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

13

Comments

  • Reply 41 of 70
    macrulezmacrulez Posts: 2,455member
    deleted
  • Reply 42 of 70
    macrulezmacrulez Posts: 2,455member
    deleted
  • Reply 43 of 70
    jragostajragosta Posts: 10,473member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by MacRulez View Post


    No argument here. I agree: it might be true.



    Unlike so many here who have mystical powers of prognostication with court proceedings, I don't have reason to believe that the judges who haven't yet dismissed these charges as self-evidently stupid are themselves stupid for not doing so. This is a job for the courts to decide.



    As usual, you're misrepresenting the case as well as the opinions of people posting here.



    I don't think ANYONE said that Samsung's FRAND countersuit was self-evidently stupid - just that they couldn't get an injunction because of FRAND rules and they couldn't stop Apple from using the technology as long as Apple pays the same fees as everyone else. And that's what the judges have consistently ruled.



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by MacRulez View Post


    I'm willing to speculate only the long-term outcome: I have a long-standing wager no one here has yet been confident enough in Apple to take me up on, that by the time all of their suits with Samsung are settled they'll wind up paying out a little more than they take in, just as happened with Nokia.



    Maybe because that's a stupid wager.



    Even if Apple wins every single case, Apple will be paying out more than the take in. Apple is willing to pay FRAND license fees (as shown by the Nokia case). They are not interested in licensing their proprietary technology, so if Apple wins, they'll be receiving ZERO license fees - because they can stop others from using their technology.
  • Reply 44 of 70
    jragostajragosta Posts: 10,473member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by MacRulez View Post


    It may be that the attorneys at Samsung are indeed high, and that the courts that have not yet dismissed their suits on the grounds of being self-evidently stupid are also high.



    But it may be the case that Apple either didn't realize that a payment was due to Samsung, or didn't make that payment for some other reason.



    Is it really the case that there is no penalty for attempting to avoid payment?



    Just the hard cost of legal fees, nothing more?



    So anyone can skip out on any FRAND license fees they want, and the worst that can happen if they get caught is just the same as they would have paid if they had been honest?



    Forgive me if I seem a bit dense in this area, but this is the first time I've seen anything like such a concept of a system that encourages non-payment of licensee fees.



    Exactly. That's how FRAND works. If you get caught not paying the fees, then you can be assessed back fees and legal expenses - and that's it. Once again, you're babbling on about a subject you don't understand.



    FRAND operates under a different set of rules.
  • Reply 45 of 70
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by MacRulez View Post


    Thanks for the tip. The most recent article at Engadget I could find was this one from 9 September:



    :http://www.engadget.com/2011/09/09/g...laxy-tab-10-1/



    The word "permanent" does not appear in the article, or anywhere else in the page, but the article does refer to the injunction as "preliminary".



    The "pre" in "preliminary" means "pre-trial", so by definition such an injunction can't be permanent per se, since it hasn't even been to court yet.



    I was however able to find an article at PC World which refers to the injunction as "permanent":

    http://www.pcworld.com/article/23973...ng_tablet.html



    That's an interesting concept, quite different from such processes in other countries, since the suit apparently had no trial, simply a decree in a preliminary hearing.



    As Mueller notes, the injunction will stay in effect ?until it is either overturned by the Higher Regional Court in a fast-track appeals proceeding or by the (lower) Regional Court at the end of the full-blown main proceeding, which would probably take about a year.?

    http://fosspatents.blogspot.com/2011...alaxy-tab.html



    Unless Meuller is mistaken, it seems that "permanent" may not be so permanent after all.



    It's also noteworthy that for all the dozen or so Samsung phones Apple originally started pulling into the courtroom, the only Samsung product on which they're getting any traction is specifically the Galaxy 10.1. All other Samsung products - phones, tablets, everything - are entirely unaffected by the relatively few injunctions won thus far.



    Minor changes in 10.2 will put this entirely behind them - what will AI have left to write about then?



    Oy. Did you really have to be on the obnoxious end of the spectrum and define "preliminary?". Here is a link: http://www.engadget.com/2011/09/09/g...laxy-tab-10-1/

    note that the title says "upholds" which means that the court agreed with the preliminary hearing. That was the official trial. Samsung has to appeal and win to lift the ban.
  • Reply 46 of 70
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by jd_in_sb View Post


    This article talks about blocking iPhone/iPad in Netherlands (which was denied), not any Samsung products.



    Lol.....
  • Reply 47 of 70
    ok apple needs to pay up and stop riding on the fact that they are a client.
  • Reply 48 of 70
    I can understand why apple would sue. Design is apple's thing. When it comes to features and quality, apple can't beat Samsung. The very touch screen is made by samsung. Maybe ten something years ago, I remember seeing in a korehow, this flip phone that had video conferencing feature. It's standard pretty 'much in the most basic phones in korea curntly for a while now - probably in most of asia. Ohwell.
  • Reply 49 of 70
    macrulezmacrulez Posts: 2,455member
    deleted
  • Reply 50 of 70
    macrulezmacrulez Posts: 2,455member
    deleted
  • Reply 51 of 70
    anonymouseanonymouse Posts: 6,570member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by applecider View Post


    ... 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. ...



    That's exactly the case, and why Samsung is behaving no differently than Lodsys, trying to jack people with patents that the licensing fees have already been paid for. Desperation and stupidity don't even begin to describe it.
  • Reply 52 of 70
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by MacRulez View Post


    No argument here. I agree: it might be true.



    Unlike so many here who have mystical powers of prognostication with court proceedings, I don't have reason to believe that the judges who haven't yet dismissed these charges as self-evidently stupid are themselves stupid for not doing so. This is a job for the courts to decide.



    I'm willing to speculate only the long-term outcome: I have a long-standing wager no one here has yet been confident enough in Apple to take me up on, that by the time all of their suits with Samsung are settled they'll wind up paying out a little more than they take in, just as happened with Nokia.



    You're happy to wager on the long term because the short term is going against Samsung. Apple doesn't want Samsung's money, they can print their own. Actually printing is probably slower than Apple can make it

    What Apple wants to do is stop Samsung from selling their knock off products(I know, you don't think they are knock offs). They're having success with this in multiple countries.
  • Reply 53 of 70
    macrulezmacrulez Posts: 2,455member
    deleted
  • Reply 54 of 70
    macrulezmacrulez Posts: 2,455member
    deleted
  • Reply 55 of 70
    majjomajjo Posts: 574member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by LunarMoon View Post


    How stupid can Samsung be? They are now raising new levels where no company reached before.



    This is how it is resumed:



    FIRST CASE

    Apple is Samsung biggest 8 billion dollars per year customer;

    Samsung copied Apple;

    Apple asked Samsung to modify the devices;



    now things are about to fork in 2 directions:



    1) Samsung changed the design and keep the 8 billion dollar customer;

    2) Samsung fight the 8 billion dollar customer. This scenario has two outcomes:



    a) Samsung wins in court. In this case, it continues to sell the devices, but, it loses the 8 billion dollar customer. Chances of Samsung winning: hell freezing anytime soon has far more probabilities.



    b) Samsung loses in court. In this case, it has to modify the devices, it has to pay the legal fees and it loses the 8 billion dollar per year customer and as a bonus, has to pay Apple an indemnification of zillions of dollars.



    Conclusion: Samsung chose the option where it will lose the 8 billion dollar customer.



    Moral of story: never copy your biggest customer and by no means piss your biggest customer, even if you are right.



    And you can assume that losing Samsung as a supplier is not going to have an effect on Apple?



    Can Apple easily and quickly find another supplier that can match the quantity, quality, and price that Samsung offers them; Will the switch in suppliers adversely affect Apple products' availability and quality (eg. will we get light leakage on iPad LCDs again)?



    Considering that components are in supply shortage, do you truly believe that Samsung will be unable to find client(s) to fill at least a part of that 8billion dollar void that Apple left?



    Considering that Apple gets a discount for buying components in bulk and paying upfront with cash, would Samsung be better off replacing Apple with a bunch of smaller clients to whom they do not have to offer a bulk discount?



    The relationship between Apple and Samsung is more complex than you make it out to be.
  • Reply 56 of 70
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by MacRulez View Post


    Is it?



    Gosh, if it all looked like Samsung was doomed you'd think I'd have a line out the door of people willing to take such a sucker bet.



    You edited out the part of my post that dealt with your bet. That's kinda lame.
  • Reply 57 of 70
    jragostajragosta Posts: 10,473member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by MacRulez View Post


    Stupidity? Maybe not so much:



    Two courts recently ruled against Samsung's injunction requests, but not on the grounds that there was no infringement by Apple - merely over the amount of royalties requested.



    In the Dutch court Samsung's initial offer was 2.4%

    http://9to5mac.com/2011/09/26/apple-...-every-patent/



    So what would be a reasonable amount? Half of that? Less than half? 1%? There appears to be no fixed formula for these things, and the judge in the Dutch court noted that it would have to be negotiated between the two parties for that reason.



    Not correct. Samsung's initial offer was 2.4% FOR EVERY PATENT. Since Samsung is claiming dozens of patents, that amount is obviously absurd. Even if they only claimed a dozen patents, that's 30% of Apple's retail selling price - which only makes Samsung look greedy and stupid.



    For comparison, Microsoft is getting $5 per phone for their license fees - and that is for non-FRAND items. FRAND licenses are typically less.



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by majjo View Post


    And you can assume that losing Samsung as a supplier is not going to have an effect on Apple?



    Can Apple easily and quickly find another supplier that can match the quantity, quality, and price that Samsung offers them; Will the switch in suppliers adversely affect Apple products' availability and quality (eg. will we get light leakage on iPad LCDs again)?



    Absolutely moot. Apple doesn't HAVE to switch. If they can't find an equal alternative, they can continue to buy from Samsung. But Apple has the option to choose someone else. If Apple does so, Samsung loses.
  • Reply 58 of 70
    macrulezmacrulez Posts: 2,455member
    deleted
  • Reply 59 of 70
    macrulezmacrulez Posts: 2,455member
    deleted
  • Reply 60 of 70
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by MacRulez View Post


    Okay, okay, to help you avoid the temptation to engage in name-calling going forward, let's go ahead and reproduce your post in its entirety since it was oh so very important:







    Summary: "Apple has tons of money so it's okay if they spend more than they make from these litigation adventures, since it's shutting Samsung's products down."



    Having faithfully copied your post in full, let's take a look at what it didn't include:



    - Every Samsung device originally submitted by Apple in their complaint has been allowed to continue without interference of any kind, with the sole exception of one model of one device (the Samsung Galaxy 10.1), and only in some jurisdictions.



    - The handful of injunctions against that one device are all temporary.



    - The CA judge has raised questions about Apple's ability to demonstrate the viability of their design patents.



    - The Dutch judge ruled against Apple in every claim related to device design.



    - Given that all six points comprising Apple's design patent have utilitarian benefit, the survival of the design patent is very much in question.



    - Even if Apple's design patent is allowed to stand, minor changes to the Galaxy 10.2 can completely obviate all of Apple's claims.



    - At best, Apple is stopping only one model of one product, which is due for an update long before the case is settled anyway.



    So you're right in one small way: Christmas sales will likely suck for Samsung's sales of that one model of that one device in a handful of countries.



    Everything else Samsung makes is entirely unaffected, and in most of the world even the one model in question is completely unaffected.



    How does any of this suggest Samsung is doomed?



    I didn't call you any names. I said editing my post was lame. It was. As lame as lame can be. If you think I'm calling you names report me. I never said samsung was doomed. That's why no one will take your bet in fact. Most people would agree that at some point this will end and hundreds of millions will change hands one way or another. But how many more countries will get put on the ban list before that happens? Samsungs pain is happening now.
Sign In or Register to comment.