#next_pages_container { width: 5px; hight: 5px; position: absolute; top: -100px; left: -100px; z-index: 2147483647 !important; } Apple should buy Nokia and make their own phone...
This is one though there have been some updates as new documents have been made available.There are some big names and they have some very good points.
I'm surprised nobody in the news has picked up on this considering the implications.
There seem to be three positions companies have on using SEP's to get injunctions:
1. Apple, Microsoft, IBM, Intel, HP and Cisco take the position that you should never seek an injunction with SEP's.
2. Nokia and Ericsson think you should be able to seek injunctions with SEP's in "extreme circumstances".
3. Samsung and Motorola/Google think you can use SEP's to seek injunctions just like regular patents.
In this case, Nokia isn't really supporting Apple but just defending their right to seek injunctions if all other avenues of getting an agreement have failed. They also bring up an important issue that directly affects Samsung - that offenders shouldn't be allowed to use your IP for years while the case is tied up in the courts. This is exactly what Samsung is doing with Apple. By the time the case gets heard, Samsung has already moved on to their next product and they've gained more in terms of market share than they will lose in paying fines/settlements.
There seem to be three positions companies have on using SEP's to get injunctions:
1. Apple, Microsoft, IBM, Intel, HP and Cisco take the position that you should never seek an injunction with SEP's.
That's not exactly Apple's position. In their letter to the FTC they say that SEP injunctions should only be available in "exceptional" circumstances. Thy don't say they shouldn't be available at all, and leave an open definition for what would qualify as exceptional.
Quote from Apple: "SEP holders should not seek injunctions when they have made a FRAND commitment absent exceptional circumstances."
As for putting Nokia in group 2, I don't recall Nokia ever saying SEP injunctions should have any restrictions at all. To the contrary they put in writing just a few weeks back that they want no change in the rules allowing injunctions over SEP disputes, considering it too dangerous "to the delicate balance of the FRAND bargain" to even consider it. That moves Nokia goes to group three, right?
As for Google they agreed with the FTC proposal limiting the availability of SEP injunctive relief to exceptional circumstances, moving them into your group two... right alongside Apple.
Naturally companies with SEPs believe in injunctions, and those without, do not. However, they not decide the outcome.
What really matters is what the courts and other authorities think.
The US based ITC reaffirmed last October that injunctions were always available to SEP holders.
The EU Commission investigating FRAND abuse specifically stated that injunctions were available in the case of unwilling licensees.
A German court ruled that FRAND is simply an offer to waive sole usage of a patent, and that basic patent rights such as injunctions were not given up.
On the other hand...
UK courts are not for or against SEP injunctions, but prefer forced negotiations.
The FTC and DOJ have also come out on the side of using forced negotiations.
And in the middle have been various judges who have thrown their hands up and said they would not be used as pawns in a global royalty negotiation.
In the end, it's still about companies with tons of patents vs. newer companies with few patents. They all act according to their self-interest. Let's not kid ourselves and think they truly believe in what's right or wrong.
I can go on all day. Bottom line is the companies I listed (Apple, MS, IBM, Cisco.....) DO NOT abuse FRAND patents. Samsung and Google/Motorola DO abuse FRAND patents and Nokia and Ericsson are still in the middle. This is not just based on public statements that they have made, but also on their actual behavior in court proceedings (with Apple having never sued over FRAND and Google/Motorola and Samsung suing over so many FRAND patents it's getting hard to keep track of them all).
BTW, I'm still waiting for someone to show me an amicus brief by anyone supporting Google/Motorola or Samsung in their abuses of FRAND or supporting Google in Oracle vs Google.
Naturally companies with SEPs believe in injunctions, and those without, do not. However, they not decide the outcome.
What really matters is what the courts and other authorities think.
The US based ITC reaffirmed last October that injunctions were always available to SEP holders.
The EU Commission investigating FRAND abuse specifically stated that injunctions were available in the case of unwilling licensees.
A German court ruled that FRAND is simply an offer to waive sole usage of a patent, and that basic patent rights such as injunctions were not given up.
On the other hand...
UK courts are not for or against SEP injunctions, but prefer forced negotiations.
The FTC and DOJ have also come out on the side of using forced negotiations.
And in the middle have been various judges who have thrown their hands up and said they would not be used as pawns in a global royalty negotiation.
Sorry, no. I just listed several patent powerhouses that do not believe in injunctions for SEP's.
Who believes in using SEP's for injunctions? I can put all the companies that do into two categories:
- Those who steal others IP and abuse FRAND patents when they get sued (Samsung, Google).
- Those with extensive portfolios who happen to be on the verge of disappearing from the smartphone market and are looking to monetize their few remaining assets (Nokia, Ericsson, Motorola).
Sorry, no. I just listed several patent powerhouses that do not believe in injunctions for SEP's.
It's fine that some companies don't believe in injunctions.
OTOH, I listed courts and agencies, and their beliefs, which matter far more.
They're the ones who make the decision whether or not to grant an injunction.
Quote:
Who believes in using SEP's for injunctions? I can put all the companies that do into two categories:
Okay, and what about the categories of companies who don't believe in injunctions for SEPs.
Some, like Microsoft, believe in mass cross-licensing to avoid injunctions in the first place.
Apple, who is quick to ask for injunctions over non-essential items, constantly tries to drag SEP negotiations through the courts, hoping to get a better deal than anyone else. At least one judge has thrown their case out with prejudice for this.
Last Fall, an ITC Judge rejected Apple's claims that Samsung can't seek injunctions for relief of FRAND patent infringement.
Quote:
"He ruled that injunctions are definitely available at the ITC for standards-essential patents, and that there is zero evidence of any wrong behavior by Samsung.
"Furthermore, the judge told Apple, which had claimed that the amount Samsung asked for licensing was too high to be a FRAND offer, that Apple can't unilaterally decide what is or is not a fair price.
"If it had objections, it could negotiate, which Apple failed to do, or there is a mediation process at ETSI it could have used, which it also apparently failed to do. Instead, the ruling says, the court battles are about negotiating a lower price."
It clearly states "no injunction" and has no mention of "exceptional circumstances".
R-i-i-i-g-h-t. . .
A letter from two weeks ago, the one I linked, would be at least as representative and a more current statement of Apple's stance on SEP injunctions than the 2011 letter you've trotted out as somehow disproving what Apple wrote this year..Seems you're up to YOUR old tricks.
As for the Oracle/Google amicus brief question I'm not aware of any that don't lean Oracle's way.
Groklaw is a hopelessly irrelevant source ever since their fifteen minutes of fame ended with SCO.
Likewise, FOSS has its own agenda. The best idea is to use them both as references to find the real documents, and for technical law details, but make up your own mind.
--
Personally, I think that injunctions should be off the table for all software patents, FRAND or not.
Alternatively, allow software patent injunctions, but only by judges who have programmed for a living.
Remember when that non-programmer Oracle lawyer talked about how it would "take him a year" to write a number range check, and therefore his company was owed millions of dollars. The judge scoffed at him, pointed out that a high schooler could do it, and that he'd written a range check a hundred times himself. What was seen as impossibly difficult by that lawyer, was common child's play for an actual coder.
Non-developers should not be involved in software patent determinations. It's like asking someone off the street to do surgery.
The amicus curiae brief of Scott McNealy Sun founder and Brian Sutphin former executive Vice President of Sun.
It encapsulates nicely exactly why Alsup's ruling was wrong.
What a great read, thanks. Unfortunately, the concept of technology (API) design being a creative process, the result of which needs to be protected from copying (the same way as music or art) is likely lost on most people (including Alsup).
I think the better way to explain it would be that it saved Google thousands of man-hours (by experienced/senior developers) to duplicate the Java APIs rather than design their own from scratch. That's worth something.
KD, like GG, still cherry picking articles to support your view. So far Apple has prevailed in court against Samsung over 20 times with regard to SEP's while Apple has lost 2 times (in Korea). Seems like more judges agree with Apples position.
And let's not forget Samsung having to drop several in Europe because of the antitrust case against them.
Comments
Just buy out Nokia Apple. Make a statement. Really get the Government going.
#next_pages_container { width: 5px; hight: 5px; position: absolute; top: -100px; left: -100px; z-index: 2147483647 !important; }
Apple should buy Nokia and make their own phone...
...oh wait...
Quote:
Originally Posted by bleh1234
So, Nokia can't tackle Samsung on its own and has to bring their lunch money to Apple.
"Pawn takes the Queen. Knight takes the Queen. Bishop takes the Queen. Gangbang!"
Quote:
Originally Posted by dasanman69
"the jig is up!" "and gone!", I wonder how many people know what movie we're quoting.
Quote:
Originally Posted by wshuff4
I do! It's good to be the king! Now, back to talking like a politician: bullshit, bullshit, bullshit . . .
Quote:
Originally Posted by dasanman69
"you look like the piss boy" "and you look like a bucket of...."
Quote:
Originally Posted by bleh1234
"We need a miracle!"
"Look! It's Miracle!"
I really should study my "History" more!
Quote:
Originally Posted by auxio
Do you have a link/source for this? Not to question you, but because I've been following this case out of personal interest.
http://www.fosspatents.com/2013/02/industry-leaders-creatives-academics.html
This is one though there have been some updates as new documents have been made available.There are some big names and they have some very good points.
I'm surprised nobody in the news has picked up on this considering the implications.
There seem to be three positions companies have on using SEP's to get injunctions:
1. Apple, Microsoft, IBM, Intel, HP and Cisco take the position that you should never seek an injunction with SEP's.
2. Nokia and Ericsson think you should be able to seek injunctions with SEP's in "extreme circumstances".
3. Samsung and Motorola/Google think you can use SEP's to seek injunctions just like regular patents.
In this case, Nokia isn't really supporting Apple but just defending their right to seek injunctions if all other avenues of getting an agreement have failed. They also bring up an important issue that directly affects Samsung - that offenders shouldn't be allowed to use your IP for years while the case is tied up in the courts. This is exactly what Samsung is doing with Apple. By the time the case gets heard, Samsung has already moved on to their next product and they've gained more in terms of market share than they will lose in paying fines/settlements.
Quote:
Originally Posted by EricTheHalfBee
There seem to be three positions companies have on using SEP's to get injunctions:
1. Apple, Microsoft, IBM, Intel, HP and Cisco take the position that you should never seek an injunction with SEP's.
That's not exactly Apple's position. In their letter to the FTC they say that SEP injunctions should only be available in "exceptional" circumstances. Thy don't say they shouldn't be available at all, and leave an open definition for what would qualify as exceptional.
Quote from Apple: "SEP holders should not seek injunctions when they have made a FRAND commitment absent exceptional circumstances."
That moves Apple to your second group I believe.
https://docs.google.com/viewer?url=http://ftc.gov/os/comments/motorolagoogle/563708-00029-85598.pdf
As for putting Nokia in group 2, I don't recall Nokia ever saying SEP injunctions should have any restrictions at all. To the contrary they put in writing just a few weeks back that they want no change in the rules allowing injunctions over SEP disputes, considering it too dangerous "to the delicate balance of the FRAND bargain" to even consider it. That moves Nokia goes to group three, right?
https://docs.google.com/viewer?url=http://www.itu.int/dms_pub/itu-t/oth/06/5B/T065B0000340004MSWE.docx
As for Google they agreed with the FTC proposal limiting the availability of SEP injunctive relief to exceptional circumstances, moving them into your group two... right alongside Apple.
Naturally companies with SEPs believe in injunctions, and those without, do not. However, they not decide the outcome.
What really matters is what the courts and other authorities think.
The US based ITC reaffirmed last October that injunctions were always available to SEP holders.
The EU Commission investigating FRAND abuse specifically stated that injunctions were available in the case of unwilling licensees.
A German court ruled that FRAND is simply an offer to waive sole usage of a patent, and that basic patent rights such as injunctions were not given up.
On the other hand...
UK courts are not for or against SEP injunctions, but prefer forced negotiations.
The FTC and DOJ have also come out on the side of using forced negotiations.
And in the middle have been various judges who have thrown their hands up and said they would not be used as pawns in a global royalty negotiation.
In the end, it's still about companies with tons of patents vs. newer companies with few patents. They all act according to their self-interest. Let's not kid ourselves and think they truly believe in what's right or wrong.
Originally Posted by drobforever
Let's not kid ourselves and think they truly believe in what's right or wrong.
I hope you're kidding.
GG, still up to your old tricks carefully picking and choosing your sources. What about this letter from Apple?
http://www.scribd.com/doc/80899178/11-11-11-Apple-Letter-to-ETSI-on-FRAND
It clearly states "no injunction" and has no mention of "exceptional circumstances".
Here's Cisco's letter that references the above Apple letter and states they agree with it.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/80985517/12-01-31-Cisco-Letter-to-ETSI-Endorsing-Apple-Position
Here's a statement by Microsoft that they won't seek injunctions.
http://www.microsoft.com/en-us/legal/intellectualproperty/IPLicensing/ip2.aspx
I can go on all day. Bottom line is the companies I listed (Apple, MS, IBM, Cisco.....) DO NOT abuse FRAND patents. Samsung and Google/Motorola DO abuse FRAND patents and Nokia and Ericsson are still in the middle. This is not just based on public statements that they have made, but also on their actual behavior in court proceedings (with Apple having never sued over FRAND and Google/Motorola and Samsung suing over so many FRAND patents it's getting hard to keep track of them all).
BTW, I'm still waiting for someone to show me an amicus brief by anyone supporting Google/Motorola or Samsung in their abuses of FRAND or supporting Google in Oracle vs Google.
Quote:
Originally Posted by KDarling
Naturally companies with SEPs believe in injunctions, and those without, do not. However, they not decide the outcome.
What really matters is what the courts and other authorities think.
The US based ITC reaffirmed last October that injunctions were always available to SEP holders.
The EU Commission investigating FRAND abuse specifically stated that injunctions were available in the case of unwilling licensees.
A German court ruled that FRAND is simply an offer to waive sole usage of a patent, and that basic patent rights such as injunctions were not given up.
On the other hand...
UK courts are not for or against SEP injunctions, but prefer forced negotiations.
The FTC and DOJ have also come out on the side of using forced negotiations.
And in the middle have been various judges who have thrown their hands up and said they would not be used as pawns in a global royalty negotiation.
Sorry, no. I just listed several patent powerhouses that do not believe in injunctions for SEP's.
Who believes in using SEP's for injunctions? I can put all the companies that do into two categories:
- Those who steal others IP and abuse FRAND patents when they get sued (Samsung, Google).
- Those with extensive portfolios who happen to be on the verge of disappearing from the smartphone market and are looking to monetize their few remaining assets (Nokia, Ericsson, Motorola).
Quote:
Originally Posted by EricTheHalfBee
Sorry, no. I just listed several patent powerhouses that do not believe in injunctions for SEP's.
It's fine that some companies don't believe in injunctions.
OTOH, I listed courts and agencies, and their beliefs, which matter far more.
They're the ones who make the decision whether or not to grant an injunction.
Quote:
Who believes in using SEP's for injunctions? I can put all the companies that do into two categories:
Okay, and what about the categories of companies who don't believe in injunctions for SEPs.
Some, like Microsoft, believe in mass cross-licensing to avoid injunctions in the first place.
Apple, who is quick to ask for injunctions over non-essential items, constantly tries to drag SEP negotiations through the courts, hoping to get a better deal than anyone else. At least one judge has thrown their case out with prejudice for this.
Last Fall, an ITC Judge rejected Apple's claims that Samsung can't seek injunctions for relief of FRAND patent infringement.
Quote:
"He ruled that injunctions are definitely available at the ITC for standards-essential patents, and that there is zero evidence of any wrong behavior by Samsung.
"Furthermore, the judge told Apple, which had claimed that the amount Samsung asked for licensing was too high to be a FRAND offer, that Apple can't unilaterally decide what is or is not a fair price.
"If it had objections, it could negotiate, which Apple failed to do, or there is a mediation process at ETSI it could have used, which it also apparently failed to do. Instead, the ruling says, the court battles are about negotiating a lower price."
- Groklaw
Quote:
Originally Posted by auxio
Do you have a link/source for this? Not to question you, but because I've been following this case out of personal interest.
Have you read this one?
The amicus curiae brief of Scott McNealy Sun founder and Brian Sutphin former executive Vice President of Sun.
It encapsulates nicely exactly why Alsup's ruling was wrong.
Quote:
Originally Posted by KDarling
blah, blah, blah
-Groklaw
Groklaw is a hopelessly irrelevant source ever since their fifteen minutes of fame ended with SCO.
Quote:
Originally Posted by cykz
Ar some point Nokia might sue Apple. And then it's nice to file for injunctions the easy way.
They already did, Apple fired back, they reached agreement and settled.
Quote:
Originally Posted by EricTheHalfBee
GG, still up to your old tricks carefully picking and choosing your sources. What about this letter from Apple?
http://www.scribd.com/doc/80899178/11-11-11-Apple-Letter-to-ETSI-on-FRAND
It clearly states "no injunction" and has no mention of "exceptional circumstances".
R-i-i-i-g-h-t. . .
A letter from two weeks ago, the one I linked, would be at least as representative and a more current statement of Apple's stance on SEP injunctions than the 2011 letter you've trotted out as somehow disproving what Apple wrote this year..Seems you're up to YOUR old tricks.
As for the Oracle/Google amicus brief question I'm not aware of any that don't lean Oracle's way.
Quote:
Originally Posted by hill60
Groklaw is a hopelessly irrelevant source ever since their fifteen minutes of fame ended with SCO.
Likewise, FOSS has its own agenda. The best idea is to use them both as references to find the real documents, and for technical law details, but make up your own mind.
--
Personally, I think that injunctions should be off the table for all software patents, FRAND or not.
Alternatively, allow software patent injunctions, but only by judges who have programmed for a living.
Remember when that non-programmer Oracle lawyer talked about how it would "take him a year" to write a number range check, and therefore his company was owed millions of dollars. The judge scoffed at him, pointed out that a high schooler could do it, and that he'd written a range check a hundred times himself. What was seen as impossibly difficult by that lawyer, was common child's play for an actual coder.
Non-developers should not be involved in software patent determinations. It's like asking someone off the street to do surgery.
Quote:
Originally Posted by hill60
Have you read this one?
The amicus curiae brief of Scott McNealy Sun founder and Brian Sutphin former executive Vice President of Sun.
It encapsulates nicely exactly why Alsup's ruling was wrong.
What a great read, thanks. Unfortunately, the concept of technology (API) design being a creative process, the result of which needs to be protected from copying (the same way as music or art) is likely lost on most people (including Alsup).
I think the better way to explain it would be that it saved Google thousands of man-hours (by experienced/senior developers) to duplicate the Java APIs rather than design their own from scratch. That's worth something.
And let's not forget Samsung having to drop several in Europe because of the antitrust case against them.