I think people will be singing tunes when Samsung decides to enforce its wireless patents. "That's not fair. Thats communication, not a design patent! Those idiots."
I don't think it'll ever get that far...if judges worldwide agree with Samsung I can see a deal being made as Apple needs the wireless patents more than Samsung needs whatever the hell Apple is suing them for in whatever country.
I don't really know much about the Samsung case but my dream situation would be:
Apple: "It appears as if we are evenly matched."
Samsung: "It appears so."
Apple: "I would like you to stop so blatantly ripping off our designs in some cases."
Samsung: "Hmmm, and if we continue we will be severely crippled, both of us."
[swords retracted]
Samsung: "How about this, you do what you wanna do, we do what we wanna do."
Apple: "Agreed, under one circumstance...Be a bit more original, okay? You don't want to be seen as the Apple copycats do you? Make Samsung your own brand."
Samsung: "Deal."
[hands shake, they walk their separate ways...profit...and the tech world is a safer less WTF place again]
I think people will be singing tunes when Samsung decides to enforce its wireless patents. "That's not fair. Thats communication, not a design patent! Those idiots."
That makes no sense. Wireless technology has standards so if samsung's wireless patents are worth anything then they would be included in the standard which means Samsung is required to license those patents at a certain price and can't be used in a defensive way at all.
But what happens when a company uses another's proprietary technology without having first paid the FRAND price?
Remember, the "F" in "FRAND" doesn't stand for "Free".
It stands for "Fair", and if a company uses it without license we're no longer talking about "fair", but instead are looking at remedies for what some here like to call "theft".
The same thing that happened in the Nokia case. Apple pays them (less than it had already saved up). The point still stands, FRAND patents can't be used as a defense against unencumbered patents.
Correct, and I don't think anyone is attempting to do so. Instead, the amounts paid back and forth will be settle per the merits of the individual infringements which had been demonstrated to have occurred.
That is how it would normally happen but not in this case. Apple doesn't (nor interested in) licensing its IP. For there to be a back-and-forth, a judge would need to declare Apple's IP essential to making xyz (therefore making it a standard) and then assign a fee for the license that would be "fair." After that, any handset maker using that IP can just go to Apple and pay that fee. Currently there is no "multi-touch" or tablet design standard so Apple's IP is not essential.
Australians are making a mockery of a Federal Court injunction banning the sale of Samsung Galaxy Tab 10.1 tablets in Australia by ordering them from online stores.
Comments
I think people will be singing tunes when Samsung decides to enforce its wireless patents. "That's not fair. Thats communication, not a design patent! Those idiots."
I don't think it'll ever get that far...if judges worldwide agree with Samsung I can see a deal being made as Apple needs the wireless patents more than Samsung needs whatever the hell Apple is suing them for in whatever country.
I don't really know much about the Samsung case but my dream situation would be:
Apple: "It appears as if we are evenly matched."
Samsung: "It appears so."
Apple: "I would like you to stop so blatantly ripping off our designs in some cases."
Samsung: "Hmmm, and if we continue we will be severely crippled, both of us."
[swords retracted]
Samsung: "How about this, you do what you wanna do, we do what we wanna do."
Apple: "Agreed, under one circumstance...Be a bit more original, okay? You don't want to be seen as the Apple copycats do you? Make Samsung your own brand."
Samsung: "Deal."
[hands shake, they walk their separate ways...profit...and the tech world is a safer less WTF place again]
I think people will be singing tunes when Samsung decides to enforce its wireless patents. "That's not fair. Thats communication, not a design patent! Those idiots."
That makes no sense. Wireless technology has standards so if samsung's wireless patents are worth anything then they would be included in the standard which means Samsung is required to license those patents at a certain price and can't be used in a defensive way at all.
But what happens when a company uses another's proprietary technology without having first paid the FRAND price?
Remember, the "F" in "FRAND" doesn't stand for "Free".
It stands for "Fair", and if a company uses it without license we're no longer talking about "fair", but instead are looking at remedies for what some here like to call "theft".
The same thing that happened in the Nokia case. Apple pays them (less than it had already saved up). The point still stands, FRAND patents can't be used as a defense against unencumbered patents.
Correct, and I don't think anyone is attempting to do so. Instead, the amounts paid back and forth will be settle per the merits of the individual infringements which had been demonstrated to have occurred.
That is how it would normally happen but not in this case. Apple doesn't (nor interested in) licensing its IP. For there to be a back-and-forth, a judge would need to declare Apple's IP essential to making xyz (therefore making it a standard) and then assign a fee for the license that would be "fair." After that, any handset maker using that IP can just go to Apple and pay that fee. Currently there is no "multi-touch" or tablet design standard so Apple's IP is not essential.
News Flash: No one cares
Buyers dodge court's Samsung tablet ban
Australians are making a mockery of a Federal Court injunction banning the sale of Samsung Galaxy Tab 10.1 tablets in Australia by ordering them from online stores.
http://www.smh.com.au/digital-life/t...017-1lsdg.html
Too bad Samsung still lost sales from not being able to sell its merchandise in brick-and-mortars.