Samsung accuses Apple of refusing to license 3G patents
Samsung has asserted in court that Apple has refused to enter into negotiations to license essential 3G patents for the iPhone and iPad.
The details came out of the first day of the patent infringement trial between Samsung and Apple on Monday. In the opening proceedings, Samsung said Apple refuses to negotiate for the use of essential 3G patents in its mobile devices, according to IDG News Service.
Specifically, Monday's hearing was focused on two of the three patents that Samsung has accused Apple of violating. The two patents in question are related to power control and the format of packet headers in 3G connections.
Neil Young, an attorney representing Samsung, told the court that Apple has "refused to engage in negotiations." The Korean electronics maker hopes that Justice Annabelle Claire Bennett will separate its own complaint from Apple's patent infringement suit.
Australia has been an important battleground between Apple and Samsung as the two have filed patent infringement suits against each other around the world. The same justice overseeing the current trial opted to ban sales of Samsung's Galaxy Tab 10.1 late last year, though the injunction was later overturned by an appeals court.
In the latest showdown, Samsung has alleged that Apple's iPhone 4 and iPhone 4S, as well as the iPad 2, are in violation of three 3G data transmission patents. Those accusations were leveled in a cross-claim against Apple in response to the original complaint, in which Apple accused the Galaxy Tab of infringing on its own touchscreen patents.
The current trial between Apple and Samsung in Australia is scheduled to run through the rest of the week. The two companies have other sessions set with the court that run through the month of October.
The details came out of the first day of the patent infringement trial between Samsung and Apple on Monday. In the opening proceedings, Samsung said Apple refuses to negotiate for the use of essential 3G patents in its mobile devices, according to IDG News Service.
Specifically, Monday's hearing was focused on two of the three patents that Samsung has accused Apple of violating. The two patents in question are related to power control and the format of packet headers in 3G connections.
Neil Young, an attorney representing Samsung, told the court that Apple has "refused to engage in negotiations." The Korean electronics maker hopes that Justice Annabelle Claire Bennett will separate its own complaint from Apple's patent infringement suit.
Australia has been an important battleground between Apple and Samsung as the two have filed patent infringement suits against each other around the world. The same justice overseeing the current trial opted to ban sales of Samsung's Galaxy Tab 10.1 late last year, though the injunction was later overturned by an appeals court.
In the latest showdown, Samsung has alleged that Apple's iPhone 4 and iPhone 4S, as well as the iPad 2, are in violation of three 3G data transmission patents. Those accusations were leveled in a cross-claim against Apple in response to the original complaint, in which Apple accused the Galaxy Tab of infringing on its own touchscreen patents.
The current trial between Apple and Samsung in Australia is scheduled to run through the rest of the week. The two companies have other sessions set with the court that run through the month of October.
Comments
Most likely, given the nature of the patents, Samsung is a) attempting to double dip, licensing fees already having been paid by the chipmaker, and b) only asking for licensing fees for these because FRAND patents are all they have. Apple is most likely right to ignore them.
If they're essential, then surely they're FRAND-obligated? And if they're FRAND-obligated, doesn't the licensing need to be non-discriminatory? And if the licensing needs to be non-discriminatory, then surely there's no need for negotiations, because there should be a set licensing cost?
Quote:
Originally Posted by marokero
Drop Samsung as a supplier already! There's LG, Toshiba, Sharp, Panasonic, TSMC, AMD, Intel... I'm sure they'd gladly take over Samsung's role in Apple's supply chain of components and chip fabricators. End this drama already!
AMD isn't a supplier. Global Foundries is what you're thinking on.
Apple was licensed to these patents, under the terms of an agreement Samsung made with Qualcomm in 1993, they terminated this agreement in April 2011 when Apple launched their first suit against them.
If licensing these patents is important to Samsung, then why did they terminate them in the first place?
Seriously? You don't have to "engage in negotiations". That is like two kids saying on the playground "but he didn't talk to me, I want him to talk to me".
Quote:
Originally Posted by Crowley
If they're essential, then surely they're FRAND-obligated? And if they're FRAND-obligated, doesn't the licensing need to be non-discriminatory? And if the licensing needs to be non-discriminatory, then surely there's no need for negotiations, because there should be a set licensing cost?
They are FRAND obligated, Samsung is attempting to argue that that doesn't apply under Australian law because the European Telecommunications Standards Institute (ETSI) is based in France.
Australia is an associate member of ETSI.
Well, I hope Neil Young will remember
A Southern man don't need him around anyhow.
Even under FRAND the licensing costs can vary according to a number of parameters relating to use, so some negotiation would probably still be necessary.
You may be alone in expecting a grammatically accurate article.
My comment was based solely on the title. Having just read the article this statement. "Specifically, Monday's hearing was focused on two of the three patents that Samsung has accused Apple of violating. The two patents in question are related to power control and the format of packet headers in 3G connections." sound like the exact opposite of the title.
No - I agree. It was the article title that I was referring to.
Not FRAND patents. Samsung, see that sand over there? Go pound it.
SJ to Eric Schmidt in 2010 "I don’t want your money. If you offer me $5 billion, I won’t want it. I’ve got plenty of money. I want you to stop using our ideas in Android, that’s all I want.”
If they aren't FRAND, Samsung can eat it.
Now, my question is this:
If Samsung (or Samsung and others, as perhaps parties to a joint claim) can demonstrate that these *should* be FRAND, can the courts shuffle them under the FRAND roof,
thus compelling Apple to license them? If so, how long might such a process take?
Glad I am not the only one who misunderstood the title of the article, I thought it was a case of UK English and US English having different meanings!
Anyway, can someone who know better please explain this 3G dispute a little better to me as I am confused and don't spend too much time on the patent dispute threads.
My understanding is that Apple has refused to negotiate with Samsung who hold a particular 3G wireless patent (which is also a FRAND patent) because they believe that the chip which makes specific use of this patent is already covered by Qualcomm's own licensing agreement with Samsung?
Surely this is covered in pretty simple terms in the license that Qualcomm has, if not then the chip would be worth less and Qualcom would have to state clearly to Apple what the agreement was.
If Qualcom sold a chip to Apple and misrepresented the license then Apple would be suing Qualcomm and that doesn't seem to be happening.
On top of that Samsung's complaint would also be with Qualcomm but I don't see Samsung trying to Qualcomm in the dock?
Also if the chip turns out not to be properly licensed, would this then cause a problem with other phone and tablet providers who use similar Qualcomm chips.
On the other hand why would Samsung pursue this if they had no grounds whatsoever, so are Apple using the chip in a way Samsung didn't license this technology to be used?
I am genuinely confused but maybe this ground has all been covered in previous threads, can anyone clarify for me?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Just_Me
lol yup
Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry
This thread definitely demonstrates that a lot of people don't read past the title...
Really?, two people have questioned whether the title is appropriate as a leader to the rest of the article and both made it perfectly clear that they must have read the article as well............or didn't you read the rest of the posts?
Of only one thing I'm sure...we are deep into heavy petting territory here. ;/)