Considering that the comments regarding Google's alleged warning were redacted in Apple's trial brief, it would appear there may have been some issues regarding authenticity of the claim. Maybe someone else can speak to possible scenarios for a redaction?
In Samsung's graphic, it is interesting to note all the 'bar-type touchscreen' phones that Samsung had prior to the iPhone.
There's one phone Inthink could be considered an iPhone ripoff and that's the Glalxy S. And yes I can see that not every single detail is exactly like the iPhone but the overall design certainly is. And apparently Samsung themselves agreed.
See, Samsung can't argue that it was their email program's fault. If they cared, they would have pressed "save". They didn't, therefor it was their fault, not the email program's.
Huh?...Samsung has spend tens of billions of dollars researching and developing the telecommunication standards that a phone NEEDS to even function properly. Not to mention the untold billions that have been spent to develop dozens of components that go into the majority of cellphones today...including the iPhone. Whether you want to admit it or not, many of the MAJOR components in an iPhone or iPad were manufactured by Samsung, and benefited from the hard work and research done by them.
Covered by the license fees paid to chipmakers such as Qualcomm who make the chips which actually use these patents, as part of the FRAND agreements made when Samsung contributed the patents to ETSI when forming the standards.
Samsung terminated the agreement first made with Qualcomm in 1993, regarding Apple specifically in April 2010.
So maybe we don't need standards and it should be everyone for themselves.
So why should consumers be charged more for a $600 phone using a 10c chip than a $50 phone using a 10c chip when using a patent to do exactly the same thing?
All of Motorola's devices have not been banned. It is 18 devices, all of which are on the older side and are not big sellers. According to Google, they have already taken "proactive measures" for the import ban, and to my knowledge, there have been no reports of any blockages. Not exactly sure what "proactive measures" means though.
Huh?...Samsung has spend tens of billions of dollars researching and developing the telecommunication standards that a phone NEEDS to even function properly. Not to mention the untold billions that have been spent to develop dozens of components that go into the majority of cellphones today...including the iPhone. Whether you want to admit it or not, many of the MAJOR components in an iPhone or iPad were manufactured by Samsung, and benefited from the hard work and research done by them.
No one is arguing that Samsung is a good component supplier (or builder of said components), that is a whole different part of the Samsung organization. One that actually has a very strong relationship with Apple, and one of the reasons the new CEO is from that part of the business and not the side that manufactures whole devices.
As for the basic functions of cell phones, again no one is arguing that various companies (including Samsung) have done a lot or spent a lot. But they choose (it was their choice) to be part of a universal standard, and to agree upon a low cost process that would then be universally adopted.
In fact one of the key things is that the fair value of any FRAND patent is that it is worth only what its value was before it was joined into the standard. That's not open to debate that is the standing law. In the last couple years, a few companies have tried to push that royalty rate, from where it had previously been set (based on the cost of that specific component it is a part of) to a new base (that of the final full manufactured unit). That is a huge, huge issue and to date, no court as agreed to it. And considering this is a exceptionally new argument (in court history) its not hard to see that it is only meant as a way to defend from accusation of general IP theft (or inadvertent copy).
When any company creates a new way of doing something (or even a new look of something) and they patent it (and that patent holds up to judicial scrutiny), if its not part of standard. No other company has to use that to make a cell phone. They do so only because they see its popular, and they see it as a way to help boost their sales (and at some point almost all companies have done so an absolutely this includes Apple who has had to pay fines for in the past and probably in the future).
The company who created or developed the new method can choose to license it (which often can happen), but they can also choose not to. It is solely at their discretion.
Now I might not agree with every lawsuit Apple has been in (actually I know I don't), but if the patent was awarded the only option is to go through judicial review to determine if that patent is valid, and if that threshold is meet, then you better not have copied it without a license agreement.
Huh?...Samsung has spend tens of billions of dollars researching and developing the telecommunication standards that a phone NEEDS to even function properly. Not to mention the untold billions that have been spent to develop dozens of components that go into the majority of cellphones today...including the iPhone. Whether you want to admit it or not, many of the MAJOR components in an iPhone or iPad were manufactured by Samsung, and benefited from the hard work and research done by them.
That's a red herring.
No one has ever argued that Samsung shouldn't be compensated for their work. They choose to sell their products and that is their payment. For FRAND stuff, they made a voluntary agreement to license under FRAND terms. Now, there is a legitimate question of how much Apple owes them, but the general principle is that they have a right to be compensated for their work.
What does that have to do with them stealing Apple's work without payment?
So why should consumers be charged more for a $600 phone using a 10c chip than a $50 phone using a 10c chip when using a patent to do exactly the same thing?
I agree. However, if Apple didn't like the initial licensing cost , why was a counter-offer not made as typically done? Apple's own statements suggest that they felt the patents should not be valid since they were not disclosed to ETSI, and they are the ones to have simply decided to "ignore" Samsung's intellectual property rights. In this situation, Apple is the party that has decided to not negotiate, and instead, simply benefit from 20 years of groundwork and billions invested in research by 'stealing' it.
What does that have to do with them stealing Apple's work without payment?
My comment has nothing to do with Samsung stealing Apple's work without payment. If Samsung is proven guilty of stealing Apple's IP, they should pay everything owed.
My comment was in response to the claim that Samsung is the "worst of the copiers". In my mind, Apple stealing/copying telecommunication technology that took 20 years and billions to innovate is a much "worst copier" than Samsung's alleged "copying" of 'rectangles', and 'bounce-back scrolling'...
I agree. However, if Apple didn't like the initial licensing cost , why was a counter-offer not made as typically done? Apple's own statements suggest that they felt the patents should not be valid since they were not disclosed to ETSI, and they are the ones to have simply decided to "ignore" Samsung's intellectual property rights. In this situation, Apple is the party that has decided to not negotiate, and instead, simply benefit from 20 years of groundwork and billions invested in research by 'stealing' it.
Apple had agreements with Qualcomm and other chipmakers, Samsung terminating these agreements terminated the payments Apple was already making for the patents as part of the cost of the chips.
My comment has nothing to do with Samsung stealing Apple's work without payment. If Samsung is proven guilty of stealing Apple's IP, they should pay everything owed.
My comment was in response to the claim that Samsung is the "worst of the copiers". In my mind, Apple stealing/copying telecommunication technology that took 20 years and billions to innovate is a much "worst copier" than Samsung's alleged "copying" of 'rectangles', and 'bounce-back scrolling'...
Apple was paying the fees for these patents as part of the cost of the chips that used them, just like everyone else does.
It was Samsung's decision to terminate agreements and NOT be paid for the patents.
Apple was paying the fees for these patents as part of the cost of the chips that used them, just like everyone else does.
It was Samsung's decision to terminate agreements and NOT be paid for the patents.
Only the latest 4S and the new iPad use UTMS licensed Qualcomm baseband chips. Whether or not "patent exhaustion" can be claimed with the Qualcomm chips is a different story. Previous iPhones and iPads used Intel and Infineon baseband chips that did not carry licensing costs. A Dutch court has already ruled on this and found Apple to be guilty of infringement, and must pay an undisclosed amount.
The idea that it is the 'licensing cost' that Apple is balking about is the actual red herring in the room. Apple has always asserted that Samsung's intellectual property rights should be "free for the taking" since they allegedly 'deceived' the ETSI standards-setting group. Interestingly, Apple seems to be standing alone in this allegation of 'deception'...how convenient.
Apple has always asserted that Samsung's intellectual property rights should be "free for the taking" since they allegedly 'deceived' the ETSI standards-setting group. Interestingly, Apple seems to be standing alone in this allegation of 'deception'...how convenient.
Aren't there American laws requiring the retention of emails for 7 years?
Something about Sorbanes Oxley.
Why aren't the DoJ looking into a foreign business that could be operating illegally in the US?
I suppose the price of a few ebooks is far more important.
There are still a lot of grey areas still in the way that the implementation of Sarbanes-Oxley works for foreign firms -- even those listed -- in the US. Not everything applies (for example, Samsung doesn't even bother with any detailed segment reporting like many US firms do).
Also, I am not sure if it's the DoJ that would have oversight here, as opposed to the SEC.
Please...every company of Samsung's size has a laundry list of 'scandals', including Apple.
Apparently a Dutch court did not believe Apple's 'deception' story as well, since they have been found guilty of infringement and ordered to pay an undisclosed sum to Samsung.
Yes, on the point that Apple will have to pay some "Cost" for all the earlier devices. There really isn't any disagreement about that., Apple agrees with that.
The disagreement on the FRAND side is that Apple feels that Samsung's request isn't meeting FRAND Standards. Samsung itself has admitted that Apple made them a payment offer. One that they refused. Samsung's argument is that the amount Apple wished to pay wasn't high enough.
The issue here is what is Samsung's legitimate asking price. Ie what is the true value of the patent's in question. And remember those patents values are set by law as being formulated as the value before being entered into a standard.
For example a patent that is absolutely necessary to meet the requirement for operating a cellphone on paper is very valuable. But due to being part of a standard is only valued at what that patent would be worth if not part of the cell phone standard. Some will still have some unit by unit value, others will be literally without value. and some of the evidence of this will be what are others who use this patent paying for it. If X company is paying 2 cents a unit on it, then by law and that is what Apple (or anyone else for that matter) is paying for it. Now if everyone else is paying $10 for it (they aren't simply research on all those parts show that is impossible) then of course Apple should also pay the same amount.
The Dutch case Apple's opponent was trying for two things, one a banning of Apple sales (that didn't not occur) and that the court would agree to a large license for those patents, no one currently believes that Apple is going to be paying the high amounts asked for. They will pay for those patents, just not what the other company wanted.
Another example of this was Nokia (the first suit against Apple), Nokia wanted a price far above what Apple believed was FRAND for those particular patents. Nokia demanded X amount, Apple said no. Case went to court, and the amount Apple paid was considered favorable to Apple not Nokia. Meaning Nokia got paid for those patents, but at a value close to what Apple initially offered.
The only real victory against Apple to date on these types of issues was a non FRAND patent in Germany about pushed notifications. Apple had to remove that function (so they couldn't be instant pushed notifications, it could instead be updated notifications that occur every minute instead), not a huge lose, one that in most cases unless you truly depend on second to second updates isn't going to by a significant factor for the majority of Apple's user base.
Yes, on the point that Apple will have to pay some "Cost" for all the earlier devices. There really isn't any disagreement about that., Apple agrees with that.
If Apple isn't disagreeing with having to pay licensing costs for UTMS technology, why is section VII of their US trial brief titled "SAMSUNG’S STANDARD-SETTING DECEIT RESULTS IN WAIVER OF ITS RIGHTS TO ASSERT THE PATENTS AGAINST APPLE"?
Well in the Dutch case, for example Samsung sued with 4 patents, one which one was found to be in valid against Apple.
What wasn't reported is that Samsung had been asking 2.4% for that FRAND patent. The Dutch court ruled that wasn't an acceptable FRAND rate.
And that While Apple will pay a FRAND rate (as well as a penalty in the Netherlands) for that one patent the interesting question is will Apple actually have to pay anything.
Since Samsun lost on three of the four patents, Apple will get to recover court costs for 3/4 of the case which is estimated to be 800,000 euros. The question is once the Dutch court rules on the FRAND value of that patent (hasn't yet) and figures the penalty will it exceed what Apple is owed for court costs, and if so how much.
It is interesting even in this pro-Apple site. popcorn ready?
Apple didn't steal anything from Samsung. Samsung is playing a game of reductio ad absurdum and doing a poor job of it.
All nonsense. Samsung has *repeatedly* been handed their asses in the courts by Apple, have been forced to change their designs on more than one occasion, have already suffered bans and injunctions, and they are *already* well-known for their thieving, corruption and gangsterism in the industry, so most of what they say is rightfully under an immediate could of suspicion (and should be) until they can prove otherwise.
There is only ONE THING that matters in any of this. And it's absolutely stunning and glorious in its sheer simplicity:
Comments
See, Samsung can't argue that it was their email program's fault. If they cared, they would have pressed "save". They didn't, therefor it was their fault, not the email program's.
Quote:
Originally Posted by e_veritas
Huh?...Samsung has spend tens of billions of dollars researching and developing the telecommunication standards that a phone NEEDS to even function properly. Not to mention the untold billions that have been spent to develop dozens of components that go into the majority of cellphones today...including the iPhone. Whether you want to admit it or not, many of the MAJOR components in an iPhone or iPad were manufactured by Samsung, and benefited from the hard work and research done by them.
Covered by the license fees paid to chipmakers such as Qualcomm who make the chips which actually use these patents, as part of the FRAND agreements made when Samsung contributed the patents to ETSI when forming the standards.
Samsung terminated the agreement first made with Qualcomm in 1993, regarding Apple specifically in April 2010.
So maybe we don't need standards and it should be everyone for themselves.
So why should consumers be charged more for a $600 phone using a 10c chip than a $50 phone using a 10c chip when using a patent to do exactly the same thing?
Quote:
Originally Posted by e_veritas
All of Motorola's devices have not been banned. It is 18 devices, all of which are on the older side and are not big sellers. According to Google, they have already taken "proactive measures" for the import ban, and to my knowledge, there have been no reports of any blockages. Not exactly sure what "proactive measures" means though.
Huh?...Samsung has spend tens of billions of dollars researching and developing the telecommunication standards that a phone NEEDS to even function properly. Not to mention the untold billions that have been spent to develop dozens of components that go into the majority of cellphones today...including the iPhone. Whether you want to admit it or not, many of the MAJOR components in an iPhone or iPad were manufactured by Samsung, and benefited from the hard work and research done by them.
No one is arguing that Samsung is a good component supplier (or builder of said components), that is a whole different part of the Samsung organization. One that actually has a very strong relationship with Apple, and one of the reasons the new CEO is from that part of the business and not the side that manufactures whole devices.
As for the basic functions of cell phones, again no one is arguing that various companies (including Samsung) have done a lot or spent a lot. But they choose (it was their choice) to be part of a universal standard, and to agree upon a low cost process that would then be universally adopted.
In fact one of the key things is that the fair value of any FRAND patent is that it is worth only what its value was before it was joined into the standard. That's not open to debate that is the standing law. In the last couple years, a few companies have tried to push that royalty rate, from where it had previously been set (based on the cost of that specific component it is a part of) to a new base (that of the final full manufactured unit). That is a huge, huge issue and to date, no court as agreed to it. And considering this is a exceptionally new argument (in court history) its not hard to see that it is only meant as a way to defend from accusation of general IP theft (or inadvertent copy).
When any company creates a new way of doing something (or even a new look of something) and they patent it (and that patent holds up to judicial scrutiny), if its not part of standard. No other company has to use that to make a cell phone. They do so only because they see its popular, and they see it as a way to help boost their sales (and at some point almost all companies have done so an absolutely this includes Apple who has had to pay fines for in the past and probably in the future).
The company who created or developed the new method can choose to license it (which often can happen), but they can also choose not to. It is solely at their discretion.
Now I might not agree with every lawsuit Apple has been in (actually I know I don't), but if the patent was awarded the only option is to go through judicial review to determine if that patent is valid, and if that threshold is meet, then you better not have copied it without a license agreement.
That's a red herring.
No one has ever argued that Samsung shouldn't be compensated for their work. They choose to sell their products and that is their payment. For FRAND stuff, they made a voluntary agreement to license under FRAND terms. Now, there is a legitimate question of how much Apple owes them, but the general principle is that they have a right to be compensated for their work.
What does that have to do with them stealing Apple's work without payment?
Quote:
Originally Posted by hill60
So why should consumers be charged more for a $600 phone using a 10c chip than a $50 phone using a 10c chip when using a patent to do exactly the same thing?
I agree. However, if Apple didn't like the initial licensing cost , why was a counter-offer not made as typically done? Apple's own statements suggest that they felt the patents should not be valid since they were not disclosed to ETSI, and they are the ones to have simply decided to "ignore" Samsung's intellectual property rights. In this situation, Apple is the party that has decided to not negotiate, and instead, simply benefit from 20 years of groundwork and billions invested in research by 'stealing' it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta
That's a red herring.
What does that have to do with them stealing Apple's work without payment?
My comment has nothing to do with Samsung stealing Apple's work without payment. If Samsung is proven guilty of stealing Apple's IP, they should pay everything owed.
My comment was in response to the claim that Samsung is the "worst of the copiers". In my mind, Apple stealing/copying telecommunication technology that took 20 years and billions to innovate is a much "worst copier" than Samsung's alleged "copying" of 'rectangles', and 'bounce-back scrolling'...
Quote:
Originally Posted by e_veritas
I agree. However, if Apple didn't like the initial licensing cost , why was a counter-offer not made as typically done? Apple's own statements suggest that they felt the patents should not be valid since they were not disclosed to ETSI, and they are the ones to have simply decided to "ignore" Samsung's intellectual property rights. In this situation, Apple is the party that has decided to not negotiate, and instead, simply benefit from 20 years of groundwork and billions invested in research by 'stealing' it.
Apple had agreements with Qualcomm and other chipmakers, Samsung terminating these agreements terminated the payments Apple was already making for the patents as part of the cost of the chips.
Quote:
Originally Posted by e_veritas
My comment has nothing to do with Samsung stealing Apple's work without payment. If Samsung is proven guilty of stealing Apple's IP, they should pay everything owed.
My comment was in response to the claim that Samsung is the "worst of the copiers". In my mind, Apple stealing/copying telecommunication technology that took 20 years and billions to innovate is a much "worst copier" than Samsung's alleged "copying" of 'rectangles', and 'bounce-back scrolling'...
Apple was paying the fees for these patents as part of the cost of the chips that used them, just like everyone else does.
It was Samsung's decision to terminate agreements and NOT be paid for the patents.
Quote:
Originally Posted by hill60
Apple was paying the fees for these patents as part of the cost of the chips that used them, just like everyone else does.
It was Samsung's decision to terminate agreements and NOT be paid for the patents.
Only the latest 4S and the new iPad use UTMS licensed Qualcomm baseband chips. Whether or not "patent exhaustion" can be claimed with the Qualcomm chips is a different story. Previous iPhones and iPads used Intel and Infineon baseband chips that did not carry licensing costs. A Dutch court has already ruled on this and found Apple to be guilty of infringement, and must pay an undisclosed amount.
The idea that it is the 'licensing cost' that Apple is balking about is the actual red herring in the room. Apple has always asserted that Samsung's intellectual property rights should be "free for the taking" since they allegedly 'deceived' the ETSI standards-setting group. Interestingly, Apple seems to be standing alone in this allegation of 'deception'...how convenient.
Quote:
Originally Posted by e_veritas
Apple has always asserted that Samsung's intellectual property rights should be "free for the taking" since they allegedly 'deceived' the ETSI standards-setting group. Interestingly, Apple seems to be standing alone in this allegation of 'deception'...how convenient.
Given that Samsung are *demonstrable* crooks and tech gangsters in the first place (http://forums.appleinsider.com/t/151516/samsungs-evidence-destruction-will-be-factor-in-upcoming-trial#post_2154098), I'm perfectly prepared to believe Apple.
Quote:
Originally Posted by hill60
Aren't there American laws requiring the retention of emails for 7 years?
Something about Sorbanes Oxley.
Why aren't the DoJ looking into a foreign business that could be operating illegally in the US?
I suppose the price of a few ebooks is far more important.
There are still a lot of grey areas still in the way that the implementation of Sarbanes-Oxley works for foreign firms -- even those listed -- in the US. Not everything applies (for example, Samsung doesn't even bother with any detailed segment reporting like many US firms do).
Also, I am not sure if it's the DoJ that would have oversight here, as opposed to the SEC.
This "advisory" from the judge to the jury is pure dynamite in Apple's favor.
And even when you are looking to fight a thermonuclear war, a little dynamite can always come in handy :-)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Quadra 610
Given that Samsung are *demonstrable* crooks and tech gangsters in the first place (http://forums.appleinsider.com/t/151516/samsungs-evidence-destruction-will-be-factor-in-upcoming-trial#post_2154098), I'm perfectly prepared to believe Apple.
http://www.bgr.com/2012/07/25/samsung-apple-patent-lawsuit-documents-revealed/
It is interesting even in this pro-Apple site. popcorn ready?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Quadra 610
Given that Samsung are *demonstrable* crooks and tech gangsters in the first place (http://forums.appleinsider.com/t/151516/samsungs-evidence-destruction-will-be-factor-in-upcoming-trial#post_2154098), I'm perfectly prepared to believe Apple.
Please...every company of Samsung's size has a laundry list of 'scandals', including Apple.
Apparently a Dutch court did not believe Apple's 'deception' story as well, since they have been found guilty of infringement and ordered to pay an undisclosed sum to Samsung.
E Veritas
Yes, on the point that Apple will have to pay some "Cost" for all the earlier devices. There really isn't any disagreement about that., Apple agrees with that.
The disagreement on the FRAND side is that Apple feels that Samsung's request isn't meeting FRAND Standards. Samsung itself has admitted that Apple made them a payment offer. One that they refused. Samsung's argument is that the amount Apple wished to pay wasn't high enough.
The issue here is what is Samsung's legitimate asking price. Ie what is the true value of the patent's in question. And remember those patents values are set by law as being formulated as the value before being entered into a standard.
For example a patent that is absolutely necessary to meet the requirement for operating a cellphone on paper is very valuable. But due to being part of a standard is only valued at what that patent would be worth if not part of the cell phone standard. Some will still have some unit by unit value, others will be literally without value. and some of the evidence of this will be what are others who use this patent paying for it. If X company is paying 2 cents a unit on it, then by law and that is what Apple (or anyone else for that matter) is paying for it. Now if everyone else is paying $10 for it (they aren't simply research on all those parts show that is impossible) then of course Apple should also pay the same amount.
The Dutch case Apple's opponent was trying for two things, one a banning of Apple sales (that didn't not occur) and that the court would agree to a large license for those patents, no one currently believes that Apple is going to be paying the high amounts asked for. They will pay for those patents, just not what the other company wanted.
Another example of this was Nokia (the first suit against Apple), Nokia wanted a price far above what Apple believed was FRAND for those particular patents. Nokia demanded X amount, Apple said no. Case went to court, and the amount Apple paid was considered favorable to Apple not Nokia. Meaning Nokia got paid for those patents, but at a value close to what Apple initially offered.
The only real victory against Apple to date on these types of issues was a non FRAND patent in Germany about pushed notifications. Apple had to remove that function (so they couldn't be instant pushed notifications, it could instead be updated notifications that occur every minute instead), not a huge lose, one that in most cases unless you truly depend on second to second updates isn't going to by a significant factor for the majority of Apple's user base.
Quote:
Originally Posted by anantksundaram
Also, I am not sure if it's the DoJ that would have oversight here, as opposed to the SEC.
Considering Samsung Electronics Co exchanges on the Korean Exchange, how would the SEC even have oversight?
Quote:
Originally Posted by mswood
Yes, on the point that Apple will have to pay some "Cost" for all the earlier devices. There really isn't any disagreement about that., Apple agrees with that.
If Apple isn't disagreeing with having to pay licensing costs for UTMS technology, why is section VII of their US trial brief titled "SAMSUNG’S STANDARD-SETTING DECEIT RESULTS IN WAIVER OF ITS RIGHTS TO ASSERT THE PATENTS AGAINST APPLE"?
Well in the Dutch case, for example Samsung sued with 4 patents, one which one was found to be in valid against Apple.
What wasn't reported is that Samsung had been asking 2.4% for that FRAND patent. The Dutch court ruled that wasn't an acceptable FRAND rate.
And that While Apple will pay a FRAND rate (as well as a penalty in the Netherlands) for that one patent the interesting question is will Apple actually have to pay anything.
Since Samsun lost on three of the four patents, Apple will get to recover court costs for 3/4 of the case which is estimated to be 800,000 euros. The question is once the Dutch court rules on the FRAND value of that patent (hasn't yet) and figures the penalty will it exceed what Apple is owed for court costs, and if so how much.
Quote:
Originally Posted by hjb
http://www.bgr.com/2012/07/25/samsung-apple-patent-lawsuit-documents-revealed/
It is interesting even in this pro-Apple site. popcorn ready?
Apple didn't steal anything from Samsung. Samsung is playing a game of reductio ad absurdum and doing a poor job of it.
All nonsense. Samsung has *repeatedly* been handed their asses in the courts by Apple, have been forced to change their designs on more than one occasion, have already suffered bans and injunctions, and they are *already* well-known for their thieving, corruption and gangsterism in the industry, so most of what they say is rightfully under an immediate could of suspicion (and should be) until they can prove otherwise.
There is only ONE THING that matters in any of this. And it's absolutely stunning and glorious in its sheer simplicity: