Samsung files new patent infringement suit against Apple in South Korea
The number of lawsuits between Samsung and Apple continues to grow, as on Wednesday Samsung revealed it had filed another patent infringement claim in South Korea, accusing the iPhone 4S and iPad 2 of infringing on three patents.
The suit filed in a court in Seoul alleges that Apple's latest smartphone and its second-generation tablet infringe on patents related to displaying data, the user interface, and short text messages, according to Reuters. There are now more than 30 lawsuits between Apple and Samsung spanning across 10 countries.
The latest filing comes as Apple is expected to show off its next-generation iPad at a media event scheduled to begin today at 10 a.m. Pacific, 1 p.m. Eastern in San Francisco.
If history is any indication, Samsung could act quickly in an attempt to block sales of Apple's next iPad. Last October, Samsung filed lawsuits almost immediately after the iPhone 4S was unveiled, attempting to block the launch of the device in France and Italy.
The latest suit also comes after it was revealed on Tuesday that Apple has offered settlements to both Samsung and Motorola in its patent infringement disputes. It was said that Apple has sought royalties of between $5 and $15 per Android-based handset sold by its rivals.
Apple reportedly entered into negotiations with Samsung before it took the company to court. The iPhone maker's first lawsuit against Samsung came last April, when it accused Samsung of copying the look and feel of the iPhone and iPad.
[ View article on AppleInsider ]
Comments
The latest suit also comes after it was revealed on Tuesday that Apple has offered settlements to both Samsung and Motorola in its patent infringement disputes. It was said that Apple has sought royalties of between $5 and $15 per Android-based handset sold by its rivals.
$15 on a $600 dollar phone is 2.5%.
Haven't we decided that is way too high?
$15 on a $600 dollar phone is 2.5%.
Haven't we decided that is way too high?
High for FRAND patents which these are not.
$15 on a $600 dollar phone is 2.5%.
Haven't we decided that is way too high?
Too low.
High for FRAND patents which these are not.
This latest lawsuit alleges three Samsung utility patents are infringed and not standards-essential ones.
$15 on a $600 dollar phone is 2.5%.
Haven't we decided that is way too high?
It was decided that 2.5% was too high for the Motorola FRAND patents. Apple is suing Samsung et al for patents which are not essential.
High for FRAND patents which these are not.
Why should essential stuff sell for less than optional stuff?
Why should essential stuff sell for less than optional stuff?
Because the essential technologies are part of a technology standard which everyone must adhere to. Its not 'selling' for less, its essential and therefore everyone HAS to license it.
Therefore you cannot strong-arm or hold companies to ransom with these patents.
Because the essential technologies are part of a technology standard which everyone must adhere to. Its not 'selling' for less, its essential and therefore everyone HAS to license it.
Therefore you cannot strong-arm or hold companies to ransom with these patents.
The argument could be made that since they are essential to any company wanting to enter the smartphone market that they're more valuable than ones that can perhaps easily be engineered around.
I wonder if Apple will regret starting this patent war after all is said and done.
The short answer is "No"
Because the essential technologies are part of a technology standard which everyone must adhere to. Its not 'selling' for less, its essential and therefore everyone HAS to license it.
Therefore you cannot strong-arm or hold companies to ransom with these patents.
Also you can't hold certain companies to a higher amount. THat was one of the contentions with the Moto deal. Sure they were asking the same percent from everyone but it was based off the retail price of the amount which for Apple is like 4 times higher than the others, meaning Apple was paying a much higher amount, which has been argued as not Fair or Reasonable and certainly not Non-Discriminatory.
With non essential patents you can ask whatever you want or even refuse to license. Apple has done this with a ton of iPhone and iPad patents. The items in question are part of how they keep these devices unique and so the answer is no.
The suit filed in a court in Seoul alleges that Apple's latest smartphone and its second-generation tablet infringe on patents related to displaying data, the user interface, and short text messages, according to Reuters.
Given these areas something tells me that Apple will be able to show that they aren't using the tech in Samsung's patents but in fact are using tech based on internal prior art. and/or will be able to make a claim that Samsung's patents are too broad and Apple improved the art of those patents so much they created a new and patentable item and thus there is no claimable violation of the originals
The argument could be made that since they are essential to any company wanting to enter the smartphone market that they're more valuable than ones that can perhaps easily be engineered around.
Except that the patent holders offered them as standard essential and must oblige by the FRAND terms.
The argument could be made that since they are essential to any company wanting to enter the smartphone market that they're more valuable than ones that can perhaps easily be engineered around.
Correct. How does one strongarm the buyer with something that they don't really need to have?
The thought that a discretionary purchase has greater price elasticity than an essential purchase seems backwards to me.
For example, bread and milk will be purchased even when the price goes way up. But ice cream? The consumer might well skip it or substitute popsicles.
Except that the patent holders offered them as standard essential and must oblige by the FRAND terms.
And do FRAND terms require that their IP be given away for a pittance? No, in fact there is no such thing as specific "FRAND terms" that apply across the board. The requirements, obligations, rates and royalty basis vary from agency to agency. Even some of those suggest the rules to follow rather than make them a requirement.
As a corollary, Robert Goddard, the father of the modern liquid fueled rocket, held about 200 patents central to the workings of these rockets. The numbers can be huge.
All the best.
The argument could be made that since they are essential to any company wanting to enter the smartphone market that they're more valuable than ones that can perhaps easily be engineered around.
Patented technologies are used in standards when the owner of the patent is willing to license the technology on fair terms. If using a technology as part of a standard would mean that the owner could put the squeeze on anyone entering a market, that technology would not be used as part of the standard. Apple technologies were used as part of the MP4 standard, as I recall, and we don't see lawsuits or hear a lot of bitching and moaning about Apple being unfair with it.
Also you can't hold certain companies to a higher amount. THat was one of the contentions with the Moto deal. Sure they were asking the same percent from everyone but it was based off the retail price of the amount which for Apple is like 4 times higher than the others, meaning Apple was paying a much higher amount, which has been argued as not Fair or Reasonable and certainly not Non-Discriminatory.
That might be the implied argument that FOSSPatents was making. If you read what he 's said more carefully he's not saying that Motorola's 2.25% of the device selling price is specifically unfair. Instead he's saying he personally think that the traditional communications royalty basis being the finished device price isn't sustainable. If you misunderstand because of the way he worded his argument, that's not really his fault of course. He also never mentions that the phone manufacturers went thru the same motions a few years ago when standards transitioned from 2G to 3G. There were some then that estimated the 3G royalties to be as much as 40% of the finished device price.
As for holding different companies to different amounts, here's the way it's been done and what Apple doesn't want to go along with: If you have IP to trade, they'll reduce your out-of-pocket expense. Give value and get value. The way I read it Apple doesn't want to give up anything of their own, but still wants the lower royalty rates that companies contributing IP get. IMHO there's some dishonest arguments being made by neglecting to mention a few pertinent facts.