6 ms·

Google joins Samsung in patent dispute with Apple

70 points by arpit 14y ago

X-Istence 14y ago
Isn't the whole point of FRAND licensing so that companies can't ask for exorbitant amount of fees in licensing for technologies that are required for standards defined by various standard bodies. This reminds me of the Apple v. Motorola lawsuit in which Motorola was attempting to charge more than FRAND for a patent that is related to UMTS networks and is part of the standard. That case got dismissed with prejudice (no re-filing). Samsung seems to be doing the same thing and I wonder if this judge will throw that part out.
- CountSessine 14y ago
  Actually, all of this talk of unscrupulous companies poisoning the standards-bodies wells reminds me of the Rambus case with JEDEC. Rambus applied for a bunch of DRAM patents and then simultaneously kept mum when asked by their JEDEC co-members for a list of relevant patents (which they were required to provide as JEDEC members). JEDEC finalized their standard, everyone started making and selling products, and then Rambus' submarine patents surfaced and everyone was stuck having to pay Rambus license fees. Rambus betrayed JEDEC, their JEDEC co-members, and everyone involved in DRAM standardization and cleverly steered them all right into an iceberg. Somehow what Motorola and Samsung are doing here is morally above this. I guess it's because they're working with Google.
  - taligent 14y ago
    And we all know what happened with Rambus. They've spent the last decade in litigation with the FTC/EU. I hope history repeats itself with the Android OEMs and a hard lesson gets sent to everyone that the standards process is sacrosanct.
kenjackson 14y ago
This is the second time Google has supported a partner who is asking absurd percentages on FRAND patents. Of all the IP litigation that is happening, why is Google seemingly supporting the least defensible and moral claims? Maybe Google feels that the world is indifferent about their behavior here, but outside of strong supporters of open source code I feel like Google is losing the PR war about their integrity.
- ajross 14y ago
  High fees are the "least" defensible? Apple just asked for and got a full-on import ban on the Galaxy Nexus... None of this serves to justify the nonsense out there. But if you're willing to look the other way when one side plays hardball, don't be shocked when their opponent hits back. Patents are a huge mess, but this is hardly a one-sided issue about "Google", and to try to make it so is plain disingenuous. (I suppose the counter argument is that Apple's patents were never termed FRAND, so that makes a technical difference. Might be so. But that's certainly not a "moral" difference, which seems to be the terrain you're standing on in your argument. Edit: and multiple folks posted just that. Let's just say I find that argument nonsense, "FRAND" is a technical distinction, not a moral one; try explaining it to your non-industry friends for an existence proof of that.)
  - kenjackson 14y ago
    The moral difference is FRAND. If these weren't I'd say that morally they could block shipment or ask such fees (there is another moral argument to be made against the patent system, but the one about FRAND is even more fundamental). Companies know that they may have to pay the piper on patents, but there's a belief that on FRAND patents they will be very reasonable rates. Google is basically saying that you can't trust us or our partners.
    - fpgeek 14y ago
      It seems to me that, at worst, Google is saying you can't trust us or our partners... if you sue us. That doesn't seem at all surprising or unexpected.
  - cooldeal 14y ago
    The moral difference is that they're not keeping their promise to the standard bodies which would've tried to work around the patents otherwise. Lets say a company abuses a FRAND patent related to Wifi or GPS (that it previously deemed FRAND due to which their technology was included) and demands 20% of the price, that is much worse than Slide2Unlock, since Slide2Unlock can be worked around much easier than making a new Wifi or GPS standard and shipping hundreds of millions of devices, routers, GPS chips and launching satellites again. Don't get me wrong, I hate the stupid Slide to Unlock patent as much as you, but there is certainly a moral difference between abusing a regular patent and a FRAND patent. With Nokia getting into losses, this is a worrying trend since they own so many FRAND patents. If all these cases set a bad precedent on FRAND patents, we'll be doubly screwed.
sjwright 14y ago
A patent owner can accept FRAND conditions and the patent becomes part of the standard. They then earn a steady stream of licensing money off the ensuing trillion dollar industry. A patent owner can reject FRAND and their technology does not get included in the standard. There is no third option. You can't decide after the trillion dollar industry establishes, to renege on FRAND, because your patent was only made part of the standard -- and therefore only has value -- because of that commitment to FRAND.
- smeg 14y ago
  If it were simple why aren't these lawsuits being thrown out the front door? Why isn't FRAND turning out to be the watertight defence it ought to be? (serious question I would love to know the answer to, as these FRAND related lawsuits seem to keep coming up over and over again).
  - ktizo 14y ago
    FRAND has no precise legal definition and has not had any reasonable test in court that would establish precedent, as far as I am aware.
- thechut 14y ago
  Not all of the patents are FRAND licensing related! See my answer in the other comment
  - deleted 14y ago
    [deleted]
  - deleted 14y ago
    [deleted]
- josteink 14y ago
  There is no third option. You can't decide after the trillion dollar industry establishes, to renege on FRAND To play devils advocate though: What you consider "fair" licensing terms might change. Maybe Samsung finds it absolutely fair that their patents should be valued higher, when Apple has 60% profit margins selling essentially the same product they do, made by parts they make, yet they only have 20% margins themselves. That hardly seems fair, does it? And if you disagree about that, how would you argue that it is technically unfair? There is no doubt about Apple making a shitload right now. "Fair" is really a pretty shitty legal term, open for lots of wish-washy interpretation, instead of some simple black and white.
wissler 14y ago
I suppose it's too much to hope that this patent war keeps on escalating until the destructiveness of patents is evident to everyone, for at some point these big companies will declare a truce and turn their attention to smaller victims, at which point the patent war won't garner as much attention and it'll be back to business as usual: keeping the smaller companies from challenging the bigger ones.
eitland 14y ago
Direct link to full article: http://www.koreatimes.co.kr/www/news/tech/2012/07/133_114203.html http://www.koreatimes.co.kr/www/news/tech/2012/07/133_114203...
andybak 14y ago
Isn't a FRAND agreement legally binding? Surely it's more than just a "gentleman's agreement"?
jkn 14y ago
I've seen some hyperbolic statements on Google/Motorola/Samsung vs. Apple FRAND patent litigation recently, as if such tactics were unprecedented, and the amounts asked scandalous. I would suggest every person who is getting emotional in the Apple-Android dispute to have a look at this document on 4G FRAND patents: http://www.investorvillage.com/uploads/82827/files/LESI-Royalty-Rates.pdf http://www.investorvillage.com/uploads/82827/files/LESI-Roya... It gives some context: Audiences can expect to see the same licensing challenges that first appeared in GSM (2G) and which re-appeared in UMTS (3G) starring again in LTE (4G). The plot is essentially the same: lots of essential patents and many different patent holders. And an interesting quote from Motorola (undated, accessed in 2009): Motorola expects that its essential patent royalty rate for LTE systems and equipment will be approximately 2.25 percent. I'll leave to the courts to decide if this is an appopriate royalty rate for an iPhone. Note that there is a trend of declining rates: Qualcomm used to collect between 4% and 5% of the sales price for FRAND patent royalties[1]. This has since declined to about 3% [2]. As for court actions, Nokia settled with Apple in 2011[3] over FRAND patents[4] for €800m. Apple would also pay Nokia €8 per device, equivalent to 1.75% of the sales price. That being said, I agree that injunctions should not be granted on FRAND patents. I can't imagine a case where it makes sense. [1] http://www.sramanamitra.com/2007/05/22/iphone-and-the-future-of-qualcomm-addendum/ http://www.sramanamitra.com/2007/05/22/iphone-and-the-future... [2] http://www.forbes.com/sites/greatspeculations/2011/01/21/qualcomm-faces-falling-cdma-royalty-rates/ http://www.forbes.com/sites/greatspeculations/2011/01/21/qua... [3] http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2011/jun/14/apple-nokia-patent-case http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2011/jun/14/apple-nokia... [4] http://www.scribd.com/doc/28285432/Nokia-s-Motion-to-Dismiss-Apple-s-Implausible-Claims http://www.scribd.com/doc/28285432/Nokia-s-Motion-to-Dismiss...
clamps123 14y ago
Time to boycott Google? /sarcasm
etherael 14y ago
Software patents are intrinsically a mutually assured destruction scenario. The button has been pushed, it's too late to complain about the unfairness of overly brutal retaliation. This farce should never have been started, now that it has, the entire racket needs to be ended, the ball is in the court of the legal system. I'm not holding my breath on the expectation that they'll fix everything anytime soon, so now the market suffers. There's plenty of blame to hand out, but as in all mutually assured destruction scenarios the lion's share has to go to the guy that pushed the big red button.

70 points by arpit 14y ago

Isn't the whole point of FRAND licensing so that companies can't ask for exorbitant amount of fees in licensing for technologies that are required for standards defined by various standard bodies. This reminds me of the Apple v. Motorola lawsuit in which Motorola was attempting to charge more than FRAND for a patent that is related to UMTS networks and is part of the standard. That case got dismissed with prejudice (no re-filing). Samsung seems to be doing the same thing and I wonder if this judge will throw that part out.

CountSessine 14y ago
Actually, all of this talk of unscrupulous companies poisoning the standards-bodies wells reminds me of the Rambus case with JEDEC. Rambus applied for a bunch of DRAM patents and then simultaneously kept mum when asked by their JEDEC co-members for a list of relevant patents (which they were required to provide as JEDEC members). JEDEC finalized their standard, everyone started making and selling products, and then Rambus' submarine patents surfaced and everyone was stuck having to pay Rambus license fees. Rambus betrayed JEDEC, their JEDEC co-members, and everyone involved in DRAM standardization and cleverly steered them all right into an iceberg. Somehow what Motorola and Samsung are doing here is morally above this. I guess it's because they're working with Google.
- taligent 14y ago
  And we all know what happened with Rambus. They've spent the last decade in litigation with the FTC/EU. I hope history repeats itself with the Android OEMs and a hard lesson gets sent to everyone that the standards process is sacrosanct.

kenjackson 14y ago

This is the second time Google has supported a partner who is asking absurd percentages on FRAND patents. Of all the IP litigation that is happening, why is Google seemingly supporting the least defensible and moral claims? Maybe Google feels that the world is indifferent about their behavior here, but outside of strong supporters of open source code I feel like Google is losing the PR war about their integrity.

ajross 14y ago
High fees are the "least" defensible? Apple just asked for and got a full-on import ban on the Galaxy Nexus... None of this serves to justify the nonsense out there. But if you're willing to look the other way when one side plays hardball, don't be shocked when their opponent hits back. Patents are a huge mess, but this is hardly a one-sided issue about "Google", and to try to make it so is plain disingenuous. (I suppose the counter argument is that Apple's patents were never termed FRAND, so that makes a technical difference. Might be so. But that's certainly not a "moral" difference, which seems to be the terrain you're standing on in your argument. Edit: and multiple folks posted just that. Let's just say I find that argument nonsense, "FRAND" is a technical distinction, not a moral one; try explaining it to your non-industry friends for an existence proof of that.)
- kenjackson 14y ago
  The moral difference is FRAND. If these weren't I'd say that morally they could block shipment or ask such fees (there is another moral argument to be made against the patent system, but the one about FRAND is even more fundamental). Companies know that they may have to pay the piper on patents, but there's a belief that on FRAND patents they will be very reasonable rates. Google is basically saying that you can't trust us or our partners.
  - fpgeek 14y ago
    It seems to me that, at worst, Google is saying you can't trust us or our partners... if you sue us. That doesn't seem at all surprising or unexpected.
- cooldeal 14y ago
  The moral difference is that they're not keeping their promise to the standard bodies which would've tried to work around the patents otherwise. Lets say a company abuses a FRAND patent related to Wifi or GPS (that it previously deemed FRAND due to which their technology was included) and demands 20% of the price, that is much worse than Slide2Unlock, since Slide2Unlock can be worked around much easier than making a new Wifi or GPS standard and shipping hundreds of millions of devices, routers, GPS chips and launching satellites again. Don't get me wrong, I hate the stupid Slide to Unlock patent as much as you, but there is certainly a moral difference between abusing a regular patent and a FRAND patent. With Nokia getting into losses, this is a worrying trend since they own so many FRAND patents. If all these cases set a bad precedent on FRAND patents, we'll be doubly screwed.

sjwright 14y ago

A patent owner can accept FRAND conditions and the patent becomes part of the standard. They then earn a steady stream of licensing money off the ensuing trillion dollar industry. A patent owner can reject FRAND and their technology does not get included in the standard. There is no third option. You can't decide after the trillion dollar industry establishes, to renege on FRAND, because your patent was only made part of the standard -- and therefore only has value -- because of that commitment to FRAND.

smeg 14y ago
If it were simple why aren't these lawsuits being thrown out the front door? Why isn't FRAND turning out to be the watertight defence it ought to be? (serious question I would love to know the answer to, as these FRAND related lawsuits seem to keep coming up over and over again).
- ktizo 14y ago
  FRAND has no precise legal definition and has not had any reasonable test in court that would establish precedent, as far as I am aware.
thechut 14y ago
Not all of the patents are FRAND licensing related! See my answer in the other comment
- deleted 14y ago
  [deleted]
- deleted 14y ago
  [deleted]
josteink 14y ago
There is no third option. You can't decide after the trillion dollar industry establishes, to renege on FRAND To play devils advocate though: What you consider "fair" licensing terms might change. Maybe Samsung finds it absolutely fair that their patents should be valued higher, when Apple has 60% profit margins selling essentially the same product they do, made by parts they make, yet they only have 20% margins themselves. That hardly seems fair, does it? And if you disagree about that, how would you argue that it is technically unfair? There is no doubt about Apple making a shitload right now. "Fair" is really a pretty shitty legal term, open for lots of wish-washy interpretation, instead of some simple black and white.

wissler 14y ago

I suppose it's too much to hope that this patent war keeps on escalating until the destructiveness of patents is evident to everyone, for at some point these big companies will declare a truce and turn their attention to smaller victims, at which point the patent war won't garner as much attention and it'll be back to business as usual: keeping the smaller companies from challenging the bigger ones.

eitland 14y ago

Direct link to full article: http://www.koreatimes.co.kr/www/news/tech/2012/07/133_114203.html http://www.koreatimes.co.kr/www/news/tech/2012/07/133_114203...

andybak 14y ago

Isn't a FRAND agreement legally binding? Surely it's more than just a "gentleman's agreement"?

jkn 14y ago

I've seen some hyperbolic statements on Google/Motorola/Samsung vs. Apple FRAND patent litigation recently, as if such tactics were unprecedented, and the amounts asked scandalous. I would suggest every person who is getting emotional in the Apple-Android dispute to have a look at this document on 4G FRAND patents: http://www.investorvillage.com/uploads/82827/files/LESI-Royalty-Rates.pdf http://www.investorvillage.com/uploads/82827/files/LESI-Roya... It gives some context: Audiences can expect to see the same licensing challenges that first appeared in GSM (2G) and which re-appeared in UMTS (3G) starring again in LTE (4G). The plot is essentially the same: lots of essential patents and many different patent holders. And an interesting quote from Motorola (undated, accessed in 2009): Motorola expects that its essential patent royalty rate for LTE systems and equipment will be approximately 2.25 percent. I'll leave to the courts to decide if this is an appopriate royalty rate for an iPhone. Note that there is a trend of declining rates: Qualcomm used to collect between 4% and 5% of the sales price for FRAND patent royalties[1]. This has since declined to about 3% [2]. As for court actions, Nokia settled with Apple in 2011[3] over FRAND patents[4] for €800m. Apple would also pay Nokia €8 per device, equivalent to 1.75% of the sales price. That being said, I agree that injunctions should not be granted on FRAND patents. I can't imagine a case where it makes sense. [1] http://www.sramanamitra.com/2007/05/22/iphone-and-the-future-of-qualcomm-addendum/ http://www.sramanamitra.com/2007/05/22/iphone-and-the-future... [2] http://www.forbes.com/sites/greatspeculations/2011/01/21/qualcomm-faces-falling-cdma-royalty-rates/ http://www.forbes.com/sites/greatspeculations/2011/01/21/qua... [3] http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2011/jun/14/apple-nokia-patent-case http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2011/jun/14/apple-nokia... [4] http://www.scribd.com/doc/28285432/Nokia-s-Motion-to-Dismiss-Apple-s-Implausible-Claims http://www.scribd.com/doc/28285432/Nokia-s-Motion-to-Dismiss...

clamps123 14y ago

Time to boycott Google? /sarcasm

etherael 14y ago

Software patents are intrinsically a mutually assured destruction scenario. The button has been pushed, it's too late to complain about the unfairness of overly brutal retaliation. This farce should never have been started, now that it has, the entire racket needs to be ended, the ball is in the court of the legal system. I'm not holding my breath on the expectation that they'll fix everything anytime soon, so now the market suffers. There's plenty of blame to hand out, but as in all mutually assured destruction scenarios the lion's share has to go to the guy that pushed the big red button.