4 ms·

If Samsung's IP was really that strong - if they really have patents "essential" to wireless communications - then my first question is why they allow any compe

If Samsung's IP was really that strong - if they really have patents "essential" to wireless communications - then my first question is why they allow any competitors. Florian Mueller makes a reasonable case that Samsung is trying to assert a very different kind of patent in a highly unusual way - http://fosspatents.blogspot.com/2011/10/samsungs-attempt-to-ban-iphone-4s-over.html http://fosspatents.blogspot.com/2011/10/samsungs-attempt-to-.... TLDR: these kind of patents fall under the FRAND (fair reasonable non-discriminatory framework) and Samsung is obligated to grant them to anyone ("non-discriminatory") that wants them for a "reasonable" fee. To press an injunction without any arbitration violates the basic spirit of FRAND. Agree with their case or not, Apple's patents in question do not have these restrictions.

ZeroGravitas 15y ago
This is just another example of Apple suffering from its own actions. It was all excited about how H.264 was a FRAND standard, ignoring it's own previous statements about how such standards could lead to dominant players abusing other parties. But it had a market lead and a business model that fitted with the status quo so it was full speed ahead. And now the shoe is on the other foot. From Apple's previous statement on this matter: "While the current draft patent policy does state a “preference” for royalty-free standards, the ready availability of a RAND option presents too easy an alternative for owners of intellectual property who may seek to use the standardization process to control access to fundamental Web standards. A mandatory royalty-free requirement for all adopted standards will avoid this result."
- cube13 15y ago
  >This is just another example of Apple suffering from it's own actions. It was all excited about how H.264 was a FRAND standard, ignoring it's own previous statements about how such standards could lead to dominant players abusing other parties. If Samsung has granted a license(either with royalties or royalty-free) to everyone else besides Apple, they aren't following the FRAND standard. If they have, and this is a result of negotiations falling apart(which is highly unlikely, considering that these are "essential to the reliable functioning of telecom networks and devices", and the iPhone 1 presumably infringes on these), then Samsung has a case. Otherwise, Samsung may be violating agreements that they have with the standards agencies. This will be pretty interesting how it plays out.
  - mattmanser 15y ago
    The iPhone 1 won't, it's to do with CDMA which is only the iPhone 4 had as I understand it. The iPhone 4 with CDMA was also only available in the US though and that area is already under litigation. See http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2011/oct/05/samsung-apple-iphone-4s-ban http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2011/oct/05/samsung-app... for more info.
    - cube13 15y ago
      The article states that the patents cover WCDMA, which is apparently one of the standards used by GSM, and the standard that Apple used with the 3GS(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_Mobile_Telecommunications_System#W-CDMA_.28UTRA-FDD.29 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_Mobile_Telecommunicat...). CDMA is a superset of that, apparently, and can also apply with certain GSM providers.
      - vetinari 15y ago
        WCDMA is basis for UMTS, which is also called 3G. Plain-old GSM (2G and EDGE) is TDMA-based.
ajross 15y ago
Because basically everyone has patents "essential" to something their competitors do. So there's been a broad detente in the industry, where no one sues indiscriminately on patents as a way to block their competitors. Except that Apple broke the truce, so now out come the guns. Yawn. I find it hard to believe that either side is really going to impede the other's sales much; this is a play for better negotiating position by Samsung. And yes, Apple was wrong to have shot first.
- onemoreact 15y ago
  The parents post was specifically pointing out that Samsung's patents don't enable them to block their competitors period end of story. It comes down to Samsung saying it's reasonable for us to get the right to use your patents as compensation for using ours. And Apple saying, as long as we are willing to pay you money we get to use your patents and you don't have the option do say no as long as the amount of money is reasonable.
- Steko 15y ago
  "So there's been a broad detente in the industry... Except that Apple broke the truce... Apple was wrong to have shot first" Apple shot first in the mobile industry the same way Greedo did. http://news.cnet.com/8301-27076_3-20073471-248/a-brief-history-of-apples-mobile-tech-patent-battles/ http://news.cnet.com/8301-27076_3-20073471-248/a-brief-histo...
  - ajross 15y ago
    Way, way out of scope. I was talking specifically about Apple and Samsung. That they got sued earlier by Nokia doesn't make it OK to go after other vendors, sorry. And yes, Nokia was wrong too.
    - Steko 15y ago
      "I was talking specifically about Apple and Samsung." previously on HN: "broad detente in the industry" I call shenanigans.

ZeroGravitas 15y ago

This is just another example of Apple suffering from its own actions. It was all excited about how H.264 was a FRAND standard, ignoring it's own previous statements about how such standards could lead to dominant players abusing other parties. But it had a market lead and a business model that fitted with the status quo so it was full speed ahead. And now the shoe is on the other foot. From Apple's previous statement on this matter: "While the current draft patent policy does state a “preference” for royalty-free standards, the ready availability of a RAND option presents too easy an alternative for owners of intellectual property who may seek to use the standardization process to control access to fundamental Web standards. A mandatory royalty-free requirement for all adopted standards will avoid this result."

cube13 15y ago
>This is just another example of Apple suffering from it's own actions. It was all excited about how H.264 was a FRAND standard, ignoring it's own previous statements about how such standards could lead to dominant players abusing other parties. If Samsung has granted a license(either with royalties or royalty-free) to everyone else besides Apple, they aren't following the FRAND standard. If they have, and this is a result of negotiations falling apart(which is highly unlikely, considering that these are "essential to the reliable functioning of telecom networks and devices", and the iPhone 1 presumably infringes on these), then Samsung has a case. Otherwise, Samsung may be violating agreements that they have with the standards agencies. This will be pretty interesting how it plays out.
- mattmanser 15y ago
  The iPhone 1 won't, it's to do with CDMA which is only the iPhone 4 had as I understand it. The iPhone 4 with CDMA was also only available in the US though and that area is already under litigation. See http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2011/oct/05/samsung-apple-iphone-4s-ban http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2011/oct/05/samsung-app... for more info.
  - cube13 15y ago
    The article states that the patents cover WCDMA, which is apparently one of the standards used by GSM, and the standard that Apple used with the 3GS(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_Mobile_Telecommunications_System#W-CDMA_.28UTRA-FDD.29 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_Mobile_Telecommunicat...). CDMA is a superset of that, apparently, and can also apply with certain GSM providers.
    - vetinari 15y ago
      WCDMA is basis for UMTS, which is also called 3G. Plain-old GSM (2G and EDGE) is TDMA-based.

ajross 15y ago

Because basically everyone has patents "essential" to something their competitors do. So there's been a broad detente in the industry, where no one sues indiscriminately on patents as a way to block their competitors. Except that Apple broke the truce, so now out come the guns. Yawn. I find it hard to believe that either side is really going to impede the other's sales much; this is a play for better negotiating position by Samsung. And yes, Apple was wrong to have shot first.

onemoreact 15y ago
The parents post was specifically pointing out that Samsung's patents don't enable them to block their competitors period end of story. It comes down to Samsung saying it's reasonable for us to get the right to use your patents as compensation for using ours. And Apple saying, as long as we are willing to pay you money we get to use your patents and you don't have the option do say no as long as the amount of money is reasonable.
Steko 15y ago
"So there's been a broad detente in the industry... Except that Apple broke the truce... Apple was wrong to have shot first" Apple shot first in the mobile industry the same way Greedo did. http://news.cnet.com/8301-27076_3-20073471-248/a-brief-history-of-apples-mobile-tech-patent-battles/ http://news.cnet.com/8301-27076_3-20073471-248/a-brief-histo...
- ajross 15y ago
  Way, way out of scope. I was talking specifically about Apple and Samsung. That they got sued earlier by Nokia doesn't make it OK to go after other vendors, sorry. And yes, Nokia was wrong too.
  - Steko 15y ago
    "I was talking specifically about Apple and Samsung." previously on HN: "broad detente in the industry" I call shenanigans.