Netherlands judge denies Samsung's request to halt iPhone, iPad sales

24

Comments

  • Reply 21 of 70
    sockrolidsockrolid Posts: 2,788member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by MacRulez View Post


    You raise a good point: any preliminary injunction Apple has won against Samsung may ultimately just provide Samsung with heavy multiples of lost sales if Apple's design patents don't hold up, as the CA and Dutch judges feel they're quite questionable.



    Unfortunately for Samsung, this isn't their first infringement lawsuit and it probably won't be their last. In case you hadn't heard, Apple has been granted permanent injunctions against the sale of the Galaxy Tab 10.1 in both Australia and Germany. I believe those rulings fall into the "persuasive precedent" category, which Apple will no doubt use against Samsung and any other infringers.



    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persuasive_precedent



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by MacRulez View Post


    Meanwhile, Apple has yet to produce receipts for payment of FRAND royalties to Samsung, which may result in multiples of those payments as well.



    Cost of doing business. The best-case scenario for Samsung is that they will be forced to pay Apple for the use of their patented IP. And I wonder how many other electronics manufacturers also have failed to pay FRAND royalties to Samsung.



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by MacRulez View Post


    Given that Sony is Samsung's #2 customer with orders almost as high as Apple's, Apple only accounts for about 6% of orders from that division leaving the other 94% of their business entirely unaffected by Apple, and that we're currently in an environment where demand for the components Samsung produces is greater than supply, by the time this is all finished Samsung may well be able to replace Apple's orders easily while making a small profit from the settlements.



    Samsung is apparently preparing to exit the TV manufacturing business to focus more on their mobile device business. And Apple is successfully attacking said mobile device business. You do the math.



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by MacRulez View Post


    You're absolutely correct: this isn't quite so simple as an occasional preliminary hearing might suggest.



    No, it's not. Law doesn't happen in a vacuum. Apple has established legal precedent by winning permanent injunctions against sales of the Galaxy Tab 10.1 and they'll use it going forward.
  • Reply 22 of 70
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by fpsanders View Post


    Yeah, it is! Our national anthem is even weirder... It starts: William of Orange is me, of German descent. I've always honored the king of Spain. And I'll remain faithful to my Fatherland (which by then was just known as "the seven provinces"). That's what you get when you're trying to get ahead in the EU...



    Yeah I know, I'm Dutch as well Your last sentence was very amusing
  • Reply 23 of 70
    macrulezmacrulez Posts: 2,455member
    deleted
  • Reply 24 of 70
    Quote:

    "Permanent"? I've thus far only read of "preliminary" injunctions, which means they haven't even been tested by jury at all. But I'm happy to be schooled: URL?



    Are you talking about possible appeals? The poster was referring to the German ban which upheld the initial preliminary ban.
  • Reply 25 of 70
    anonymouseanonymouse Posts: 6,581member
    Trying to get an injunction based on FRAND patents makes Samsung basically equivalent to Lodsys -- trying to collect license fees that have already been paid.
  • Reply 26 of 70
    macrulezmacrulez Posts: 2,455member
    deleted
  • Reply 27 of 70
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by MacRulez View Post


    One can hope. In which court preceding did Apple deliver the receipts for those payments?



    And if Apple doesn't have the receipts, it will just pay Samsung. So what? It's not going to get its products banned.
  • Reply 28 of 70
    macrulezmacrulez Posts: 2,455member
    deleted
  • Reply 29 of 70
    macrulezmacrulez Posts: 2,455member
    deleted
  • Reply 30 of 70
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by MacRulez View Post


    I would have to defer to SockRolid to find out what he meant when he wrote:







    The best I can find are references to those cases which refer to both as merely preliminary.



    But perhaps he's found some news more recent than this morning that I might have missed.



    Looking forward to his URLs.



    I missed the part about Australia. That country is still in its prelim stage. Germany is not. Germany's ban is permanent unless Samsung appeals the decision and wins. It is on Engadget if you want a non-Apple focused site as reference.
  • Reply 31 of 70
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by MacRulez View Post


    "So what?"



    Been here long?



    The general meme here in the AI forums is that when a company uses another company's proprietary work in their competing products it constitutes "theft", "blatant copying" (in this case in the most literal sense), and one poster on AI even called it "rape".



    Golly, those seem harsh words for something as minor as a patent infringement.



    Or it is only a patent infringement when other companies do it?



    I admit that there are some extremists who spout that but I don't. My point is that Samsung can't do jack except collect a set amount owed whether Apple has receipts or not and cant ban Apple's products like it tried to do.
  • Reply 32 of 70
    jragostajragosta Posts: 10,473member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by MacRulez View Post


    "So what?"



    Been here long?



    The general meme here in the AI forums is that when a company uses another company's proprietary work in their competing products it constitutes "theft", "blatant copying" (in this case in the most literal sense), and one poster on AI even called it "rape".



    Golly, those seem harsh words for something as minor as a patent infringement.



    Or it is only a patent infringement when other companies do it?



    The part that you don't seem to understand is that FRAND patents are entirely different. When a patent is offered as FRAND, it means that the patent owner is willing to license the patent to others and agrees to reasonable terms. If someone refuses to license the patent, the owner can go to court and get the license fees ordered - in which case they are made whole. That is the reason that one can not obtain an injunction based on FRAND patents.



    In the case of Apple's patents, Apple never had any intention of licensing them and they are a key part of Apple's differentiable advantage. If someone infringes a patent without the patent owner's permission, it could have a drastic effect on their business that simply paying a license fee might not correct. That is why it is possible to get an injunction for a non-FRAND patent.
  • Reply 33 of 70
    jnjnjnjnjnjn Posts: 588member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by MacRulez View Post


    ...except that the outcomes are identical: neither company's products are being stopped from sale by the Dutch court.



    You should read my post again.



    J.
  • Reply 34 of 70
    charlitunacharlituna Posts: 7,215member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by The Mock Turtleneck View Post


    Since Apple supposedly "owns" the rights to a rounded rectangle with minimalist design,



    It was more than that. As anyone that has done more than just knee jerk on the situation knows.



    And Samsung has been cited on many of those other details in other courts.
  • Reply 35 of 70
    macrulezmacrulez Posts: 2,455member
    deleted
  • Reply 36 of 70
    charlitunacharlituna Posts: 7,215member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by MacRulez View Post


    One can hope. In which court preceding did Apple deliver the receipts for those payments?



    Probably none. Because they likely didn't pay anything on the grounds that it wasn't fair etc.



    All they would need to do is prove that they tried to license the tech and that Samsung refused or asked for some outrageous amount of fees.



    The courts will slap Samsung's hand, demand they take the payment of the fair amount and it's done.
  • Reply 37 of 70
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by MacRulez View Post


    This is an interesting question, and I'll admit that knowing this specific aspect of the law isn't at all what I do for a living, so perhaps you could clarify this:



    Let's say you license a patent to a standards body under FRAND, and I use that technology in a product that competes with yours. To keep the math simple, let's say the FRAND license fee is $100.



    I tell my stockholders that mine is not an inept company, and perhaps I'm telling the truth there so of course I know full well that to use your technology I'm legally obligated to pay you $100. I just decide not to. I just decide that it looks better for me to just keep such payments in my retained earnings.



    As long as I don't get caught, I get to keep your money forever.



    But what happens when I'm caught?



    The price for honorable companies to pay licensing fees in advance of using them is $100. Is it still just $100 if I'm caught having tried to steal it from you?



    When others see this, how much money will you lose once everyone learns that they can steal anything they want from you, and the worst thing that'll ever happen to them is that they'll have to pay nothing more than the original asking price, with no penalties at all?



    I know of no other circumstance that would reward infringement so richly as an assertion that there are no penalties for FRAND infringement.



    But if that's the case, there are a lot of technologies I could start stealing today so it would be helpful to know.



    Do you have a URL that can explain how there are no penalties for FRAND infringement?



    I am really not getting what you are saying. FRAND patents are a part of a standard. If a company uses those patents, there really is no way to sneak it past the company that owns the patents. Example, company A makes and markets a device that uses wifi. Company B would automatically know that company A infringes because it can't implement wifi without the patent. Company B contacts company A and asks for payment. Company A makes sure that the amount that company B is asking for is the same or similar to the amount it collects from everyone else. If so, it either pays up or gets sued. If it chooses to get sued then company A loses suit and pays the fair amount AND legal costs for company B. You also must take into account that some licenses that fall under FRAND are covered by component purchases. Company A buys a certain chip and the chipmaker has already payed the FRAND license, then company B cannot turn around and sue company A because it has already been paid.
  • Reply 38 of 70
    macrulezmacrulez Posts: 2,455member
    deleted
  • Reply 39 of 70
    macrulezmacrulez Posts: 2,455member
    deleted
  • Reply 40 of 70
    To MacRulz in particular...



    You seem to think that apple owes Samsung frand licensing fees. That might be true or not.



    What I think apple will argue, with solid backing, is that since they are using

    Qualcomm chips for which qualcomm has already paid the frand licensing (there are your missing "receipts" btw), that asking apple to pay as well is a double payment. I don't know the legal basis for this but it seems to me if you use a licensed product that you should not have to double pay the fees. If one were to buy this arguement then I suppose that the telcos and end users should have to pay as well ad absurdum.



    Food for thought or...
Sign In or Register to comment.