Apple returns 3G devices to German store as injunction quickly suspended

Posted:
in iPhone edited January 2014


Just hours after word began to spread that Apple was forced to pull most of its 3G devices from its German online store following an injunction awarded to Motorola, the iPhone maker successfully had the ruling suspended and has recommenced sales.



 ”All iPad and iPhone models will be back on sale through Apple’s online store in Germany shortly” Apple said in a statement. “Apple appealed this ruling because Motorola repeatedly refuses to license this patent to Apple on reasonable terms, despite having declared it an industry standard patent seven years ago.”



Motorola in December was successful at achieving an injunction against the products based on alleged infringement of a wireless standard FRAND patent owned by its rival. However, with the ban set to go into effect today, Apple was able to suspend the injunction at the last minute by arguing that Motorola refused to license the 3G/UMTS patent in question under FRAND terms.



Because FRAND (“fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory) patents have been "declared essential" in implementing open industry standards such as 3G and WiFi, a vendor's attempt to use them as leverage against a specific competitor would be considered anti-competitive, because it creates a monopoly within what is supposed to be openly interoperable standard.



As such, it's possible that Motorola could come under intense scrutiny from the European Comission should Apple be able to prove that Motorola ins't abiding by FRAND guidelines.



This is a situation the Samsung currently faces after the Comission announced on Tuesday that it has opened a formal investigation to decide whether Samsung's use of standard-essential FRAND patents as leverage in high profile cases, such as the company's worldwide battle with Apple, violates EU antitrust laws.



[ View article on AppleInsider ]

«1

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 35
    daharderdaharder Posts: 1,580member
    Hmmmm....
  • Reply 2 of 35
    sricesrice Posts: 119member
    Whats that? That's the smell of FRAND abuse.



    This will not end well for ... wait for it.. Motorola.
  • Reply 3 of 35
    ivladivlad Posts: 742member
    Wow that was fast. Siri, was that your work?
  • Reply 4 of 35
    Hoooray! In your face iHaters
  • Reply 5 of 35
    blastdoorblastdoor Posts: 2,435member
    I'm not a patent lawyer, but.... I have a hunch Samsung and Motorola are going to get themselves in very deep do-do for this FRAND abuse. Also, the fact that they are willing to take such a risky strategy makes me think they anticipate losing big to Apple eventually.
  • Reply 6 of 35
    What I find interesting is that both Samsung and Motorola have no other recourse in their patent war with Apple other than to throw the FRAND patent strategy on the wall to see if it sticks.



    They don't have anything else against Apple that they have to use patents that are considered industry standard and essential use?



    Losers.
  • Reply 7 of 35
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Blastdoor View Post


    I'm not a patent lawyer, but.... I have a hunch Samsung and Motorola are going to get themselves in very deep do-do for this FRAND abuse. Also, the fact that they are willing to take such a risky strategy makes me think they anticipate losing big to Apple eventually.



    Yes, you're right, But not just Samsung and Motorola but also....GOOGLE will almost certainly be investigated by the EU for FRAND abuse.



    Google are the moving hand behind these cartel anti-trust abuses. Under the terms of the Google takeout of Motorola, all legal moves by Motorola need Google's approval!



    Apple appear to have played this brilliantly. Motorola and their Google masters have been suckered into forcing the injunction based on FRAND abuse. Now the EU will surely have to include them in their investigation.



    The consequences for all three companies are very grave. The EU can fine each of them 10% of their global revenue for abuse of trust!



    I am amazed how weak and reckless the Google, Samsung and Motorola counterclaims have been in their defence against Apple. Even in the US Google/Motorola are abusing FRAND in Apple's case against Motorola, The US is likely to also open a FRAND abuse investigation because of this.
  • Reply 8 of 35
    blitz1blitz1 Posts: 413member
    Considering the reactions in the previous thread, I was under the impression that Apple purposedly lost this case in order to trap Motorala in paying up a kazillion dollars in April. In fact, the loss was a win.



    How does it equate to this news?
  • Reply 9 of 35
    I hope they get their per hour cash for the loss of sales during this 6 hour hiatus...
  • Reply 10 of 35
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Secular Investor View Post


    Yes, you're right, But not just Samsung and Motorola but also....GOOGLE will almost certainly be investigated by the EU for FRAND abuse.



    Google are the moving hand behind these cartel anti-trust abuses. Under the terms of the Google takeout of Motorola, all legal moves by Motorola need Google's approval!




    I believe this move started before the whole google buy, but yes they will still have hat guilt by association zinging them since they didn't have Moto stop. Which implies approval of the action
  • Reply 11 of 35
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Blitz1 View Post


    Considering the reactions in the previous thread, I was under the impression that Apple purposedly lost this case in order to trap Motorala in paying up a kazillion dollars in April. In fact, the loss was a win.



    ?



    Depending on how the judgement was written they may have to pay just for starting the injunction, even if it was suspended. Assuming of course that when the last appeals are over, Apple is the victor
  • Reply 12 of 35
    Oh Well.. You win some, and you win some more
  • Reply 13 of 35
    I do see a pattern in how Apple and Motorola/Google/Samsung use the patent system:



    - Apple comes from the position that it must defend its in-house developed inventions and trade dress that help define its brand. None of the patents, trade dress or IP (inertial scrolling, swipe to unlock, unique industrial design, packaging etc) are essential for the competition to make the own products in the same space. Apple by law must defend its patents or they will losing them.



    - Motorola/Google/Samsung come from a reactionary position. They do not want to give in to Apple's lawsuits because their business model includes copying Apple IP and trade dress. So their lawsuits typically involve searching their patent portfolio for something that Apple may infringe upon as a form of counter attack. The problem with this strategy is that many of Motorola/Google/Samsung's patents are technical specifications that are now industry standards, and therefor suing the competition is monopolistic and illegal.



    So it comes down to this:



    - Apple invents game changing, industry re-defining tech. It then protects these inventions.

    - The competition is free to invent their own original responses to Apple's innovation.

    - The competition instead copies Apple's IP/trade dress.

    - Apple rightfully sues.

    - The competition responds by digging into their patent portfolio to counter sue.

    - The competition's counter suits often involve essential technology that is monopolistic.



    The question is: Why doesn't Motorola/Google/Samsung just come up with their own original ideas. If they do, Apple will not sue. It's as simple as that.



    The answer is: Motorola/Google/Samsung don't seem to possess the skill to innovate the way Apple does. So they copy Apple. Then they get sued; and rightfully so.
  • Reply 14 of 35
    srangersranger Posts: 473member
    How do you define reasonable????



    Apple wants to BAN all Samsung devices and not allow for any reasonable licensing. How is this different?
  • Reply 15 of 35
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by sranger View Post


    How do you define reasonable????



    Apple wants to BAN all Samsung devices and not allow for any reasonable licensing. How is this different?



    Apple's patents aren't industry standard patents. There's no law that says you have to license your patents to another company.



    Unless they are FRAND encumbered industry standard patents.
  • Reply 16 of 35
    rot'napplerot'napple Posts: 1,839member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by iVlad View Post


    Wow that was fast. Siri, was that your work?



    In Siri voice. I don't kiss and tell, Sexy!

    /

    /

    /
  • Reply 17 of 35
    just_mejust_me Posts: 590member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by MeniThings View Post


    I do see a pattern in how Apple and Motorola/Google/Samsung use the patent system:



    - Apple comes from the position that it must defend its in-house developed inventions and trade dress that help define its brand. None of the patents, trade dress or IP (inertial scrolling, swipe to unlock, unique industrial design, packaging etc) are essential for the competition to make the own products in the same space. Apple by law must defend its patents or they will losing them.



    - Motorola/Google/Samsung come from a reactionary position. They do not want to give in to Apple's lawsuits because their business model includes copying Apple IP and trade dress. So their lawsuits typically involve searching their patent portfolio for something that Apple may infringe upon as a form of counter attack. The problem with this strategy is that many of Motorola/Google/Samsung's patents are technical specifications that are now industry standards, and therefor suing the competition is monopolistic and illegal.



    So it comes down to this:



    - Apple invents game changing, industry re-defining tech. It then protects these inventions.

    - The competition is free to invent their own original responses to Apple's innovation.

    - The competition instead copies Apple's IP/trade dress.

    - Apple rightfully sues.

    - The competition responds by digging into their patent portfolio to counter sue.

    - The competition's counter suits often involve essential technology that is monopolistic.



    The question is: Why doesn't Motorola/Google/Samsung just come up with their own original ideas. If they do, Apple will not sue. It's as simple as that.



    The answer is: Motorola/Google/Samsung don't seem to possess the skill to innovate the way Apple does. So they copy Apple. Then they get sued; and rightfully so.



    So to you game changing invents are cosmetic while creating industry standards are not?
  • Reply 18 of 35
    pendergastpendergast Posts: 1,358member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by sranger View Post


    How do you define reasonable????



    Apple wants to BAN all Samsung devices and not allow for any reasonable licensing. How is this different?



    Someone doesn't understand the difference between a regular patent and a FRAND patent.
  • Reply 19 of 35
    sockrolidsockrolid Posts: 2,789member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by AppleInsider View Post


    [...] it's possible that Motorola could come under intense scrutiny from the European Comission should Apple be able to prove that Motorola ins't (sic) abiding by FRAND guidelines. [...]



    That will be easy to prove. You can't use FRAND-encumbered patents to extort a particularly strong competitor.

    Extortion (at least that type of extortion) isn't Fair, Reasonable, And Non-Discriminatory.



    Somebody email Samsung's legal department and let them know about FRAND. Quick!



    Oh wait. AppleInsider says that the European Commission is already "probing" Samsung for FRAND patent abuse.

    Never mind. Too late. But hey, how's that TV business going, Sammy?



    http://www.appleinsider.com/articles...ust_probe.html
  • Reply 20 of 35
    srangersranger Posts: 473member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by EricTheHalfBee View Post


    Apple's patents aren't industry standard patents. There's no law that says you have to license your patents to another company.



    Unless they are FRAND encumbered industry standard patents.



    Would not the hyperlink text search fall under FRAND as well???
Sign In or Register to comment.