3 ms·

The issue here is that Samsung's patents are deemed essential to cell phone networking standards, so the law mandates that they be licensed under standard terms

by codex 14y ago

The issue here is that Samsung's patents are deemed essential to cell phone networking standards, so the law mandates that they be licensed under standard terms to prevent extortion (FRAND). However, slide-to-unlock and design language aren't interop. standards nor essential features of a phone (or, at least, they have not been declared to be, though I suspect they don't meet the bar) so the patent holders are free to set licensing fees as they wish. I suspect that Samsung would not hesitate to raise their licensing fees if the law allowed them to. More biased propaganda from Groklaw. Hello, Slashdotters--welcome to HN!

cageface 14y ago
It does seem kind of perverse that the essential, fundamental technologies on which the entire industry depends have to be licensed to all comers at bargain basement rates while at the same time latecomers can use fairly trivial UI and design patents to drive competitors' products out of the market. Maybe this is the letter of the law but the reason so many of us are disappointed in Apple is that they're exploiting a broken system using tactics that for a long time have been precluded by gentlemen's agreement and common sense.
- Rhymenocerus 14y ago
  What infuriates me is the lack of outrage by all the hipsters who hold everyone else to such a high standard. The same people who are still trying to drag Bill Gates through the mud for his business tactics in the 90's are dead silent about their favorite company employing methods that are at least as outrageous. Whether you're an Apple guru or not, everyone loses when there's no competition in the market. It seems like the ultimate irony for the "Think Different" company to be acting like this. Still, I am Jack's complete lack of surprise.
  - gnaffle 14y ago
    It could be argued that Apple is acting within the legal system, whereas Bill Gates and Microsoft were convicted and settled numerous lawsuits. And while I disagree with the patent suits, I'd have preferred that the competition found ways to make smartphones that _didn't_ infringe of any of those patents, and made an even better product because of it. (For instance, a phone with facial recognition doesn't need slide to unlock).
- codex 14y ago
  I think Apple's perspective is that they view these innovations as central to their success. If these innovations are truly trivial, perhaps Samsung would not have copied them nor be so intransigent about removing them from their products. One could argue that Samsung is not ripping off Apple because Apple simply "got there first.". The problem is you can make that argument about any innovation, but all discoveries are obvious in hindsight, even though, in actuality, these patents were the fruits of a fantastically expensive innovation investment by Apple.
  - cageface 14y ago
    The thing that bugs me about Apple's recent lawsuits is that they seem more like cynical, tactical moves and not some kind of honest stance on principle. I think they're deathly afraid of losing their majority in the tablet market and want to try to keep competing devices off shelves long enough to cement their ecosystem in place all the while standing behind the flag of "innovation". I think these kinds of tactics could backfire on them in the long run though because they're burning up a ton of good will with people like me that love their products and code for their platforms but don't enjoy seeing them beat up a legitimate competitor with things like "slide to unlock" patents.
    - gnaffle 14y ago
      Agreed, and I think it shows a disrespect for history since Apple would not have been able to thrive if Xerox, IBM, Microsoft and others had taken out patents and enforced them back in the 80s.
- gnaffle 14y ago
  While I don't agree with software patents and don't like Apple pursuing companies because of them, nobody is forcing other cell phone companies to violate those patents. It's not like Apple has patented the only way to make a smartphone. On the other hand, if companies could refuse to license or could name any price for a patent they've gotten into a standard, that would make it impossible for newcomers like Apple to enter the cellphone market.
felipeko 14y ago
Are you sure there's any FRAND law? I was under the impression that was just an agreement by the company to a standard body.
- gnaffle 14y ago
  Yes, it's a legal agreement. Since a company can be sued for not following agreements that they've signed, they're bound by law to the FRAND agreements.
clhodapp 14y ago
So while Samsung must license patents for difficult-to-design wireless hardware at extremely low prices to prevent extortion, Apple is free to extort from Samsung, with design language patents, all of their profits, all while taking advantage of the extremely-low FRAND terms? And this should be acceptable why? I agree that Samsung would probably do the same thing if the law let them, which is why the law needs to not let them.
- codex 14y ago
  On the other hand, Samsung willingly contributed patented technologies to various standard setting organizations, encouraged their use in a host of consumer electronics, and years later now charges the very producers they encouraged to use these standards with patent infringement. That doesn't sound acceptable either.
  - cageface 14y ago
    This is exactly why I'd like to see all these suits thrown out so that people can get back to making better products. It creates the wrong incentives for either side to win this way.
  - clhodapp 14y ago
    I forgot about this before, but it's also true that Samsung claims that Apple /didn't/ license Samsung's 3g patents at all, even under FRAND terms. That would be fair grounds to sue, though the rate they are demanding may be unreasonable. Source 1: http://venturebeat.com/2012/07/23/samsung-apple-prefers-lawsuits-to-licensing-3g-patents/ http://venturebeat.com/2012/07/23/samsung-apple-prefers-laws... Source 2: http://www.phonearena.com/news/Samsung-says-Apple-stole-some-of-its-technology-for-the-Apple-iPhone_id32647 http://www.phonearena.com/news/Samsung-says-Apple-stole-some... Source 3: http://www.pcworld.com/article/259650/samsung_apple_refused_to_negotiate_to_license_3g_patents.html http://www.pcworld.com/article/259650/samsung_apple_refused_...
    - gnaffle 14y ago
      Apple didn't license the patents directly from Samsung, but they did through Qualcomm. Apple claims that Samsung has exhausted their patent claims since they've already gotten paid by Qualcomm for those patents.

by codex 14y ago

cageface 14y ago

It does seem kind of perverse that the essential, fundamental technologies on which the entire industry depends have to be licensed to all comers at bargain basement rates while at the same time latecomers can use fairly trivial UI and design patents to drive competitors' products out of the market. Maybe this is the letter of the law but the reason so many of us are disappointed in Apple is that they're exploiting a broken system using tactics that for a long time have been precluded by gentlemen's agreement and common sense.

Rhymenocerus 14y ago
What infuriates me is the lack of outrage by all the hipsters who hold everyone else to such a high standard. The same people who are still trying to drag Bill Gates through the mud for his business tactics in the 90's are dead silent about their favorite company employing methods that are at least as outrageous. Whether you're an Apple guru or not, everyone loses when there's no competition in the market. It seems like the ultimate irony for the "Think Different" company to be acting like this. Still, I am Jack's complete lack of surprise.
- gnaffle 14y ago
  It could be argued that Apple is acting within the legal system, whereas Bill Gates and Microsoft were convicted and settled numerous lawsuits. And while I disagree with the patent suits, I'd have preferred that the competition found ways to make smartphones that _didn't_ infringe of any of those patents, and made an even better product because of it. (For instance, a phone with facial recognition doesn't need slide to unlock).
codex 14y ago
I think Apple's perspective is that they view these innovations as central to their success. If these innovations are truly trivial, perhaps Samsung would not have copied them nor be so intransigent about removing them from their products. One could argue that Samsung is not ripping off Apple because Apple simply "got there first.". The problem is you can make that argument about any innovation, but all discoveries are obvious in hindsight, even though, in actuality, these patents were the fruits of a fantastically expensive innovation investment by Apple.
- cageface 14y ago
  The thing that bugs me about Apple's recent lawsuits is that they seem more like cynical, tactical moves and not some kind of honest stance on principle. I think they're deathly afraid of losing their majority in the tablet market and want to try to keep competing devices off shelves long enough to cement their ecosystem in place all the while standing behind the flag of "innovation". I think these kinds of tactics could backfire on them in the long run though because they're burning up a ton of good will with people like me that love their products and code for their platforms but don't enjoy seeing them beat up a legitimate competitor with things like "slide to unlock" patents.
  - gnaffle 14y ago
    Agreed, and I think it shows a disrespect for history since Apple would not have been able to thrive if Xerox, IBM, Microsoft and others had taken out patents and enforced them back in the 80s.
gnaffle 14y ago
While I don't agree with software patents and don't like Apple pursuing companies because of them, nobody is forcing other cell phone companies to violate those patents. It's not like Apple has patented the only way to make a smartphone. On the other hand, if companies could refuse to license or could name any price for a patent they've gotten into a standard, that would make it impossible for newcomers like Apple to enter the cellphone market.

felipeko 14y ago

Are you sure there's any FRAND law? I was under the impression that was just an agreement by the company to a standard body.

gnaffle 14y ago
Yes, it's a legal agreement. Since a company can be sued for not following agreements that they've signed, they're bound by law to the FRAND agreements.

clhodapp 14y ago

So while Samsung must license patents for difficult-to-design wireless hardware at extremely low prices to prevent extortion, Apple is free to extort from Samsung, with design language patents, all of their profits, all while taking advantage of the extremely-low FRAND terms? And this should be acceptable why? I agree that Samsung would probably do the same thing if the law let them, which is why the law needs to not let them.

codex 14y ago
On the other hand, Samsung willingly contributed patented technologies to various standard setting organizations, encouraged their use in a host of consumer electronics, and years later now charges the very producers they encouraged to use these standards with patent infringement. That doesn't sound acceptable either.
- cageface 14y ago
  This is exactly why I'd like to see all these suits thrown out so that people can get back to making better products. It creates the wrong incentives for either side to win this way.
- clhodapp 14y ago
  I forgot about this before, but it's also true that Samsung claims that Apple /didn't/ license Samsung's 3g patents at all, even under FRAND terms. That would be fair grounds to sue, though the rate they are demanding may be unreasonable. Source 1: http://venturebeat.com/2012/07/23/samsung-apple-prefers-lawsuits-to-licensing-3g-patents/ http://venturebeat.com/2012/07/23/samsung-apple-prefers-laws... Source 2: http://www.phonearena.com/news/Samsung-says-Apple-stole-some-of-its-technology-for-the-Apple-iPhone_id32647 http://www.phonearena.com/news/Samsung-says-Apple-stole-some... Source 3: http://www.pcworld.com/article/259650/samsung_apple_refused_to_negotiate_to_license_3g_patents.html http://www.pcworld.com/article/259650/samsung_apple_refused_...
  - gnaffle 14y ago
    Apple didn't license the patents directly from Samsung, but they did through Qualcomm. Apple claims that Samsung has exhausted their patent claims since they've already gotten paid by Qualcomm for those patents.