions generally involve a prohibition of the product infringing the patent being sold, such recourse risks excluding products from the market without justification and may distort licensing negotiations unduly in the SEP-holder's favour.

 

The preliminary view expressed in today's Statement of Objections does not question the availability of injunctive relief for SEP holders outside the specific circumstances present in this case, for example in the case of unwilling licensees."

 

- EU Commission (read here) (Underlining and emphasis mine.  )

 

This is also why it's critical for the licensee in these cases to prove that they did make serious, binding FRAND counter-offers (*)  in response to the SEP holder's requests.   Regards.

 

(*)  An example:   Apple once responded to a FRAND request by saying they'd pay, but only if they also got the right to later try to invalidate the patent and get all their money back and sue for damages.  A US judge said that did not qualify as a decent license response, and in fact could allow the rate to increase.


Edited by KDarling - 12/29/12 at 4:41pm
post #15 of 33
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post


Am I correct in thinking it would be the largest fine ever paid in Europe by a company?
edit: I can't find any fine in the world that is more than $4B.

Microsoft might get nailed for as much as another $8B by the EU.

http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9229318/Microsoft_ignored_tip_that_it_botched_browser_choice_in_Windows_7_SP1

melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #16 of 33
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post


Am I correct in thinking it would be the largest fine ever paid in Europe by a company?
edit: I can't find any fine in the world that is more than $4B.

 

EC hasn't fined Samsung yet.

post #17 of 33
Quote:
Originally Posted by tooltalk View Post

 

EC hasn't fined Samsung yet.

No one said they did.

post #18 of 33
Originally Posted by Chris_CA View Post
No one said they did.

 

Gotta hold on to any possible scrap they can…

Originally posted by Relic

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

Originally posted by Relic

...those little naked weirdos are going to get me investigated.
Reply
post #19 of 33
Apple probably realized that the bad press they were getting wasn't worth the tiny payments they were getting from Samsung.

They've moved on to other manufacturers and won't be sending prototypes to a cloning outfit. Lesson learned. But Samsung will be knocking off other devices if anyone can make one worth stealing like Apple. So don't expect this to be the end of it.

Samsung has proven that ripping off others is profitable.

post #20 of 33
Originally Posted by Fake_William_Shatner View Post
Apple probably realized that the bad press they were getting wasn't worth the tiny payments they were getting from Samsung.

 

What "bad press"? They're protecting their intellectual property.


But Samsung will be knocking off other devices if anyone can make one worth stealing like Apple.

 

No, they'll STILL be knocking off Apple devices because there's nothing better in the industry. And they're NOT being punished for it.

Originally posted by Relic

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

Originally posted by Relic

...those little naked weirdos are going to get me investigated.
Reply
post #21 of 33

LoL, S3 mini? Did Samsung figure out that smartphones aren't mini TVs?

post #22 of 33
Quote:
Originally Posted by kikkO View Post

LoL, S3 mini? Did Samsung figure out that smartphones aren't mini TVs?

'mini TVs'. I like it.

One of my students came in with a phone the other day that was immense. There's no way she could hold it in one hand and I noticed her putting it on the table to type on 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 #23 of 33
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post


'mini TVs'. I like it.
One of my students came in with a phone the other day that was immense. There's no way she could hold it in one hand and I noticed her putting it on the table to type on it.

 

 

There's a point when phones get too big and shouldn't be considered phones anymore. I recently upgraded to a iPhone 5 (I was still using flip phone up till now, a Sharp 936SH) because I had to check my emails on the road and my GPS broke. I think the iPhone is fine the way it is now and I hope they don't make it any bigger.

 

If they do decide to go bigger I hope they make flexible OLED flip phones, phones like the S3 are too big, what happened to the days when people could a phone with one hand?

post #24 of 33
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kr00 View Post

They won't import or sell in the US, but you can bet your bottom dollar that grey imports of these devices will make their way into the US. 

 

 

The regular US courts can only stop Samsung's imports, which is why Apple withdrew their inclusion in this case.

 

However, the ITC does have the power to stop ALL importers of a particular item.    It's likely that Apple has already planned to put a request before them instead.


Edited by KDarling - 12/30/12 at 2:20pm
post #25 of 33
Quote:
Originally Posted by kikkO View Post

 

If they do decide to go bigger I hope they make flexible OLED flip phones, phones like the S3 are too big, what happened to the days when people could a phone with one hand?

 

When I see phones like the note, it doesn't look like they were designed primarily for talking. I could see the appeal for someone who primarily uses the device for web, email, games, etc. I didn't personally care for it.

post #26 of 33
Quote:
Originally Posted by hmm View Post

 

When I see phones like the note, it doesn't look like they were designed primarily for talking. I could see the appeal for someone who primarily uses the device for web, email, games, etc. I didn't personally care for it.

 

Yep.  Steve Jobs recognized that a smartphone wasn't just a phone.   He presented the iPhone as a combination:

 

  • Phone
  • Internet communicator
  • Widescreen iPod

 

For those who use the second two portions more than the first, a bigger screen is often much better.

 

Heck, I never see young people using the phone part at all in public any more.  Everyone texts or IMs or even just posts on Facebook and figures others will see it.

 

As an old guy, I love bigger screens for being easier to read, and showing much more info.

post #27 of 33
Quote:
Originally Posted by KDarling View Post

 

Yep.  Steve Jobs recognized that a smartphone wasn't just a phone.   He presented the iPhone as a combination:

 

  • Phone
  • Internet communicator
  • Widescreen iPod

 

It was already going that route with things like the Treo early on followed by Blackberries. Perhaps in some areas more people used the typical dumb phones, but blackberries were extremely common in major cities.

 

Quote:

For those who use the second two portions more than the first, a bigger screen is often much better.

 

Heck, I never see young people using the phone part at all in public any more.  Everyone texts or IMs or even just posts on Facebook and figures others will see it.

 

As an old guy, I love bigger screens for being easier to read, and showing much more info.

 

Texting caught on fairly quickly. It's been popular for a very long time. Newer phone generations made it less cumbersome without the need to resort to abbreviations and numerical substitution. Manufacturers will keep bumping screen size until we hit a point where people stop buying them in sufficient quantities. Larger lcd displays are not as cost prohibitive as they would have been a few years ago. LCDs in general have become quite commoditized up to a certain price point. The low cost ones seem to be derived from panels shared with televisions to better amortize costs.

post #28 of 33
Originally Posted by hmm View Post
It was already going that route…

 

1000

Originally posted by Relic

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

Originally posted by Relic

...those little naked weirdos are going to get me investigated.
Reply
post #29 of 33
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

 

1000


Fond memories from your childhood?

post #30 of 33
Originally Posted by hmm View Post
Fond memories from your childhood?

 

Well, you seem to be rebelling without a cause, so…

Originally posted by Relic

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

Originally posted by Relic

...those little naked weirdos are going to get me investigated.
Reply
post #31 of 33
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

 

Well, you seem to be rebelling without a cause, so…


I don't get that reference. I just wanted to see an amusing response rather than a mix of gif files and memes. My previous point was that older people avoided things like text early on, but in larger cities it was common to see everyone check email from blackberries prior to the iphone. The trend toward text, email, and maps on phones was already in progress. Kids constantly texted in broken English on dumb phones. Better texting capability merely allowed for unabridged English and a greater range of adoption. I already considered these things to be mainstream at the time of the original iphone. Other brands were advertising feature phones with dual mp3 player functionality around that time. Apple was able to push nearly everyone to such a model. I'm somewhat surprised by how quickly they grew in spite of the higher minimum plan rates for smartphone plans. If you look at Verizon it's $90-100/month minimum prior to taxes and fees.

post #32 of 33

deleted


Edited by MacRulez - 5/16/13 at 12:10pm
post #33 of 33
Originally Posted by MacRulez View Post
Do you believe that's James Dean?


It's Marlon Brando from a screen test, yeah?

Originally posted by Relic

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

Originally posted by Relic

...those little naked weirdos are going to get me investigated.
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: General Discussion
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › Apple agrees to drop patent claims against Samsung Galaxy S III Mini