The issue is other LTE phones that are being offered by other phone makers. Is it wrong to assume that other device makers are making use of Samsung's LTE IP? I would suspect so. Then Samsung must have licensed their patents to these of device makers at reasonable prices.
My naive and uninformed guess is that, since Apple is using LTE chips from Qualcomm and they would have licensed the IP from Samsung, then Apple is legally entitled to use the chips.
I do recall some other lawsuit against Apple by some company claiming Apple could not use chips made by a licensed company without also paying additional licensing fees to the IP owner. Apple as a third party argued it had the right to do so. Was this IP owner Samsung?
If that is true, Apple will have the paperwork to file a motion to dismiss due to patent exhaustion. End of game
That's how Sanscum lost their pants in the CA court recently. It seems to me that Samscum's management thinks the world courts are as crooked as their local courts.
I do recall some other lawsuit against Apple by some company claiming Apple could not use chips made by a licensed company without also paying additional licensing fees to the IP owner. Apple as a third party argued it had the right to do so. Was this IP owner Samsung?
Anybody remember that case and its resolution?
It was MotoMo/Google that tried that tactic in Europe. While there was no outcome per sec., the Europeans have called called MotoMo/Google et al to explain their monopolistic tendencies. I have a hunch that this is not going to turn out well for them. It's not good to be in the sights of the European courts as they are still hauling Microsoft in for a periodic beating... just because.
That's assuming that Samsung needs to use any of Apple's patents.
Conversely that's assuming Apple is using any of Samsung's patents, if there is no standard then there is no need to use any of them, Samsung has not supplied the towers or the back end of phone networks, apart from in limited areas that they are branching into.
The body that governs standards should work around Samsung's patents if they are going to abuse them.
Apple has cross licensing deals with Nokia, it can be assumed also with Sony & Ericsson, they have their own patents.
Who deemed Samsung's patents as "essential"?
"It only takes one bullet to kill" Quinn Emmanuel representing Google/Motorola vs Apple in Germany.
That's assuming that Samsung needs to use any of Apple's patents.
I certainly hoe that Samsung has confirmed that they aren't infringing on any Apple 4G patents ... Because Samsung has probably sold more LTE devices than Apple. Sure Samsung could hold up the release of the iPhone5, but they could be in for another big payout against existing sales if they have infringed on Apple patents.
I would think that Samsung has already considered this, but seeing how their lawyers got their butts handed to them in the look & feel lawsuit, I wouldn't be surprised to see them screw it up again.
[quote name="elehcdn" url="/t/152477/rumor-samsung-to-sue-apple-over-lte-compatible-next-gen-I certainly hoe that Samsung has confirmed that they aren't infringing on any Apple 4G patents ... Because Samsung has probably sold more LTE devices than Apple..[/quote]
Apple has sold a LOT of 4G capable new iPads, only a fraction of the phones Samsung has sold are 4G, I'd say that Apple has sold more.
Not only are most of these patents FRAND patents which should by contract have a very low fee, most of them are also 'exhausted'. That means that the chip maker (Qualcomm for example) has ALREADY paid the patent fee, so Apple should not need to pay it again.
Unfortunately it's not that easy. A couple of years ago I looked into connectors for MMC (the predecessor to SD memory cards). One supplier is Tyco. You would think that they pay license fees for every single one they produce (and they probably do) - however, if you want to buy these connectors, you have to supply them with information about the kind of device you want to use the connector for. Based on the group your device is in you pay a certain license fee for every device you build it can be higher for phones and less for some industrial appliance. No exhaustion of anything. You always pay. B2B is very different than B2C.
shouldn't it be illegal to license your patents to a chip supplier then sue companies for using those very chips? The patents have already been licensed.
Your pronoun 'it' is clearly choosing who is at fault while his pronoun 'it' is talking about legal action. I know you know the difference.
Of course I do. I just didn't know he was joking, because there was no hint of a joke in his post. Now I see that he has clarified that it was a joke. Unfortunately I don't know the joke that he's referring back to from the summer... asking a lot if you assume posters on a message board will remember what one says months ago...
Comments
My naive and uninformed guess is that, since Apple is using LTE chips from Qualcomm and they would have licensed the IP from Samsung, then Apple is legally entitled to use the chips.
I do recall some other lawsuit against Apple by some company claiming Apple could not use chips made by a licensed company without also paying additional licensing fees to the IP owner. Apple as a third party argued it had the right to do so. Was this IP owner Samsung?
Anybody remember that case and its resolution?
Quote:
Originally Posted by charlituna
If that is true, Apple will have the paperwork to file a motion to dismiss due to patent exhaustion. End of game
That's how Sanscum lost their pants in the CA court recently. It seems to me that Samscum's management thinks the world courts are as crooked as their local courts.
Quote:
Originally Posted by waldobushman
I do recall some other lawsuit against Apple by some company claiming Apple could not use chips made by a licensed company without also paying additional licensing fees to the IP owner. Apple as a third party argued it had the right to do so. Was this IP owner Samsung?
Anybody remember that case and its resolution?
It was MotoMo/Google that tried that tactic in Europe. While there was no outcome per sec., the Europeans have called called MotoMo/Google et al to explain their monopolistic tendencies. I have a hunch that this is not going to turn out well for them. It's not good to be in the sights of the European courts as they are still hauling Microsoft in for a periodic beating... just because.
Samsung is doomed. ????
Conversely that's assuming Apple is using any of Samsung's patents, if there is no standard then there is no need to use any of them, Samsung has not supplied the towers or the back end of phone networks, apart from in limited areas that they are branching into.
The body that governs standards should work around Samsung's patents if they are going to abuse them.
Apple has cross licensing deals with Nokia, it can be assumed also with Sony & Ericsson, they have their own patents.
Who deemed Samsung's patents as "essential"?
"It only takes one bullet to kill" Quinn Emmanuel representing Google/Motorola vs Apple in Germany.
I certainly hoe that Samsung has confirmed that they aren't infringing on any Apple 4G patents ... Because Samsung has probably sold more LTE devices than Apple. Sure Samsung could hold up the release of the iPhone5, but they could be in for another big payout against existing sales if they have infringed on Apple patents.
I would think that Samsung has already considered this, but seeing how their lawyers got their butts handed to them in the look & feel lawsuit, I wouldn't be surprised to see them screw it up again.
Apple has sold a LOT of 4G capable new iPads, only a fraction of the phones Samsung has sold are 4G, I'd say that Apple has sold more.
Too much, play for cash
Too much, put up or shut up
Too much is not enough
Oh, no! Bruno!
Too much is not enough
Too much, hit the night clubs
Too much, drink champagne
Too much, double bull's eye
Too much, do that again
Too much, stay out all night
Too much, but that's alright
NoMeansNo
Quote:
Originally Posted by BeltsBear
Not only are most of these patents FRAND patents which should by contract have a very low fee, most of them are also 'exhausted'. That means that the chip maker (Qualcomm for example) has ALREADY paid the patent fee, so Apple should not need to pay it again.
Unfortunately it's not that easy. A couple of years ago I looked into connectors for MMC (the predecessor to SD memory cards). One supplier is Tyco. You would think that they pay license fees for every single one they produce (and they probably do) - however, if you want to buy these connectors, you have to supply them with information about the kind of device you want to use the connector for. Based on the group your device is in you pay a certain license fee for every device you build it can be higher for phones and less for some industrial appliance. No exhaustion of anything. You always pay. B2B is very different than B2C.
And in the end, lawyers win, consumers lose, innovation stagnates.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mkart4
And in the end, lawyers win, consumers lose, innovation stagnates.
Huh?
Stagnates for whom? Where?
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX
Your pronoun 'it' is clearly choosing who is at fault while his pronoun 'it' is talking about legal action. I know you know the difference.
Of course I do. I just didn't know he was joking, because there was no hint of a joke in his post. Now I see that he has clarified that it was a joke. Unfortunately I don't know the joke that he's referring back to from the summer... asking a lot if you assume posters on a message board will remember what one says months ago...
deleted
deleted
LOL, so Apple's Facebook page get's trolled by fandroids and that's some kind of proof that Apple is in trouble.
Originally Posted by InsideOut
LOL, so Apple's Facebook page get's trolled by fandroids and that's some kind of proof that Apple is in trouble.
Sociopath networking is now valid "news". It is wrong to question the "voice of the people".