or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › EU regulators call for more Samsung concessions to end antitrust case
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

EU regulators call for more Samsung concessions to end antitrust case

post #1 of 31
Thread Starter 
Regulators in the European Union are calling for Samsung to offer greater concessions in order to head off a fine over antitrust violations in its ongoing patent disputes with Apple.



"The Commission can confirm that Samsung has submitted proposals," EU spokesman Jonathan Todd told Reuters, "the Commission has assessed them and asked Samsung to improve them."

EU regulators hold that Samsung breached antitrust rules when it brought suit against Apple in several EU countries beginning in 2011. Samsung sought injunctions against Apple's iPhone and other products, partially in response to Apple filing suit alleging Samsung's willful violation of its own intellectual property and design patents.

The patents Samsung sought to enforce, though, were standards-essential patents, including some related to mobile telephony. Those companies that hold standards-essential patents are required under international law to extend fair, reasonable, and non-discriminatory (FRAND) offers to willful licensees.

Hitting Samsung with a complaint last year, the European Commission claimed that the firm did not adhere to its FRAND responsibilities when it filed suit against Apple and, further, that that violation of FRAND principles also constituted anti-competitive action. Samsung has been in discussions with the Commission since June 25 to settle the issue.

The EU spokesman did not go into detail with regard to what concessions Samsung has offered so far. If the South Korean tech giant is unable to persuade the Commission that it will abandon anti-competitive practices, it could face a fine of up to 10 percent of its 2012 revenues, or $18.3 billion.
post #2 of 31

MORE concessions! MORE!

 

And then fine them anyway!

post #3 of 31
The EU is wise to come down hard on these FRAND shenanigans because that is a can of litigious worms that they should not allow to open at all. Not even a crack.
post #4 of 31
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post
 

MORE concessions! MORE!

 

And then fine them anyway!

 

No kidding!  What the hell is it about "asking" Samsung to "improve" their concessions???  They are the ones in charge.  Slap some serious fines on them!!  Like what is Samsung going to do?!

Oh, and I would demand that Samsung post an apology on their main home page in 50pt font size.  A$$h***s!!

post #5 of 31
The end is near - obviously Samsung cannot agree to some concessions in Europe and then do entirely different things elsewhere! Which means, Samsung cannot use counter-litigation as a defense against Apple.

And considering how Apple is winning its litigation against Samsung, this is going to be a one-sided boxing match.

The game is going to be over soon, and it is going to be bloody!
post #6 of 31
Quote:

Originally Posted by AppleInsider View Post

Regulators in the European Union are calling for Samsung to offer greater concessions in order to head off a fine over antitrust violations in its ongoing patent disputes with Apple.
 



"The Commission can confirm that Samsung has submitted proposals," EU spokesman Jonathan Todd told Reuters, "the Commission has assessed them and asked Samsung to improve them."

...
Hitting Samsung with a complaint last year, the European Commission claimed that the firm did not adhere to its FRAND responsibilities when it filed suit against Apple and, further, that that violation of FRAND principles also constituted anti-competitive action. Samsung has been in discussions with the Commission since June 25 to settle the issue.
....

About time they 'at least attempt to' resolve this issue but I won't hold my breath waiting for the final resolution. 

 

Unfortunately I am concerned that when all the various lawsuits are resolved, even if Samsung loses them all and Samsung isn't winning many at this point, is that the fines and penalties will be insignificant when compared to the billions that Samsung has already made. Samsung's competitors, excluding Apple, have problems making any money so it appears Samsung's strategy, copy, sue, countersue, eventually pay mostly irrelevant fines/penalties,  will be proved to be even better than even Apple's as Samsung will have netted billions and established a brand when others could not.

 

While still a long way from being totally  resolved it appears that Samsung's strategy, to ask or negotiate for forgiveness rather than asking or negotiating permission up front, might be better, faster and cheaper.


Edited by Realistic - 9/9/13 at 12:07pm

"A common mistake that people make when trying to design something completely foolproof is to underestimate the ingenuity of complete fools." Douglas Adams

Reply

"A common mistake that people make when trying to design something completely foolproof is to underestimate the ingenuity of complete fools." Douglas Adams

Reply
post #7 of 31
Originally Posted by macarena View Post
The end is near - obviously Samsung cannot agree to some concessions in Europe and then do entirely different things elsewhere! 

 

Apple can be found guilty in the UK of something they were found innocent in the US, so don't hold your breath.

post #8 of 31
Hitting Samsung with a complaint last year, the European Commission claimed that the firm did not adhere to its FRAND responsibilities when it filed suit against Apple and, further, that that violation of FRAND principles also constituted anti-competitive action. Samsung has been in discussions with the Commission since June 25 to settle the issue.

The EU spokesman did not go into detail with regard to what concessions Samsung has offered so far. If the South Korean tech giant is unable to persuade the Commission that it will abandon anti-competitive practices, it could face a fine of up to 10 percent of its 2012 revenues, or $18.3 billion.

It's like a parent asking a child to determine their own punishment for wrongdoing, which seems to me odd for the government/business environment. Are they going to ask them what they did wrong and put them in timeout as well?

post #9 of 31
The velvet glove will not work on this willful trollop. Start with hefty fine paid to Apple, jump to sanctions, end with 'smack on head' (a trusty resort in the great white north for fools and big mouths). 1biggrin.gif

When I find time to rewrite the laws of Physics, there'll Finally be some changes made round here!

I am not crazy! Three out of five court appointed psychiatrists said so.

Reply

When I find time to rewrite the laws of Physics, there'll Finally be some changes made round here!

I am not crazy! Three out of five court appointed psychiatrists said so.

Reply
post #10 of 31
In the meantime Google offered more concessions to the EU in their Microsoft-driven search complaint. No word from either Google or the EU what those additional concessions are. Every tech seems to be offering the EU concessions on a multitude of investigations rather than standing their ground. Looks to me like Almunia doing a fair amount of muscle flexing.
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #11 of 31
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post
 

 

Apple can be found guilty in the UK of something they were found innocent in the US, so don't hold your breath.

 

And vice versa.  Apple was found guilty of infringing on Samsung's 3g patent in the US while the EU has decided to go after Samsung for patent abuse.  Neither of the courts are perfect.

post #12 of 31
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheUnfetteredMind View Post
 

It's like a parent asking a child to determine their own punishment for wrongdoing, which seems to me odd for the government/business environment. Are they going to ask them what they did wrong and put them in timeout as well?

 

No, the EU is simply giving Samsung the opportunity to make suggestions. If their suggestions aren't tough enough the EU will soon get fed up and impose their own version of what Samsung needs to do (fines, change of business practices and so on).

 

 

The funniest part about all of this? Samsung never did get anywhere in Europe with these cases. They had several filed (I think 4-5) against the iPhone 5 seeking an injunction based on SEP's. They then suddenly dropped all requests for injunctions, coincidentally around the time the EU decided Samsung hadn't honored their FRAND committment.

 

So Samsung will get punished for ATTEMPTING to do something, not ACTUALLY doing it. Apple has suffered no harm at all since the items at issue were dropped before the court cases went anywhere.

post #13 of 31
Quote:
Originally Posted by DroidFTW View Post
 

 

And vice versa.  Apple was found guilty of infringing on Samsung's 3g patent in the US while the EU has decided to go after Samsung for patent abuse.  Neither of the courts are perfect.

 

Please show me the court decision in the US where Apple was found guilty of violating a 3G patent belonging to Samsung.

post #14 of 31
Quote:
Originally Posted by EricTheHalfBee View Post

Please show me the court decision in the US where Apple was found guilty of violating a 3G patent belonging to Samsung.

That was the ITC Judge wasn't it? The case where US Trade Rep overturned the ITC import ban saying they couldn't bar old Apple devices even tho infringement was identified.
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #15 of 31
Quote:
Originally Posted by EricTheHalfBee View Post
 

 

Please show me the court decision in the US where Apple was found guilty of violating a 3G patent belonging to Samsung.

 

ITC case number 337-794

 

It received lots of coverage so I'm sure you know of it.

post #16 of 31
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheUnfetteredMind View Post

It's like a parent asking a child to determine their own punishment for wrongdoing, which seems to me odd for the government/business environment. Are they going to ask them what they did wrong and put them in timeout as well?

Actually, asking a child to recommend the punishment isn't a bad idea under some circumstances. When you have a kid who is basically a good kid but makes a mistake, that can be quite effective. OTOH, when you have a kid who's trouble from the start, it's not such a good plan.

Unfortunately, Samsun clearly falls more into the latter category.
"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 #17 of 31
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

That was the ITC Judge wasn't it? The case where US Trade Rep overturned the ITC import ban saying they couldn't bar old Apple devices even tho infringement was identified.
Yes, but the ITC isn't a court. In Europe Samsung went through the regular courts against Apple.

If Samsung is stupid enough to go through a US court for an injunction then see what happens. All Samsung can do is sue Apple for licensing fees Apple admits they already owe. And I don't think Samsung wants a court to decide - look what happened to Motorola.
post #18 of 31
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post


That was the ITC Judge wasn't it? The case where US Trade Rep overturned the ITC import ban saying they couldn't bar old Apple devices even tho infringement was identified.

 

ITC Judge != U.S. COURT.

 

Standards-Essential Patents != Non-Standards Essential patents.

 

Punishment for infringement of standards-essential patents != punishment for non-standards essential patents.

 

PATENTS UNDERSTANDING FAIL.  

post #19 of 31
Quote:
Originally Posted by kharvel View Post

ITC Judge != U.S. COURT.

Standards-Essential Patents != Non-Standards Essential patents.

Punishment for infringement of standards-essential patents != punishment for non-standards essential patents.

PATENTS UNDERSTANDING FAIL.  

Not going to derail the conversation here even further but no court or even US Trade Representative has said injunctions for SEP infringement aren't permitted.
Edited by Gatorguy - 9/9/13 at 1:14pm
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #20 of 31
Quote:
Originally Posted by EricTheHalfBee View Post

Yes, but the ITC isn't a court. In Europe Samsung went through the regular courts against Apple.

If Samsung is stupid enough to go through a US court for an injunction then see what happens. All Samsung can do is sue Apple for licensing fees Apple admits they already owe. And I don't think Samsung wants a court to decide - look what happened to Motorola.

You might be right. Now isn't the best time to be an SEP licensor. What was common and acceptable licensing and royalties five years or more ago when the standards were established isn't as acceptable any longer. When the EU was asked to deal with Qualcomms aggressive SEP policies and relatively sky-high royalties just a very few years ago they gave them a pass saying that "The Qualcomm case has raised important issues about the pricing of technology after its adoption as part of an industry standard. In practice, such assessments may be very complex, and any antitrust enforcer has to be careful about overturning commercial agreements. "
http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_MEMO-09-516_en.htm

Now the times they are a'changin. Less than 5 years later Samsung won't be as lucky.
Edited by Gatorguy - 9/9/13 at 1:03pm
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #21 of 31
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post


Actually, asking a child to recommend the punishment isn't a bad idea under some circumstances. When you have a kid who is basically a good kid but makes a mistake, that can be quite effective. OTOH, when you have a kid who's trouble from the start, it's not such a good plan.

Unfortunately, Samsun clearly falls more into the latter category.

 

I agree, asking a child to do that can be good. Not sure if it makes sense in the world of business? It seems the EU commission does this as standard practice so perhaps i'm off in left field by myself :)  I guess it would at least give them insight into how far apart the expectations are between the company and the commission.

post #22 of 31
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

Not going to derail the conversation here even further but no court or even US Trade Representative has said injunctions for SEP infringement aren't permitted.

A court already said that. See Microsoft vs. Motorola case decided by Judge Robart, particularly the anti-injunction injunction ruling from late last year.
post #23 of 31
Quote:
Originally Posted by kharvel View Post

A court already said that. See Microsoft vs. Motorola case decided by Judge Robart, particularly the anti-injunction injunction ruling from late last year.
Well since you already know where to find it there shouldn't be any trouble at all quoting the part where he says SEP injunctions are never appropriate, which would show me to be wrong. I'll wait.
Edited by Gatorguy - 9/9/13 at 2:31pm
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #24 of 31
Quote:
Originally Posted by DroidFTW View Post
 

ITC case number 337-794

 

It received lots of coverage so I'm sure you know of it.

 

Learn the difference between the Executive and the Judiciary. You can look it up, you know.

post #25 of 31
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post


You might be right. Now isn't the best time to be an SEP licensor. What was common and acceptable licensing and royalties five years or more ago when the standards were established isn't as acceptable any longer.

 

Please show me any case where a licensor like Motorola could have received anywhere near the amount they were asking from Microsoft. And I don't want to see some stupid chart with percentages - I want to see dollar figures. Percentages mean nothing as it doesn't show other details like rate changes vs units sold (quantity discount) or caps on fees (like MPEG-LA has).

 

If Motorola was indeed making so much money from licensing patents to other companies at the rate they were going to charge MS then they wouldn't have had to sell out to Google - they'd be swimming in royalty cash.

post #26 of 31
Quote:
Originally Posted by kharvel View Post
 

 

ITC Judge != U.S. COURT.

 

Standards-Essential Patents != Non-Standards Essential patents.

 

Punishment for infringement of standards-essential patents != punishment for non-standards essential patents.

 

PATENTS UNDERSTANDING FAIL.  

 

there is no set punishment for SEP infringement. In fact, contrary to Apple's claims, there is nothing preventing/discouraging SEP holders from seeking injunctive relief. 

post #27 of 31
I thought you were commenting on Samsung but I guess you want to flip the page to MM now? I've no idea nor even know why that matters in the context of the discussion you and I were having. If you want to kmow if it was common for what once was Motorola to use 2.25% of the device cost as the initial royalty basis I believe I've come across that claim before. I'd suggest just looking for yourself. It will much more believable than telling you something coming from things I've come across.

I know for a fact that Qualcomm's stated Standard-essential royalties are based on 3%+ of the finished device cost whether a Qualcomm chip set is used or not. Is that helpful?

EDIT: I just became aware of another SEP-related case that could significantly impact future FRAND-licensing royalty negotiations. Qualcomm and Nokia among others will be paying close attention: What is the smallest patent practicing unit that an SEP royalty can be based on?

"Essentially, the court is trying to determine if the appropriate royalty base in this case should be the price of (1) a WiFi chip; (2) a device (e.g., a router) incorporating a WiFi chip; or (3) multiple WiFi-compliant devices — or whether the RAND royalty should be calculated in another manner."
http://essentialpatentblog.com/2013/09/appropriate-royalty-base-for-standard-essential-patents-a-disputed-issue-in-innovatio-ip-ventures-bench-trial/
Edited by Gatorguy - 9/9/13 at 5:46pm
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #28 of 31
Quote:
Originally Posted by tooltalk View Post
 

 

there is no set punishment for SEP infringement. In fact, contrary to Apple's claims, there is nothing preventing/discouraging SEP holders from seeking injunctive relief. 

 

Yes there is. It's this little thing called "making a FRAND offer". You can't make an offer that's so ridiculous that no company would ever accept it and then try and use their refusal to accept extortionist demands as a reason to seek an injunction.

 

Even the companies that think injunctions are OK mostly agree that they should be used when attempts to negotiate a license have failed. And you can't go for the injunction first and use that as a hammer to extort higher fees.

post #29 of 31
EU has more balls than the US courts. Look at what they did to Microsoft. $250,000,000 / day fine until M$ came up with a version of Windows without IE installed by default. They made M$ change Windows who ended up putting a window up at install time asking which browser they wanted as default.

IE's hold of the internet has been falling ever since admittedly part of that is that people are using WebKit based browsers in their phones but still.

18.3 billion is not small change to Samsung. It's not small change to Apple either.
post #30 of 31
Originally Posted by Darryn Lowe View Post
$250,000,000 / day fine until M$ came up with a version of Windows without IE installed by default.

 

Huh? $1.5 a day.

post #31 of 31
Quote:
Originally Posted by anantksundaram View Post
 

Please stop being idiotic. Learn the difference between the Executive and the Judiciary. You can look it up, you know.

 

Please stop being disrespectful.

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: General Discussion
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › EU regulators call for more Samsung concessions to end antitrust case