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.
Very likely something like that.
Or Samsung is asking for a fee that Apple feels is not reasonable and was set so high because it is Apple. When it comes to such games the only way to right the situation often is willfully violate the patents to force it to court to expose what is typically confidential info and then to have the courts tell the controllers to set proper terms. It's actually a common ploy when it comes to FRAND patents
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?
Yes and no. There isn't just an issue of the cost but also the forms of payment. We've seen Google trying to get access to non FRAND patents by trying to claim the 'de facto standard' BS. For all we know Samsung was asked for a license and said yes but not for cash. They might have been demanding access to a non standard patent that Apple isn't obligated to license and thus refused. And basically told them that until that was off the table and Samsung brought a cash request the talks weren't happening. Which Samsung would deem 'not negotiating' because it makes them look like victims
This thread definitely demonstrates that a lot of people don't read past the title...
I always read the article but sometimes I do have a comment to make soley on what I read in the title and I obviously read the title before I read the article. Another thing to consider is that these aren't like titles of books but are usually presented as single sentence declarations of the article's subject.
After I read the title I then read the summary paragraph, as one would expect. In this case it reinforces the title because of it ambiguity. It almost seems deliberate. They could have written,"Apple has refused to enter into negotiations to license Samsung's essential 3G patents for the iPhone and iPad." That is shorter and yet clearly removes any ambiguity or the odd title statement. Getting to paragraph three before I get an M. Night Shyamalan-ian twist doesn't make for good reading and it is the responsibility of the writer to make their point as clear as possible for their readers.
Sounds like Samsung is using Motorola's playbook. In the Apple/Moto lawsuits, how has Apple done in arguing that they were covered by Qualcomm's license when the bought chips from Qualcomm that used Moto IP? It seems like Apple should have easily won based on a) being covered as a customer of Qualcomm b) FRAND principles against discriminatory terms. But hasn't Apple been having a rough go with the various courts with their moto cases?
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?
I read all the posts. I responded to Soli's, agreeing that the title was misleading. Then 15 and 16 appeared, both clearly not having read the article or the subsequent posts. In any case, my comment was just an observation and not intended to come over as critical as it did - my mistake.
Sounds like Samsung is using Motorola's playbook. In the Apple/Moto lawsuits, how has Apple done in arguing that they were covered by Qualcomm's license when the bought chips from Qualcomm that used Moto IP? It seems like Apple should have easily won based on a) being covered as a customer of Qualcomm b) FRAND principles against discriminatory terms. But hasn't Apple been having a rough go with the various courts with their moto cases?
That case ran into Posner and his anti patents except for pharmaceuticals agenda.
Monday's hearing focused on two of the three patents -- Australian patents No. 2005202512 and No. 2006241621 -- that Samsung alleges Apple has violated.
I'm confused.
If this case is about Apple violating Samsung patents, why is Samsung arguing that Apple refuses to license patents to Samsung?
Monday's hearing focused on two of the three patents -- Australian patents No. 2005202512 and No. 2006241621 -- that Samsung alleges Apple has violated.
I'm confused.
If this case is about Apple violating Samsung patents, why is Samsung arguing that Apple refuses to license patents to Samsung?
Just bad wording in the article I think - Samsung is complaining that Apple is refusing to negotiate a license from Samsung. Maybe the authors are unaware that the verb "to license" means to grant authority, not to receive it.
I read all the posts. I responded to Soli's, agreeing that the title was misleading. Then 15 and 16 appeared, both clearly not having read the article or the subsequent posts. In any case, my comment was just an observation and not intended to come over as critical as it did - my mistake.
Comments
Quote:
Originally Posted by anonymouse
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.
Very likely something like that.
Or Samsung is asking for a fee that Apple feels is not reasonable and was set so high because it is Apple. When it comes to such games the only way to right the situation often is willfully violate the patents to force it to court to expose what is typically confidential info and then to have the courts tell the controllers to set proper terms. It's actually a common ploy when it comes to FRAND patents
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?
Yes and no. There isn't just an issue of the cost but also the forms of payment. We've seen Google trying to get access to non FRAND patents by trying to claim the 'de facto standard' BS. For all we know Samsung was asked for a license and said yes but not for cash. They might have been demanding access to a non standard patent that Apple isn't obligated to license and thus refused. And basically told them that until that was off the table and Samsung brought a cash request the talks weren't happening. Which Samsung would deem 'not negotiating' because it makes them look like victims
I always read the article but sometimes I do have a comment to make soley on what I read in the title and I obviously read the title before I read the article. Another thing to consider is that these aren't like titles of books but are usually presented as single sentence declarations of the article's subject.
After I read the title I then read the summary paragraph, as one would expect. In this case it reinforces the title because of it ambiguity. It almost seems deliberate. They could have written,"Apple has refused to enter into negotiations to license Samsung's essential 3G patents for the iPhone and iPad." That is shorter and yet clearly removes any ambiguity or the odd title statement. Getting to paragraph three before I get an M. Night Shyamalan-ian twist doesn't make for good reading and it is the responsibility of the writer to make their point as clear as possible for their readers.
Mentioning Shymalan reminds me of this clip from South Park: http://www.southparkstudios.com/clips/155705/just-some-kid
Sounds like Samsung is using Motorola's playbook. In the Apple/Moto lawsuits, how has Apple done in arguing that they were covered by Qualcomm's license when the bought chips from Qualcomm that used Moto IP? It seems like Apple should have easily won based on a) being covered as a customer of Qualcomm b) FRAND principles against discriminatory terms. But hasn't Apple been having a rough go with the various courts with their moto cases?
Requires flash. I don't have the "full" web on my iPad.
I read all the posts. I responded to Soli's, agreeing that the title was misleading. Then 15 and 16 appeared, both clearly not having read the article or the subsequent posts. In any case, my comment was just an observation and not intended to come over as critical as it did - my mistake.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX
Am I alone in not realizing that Apple even had 3G patents that Samsung, or anyone, thinks are essential?
Maybe Samsung is referring to iPhone 3G - they want a license for copying its design.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tulkas
Sounds like Samsung is using Motorola's playbook. In the Apple/Moto lawsuits, how has Apple done in arguing that they were covered by Qualcomm's license when the bought chips from Qualcomm that used Moto IP? It seems like Apple should have easily won based on a) being covered as a customer of Qualcomm b) FRAND principles against discriminatory terms. But hasn't Apple been having a rough go with the various courts with their moto cases?
That case ran into Posner and his anti patents except for pharmaceuticals agenda.
Quote:
Monday's hearing focused on two of the three patents -- Australian patents No. 2005202512 and No. 2006241621 -- that Samsung alleges Apple has violated.
I'm confused.
If this case is about Apple violating Samsung patents, why is Samsung arguing that Apple refuses to license patents to Samsung?
Just bad wording in the article I think - Samsung is complaining that Apple is refusing to negotiate a license from Samsung. Maybe the authors are unaware that the verb "to license" means to grant authority, not to receive it.
Thanks!
Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry
I read all the posts. I responded to Soli's, agreeing that the title was misleading. Then 15 and 16 appeared, both clearly not having read the article or the subsequent posts. In any case, my comment was just an observation and not intended to come over as critical as it did - my mistake.
#next_pages_container { width: 5px; hight: 5px; position: absolute; top: -100px; left: -100px; z-index: 2147483647 !important; }No problem, I was being snappy and should probably have left it.
Note to self: I shouldn't drink so much coffee!
#next_pages_container { width: 5px; hight: 5px; position: absolute; top: -100px; left: -100px; z-index: 2147483647 !important; }