3 ms·

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 Samsu

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.
    - clhodapp 14y ago
      Interesting. I guess this is what is referenced here: http://www.zdnet.com/samsung-sacrificed-qualcomm-truce-for-apple-war-7000001348/ http://www.zdnet.com/samsung-sacrificed-qualcomm-truce-for-a... According to the article it was not a license agreement, but rather a contract not to sue. Apparently, Samsung claims that the agreement was terminated when Apple sued them, but I would not be surprised if we see Qualcomm doing something to make clear to Samsung that it does not appreciate this move.
      - gnaffle 14y ago
        OK, that puts it in a different perspective - the question at hand now is whether those patents are covered by the ETSI FRAND agreements, and if those agreements are relevant in Australia.
gnaffle 14y ago
Yes. Because, if they had not agreed to the FRAND terms, they wouldn't have been able to get their technology into the standards at all. Getting your patented technology into a widely adopted standard has huge benefits since you're forcing people that want to use the standard to license the patents, and the FRAND requirement is there to ensure a level playing field. Nobody is forcing any cell phone vendor to violate Apples patents, and Apple has made no attempts to get their patented technology into a standard body.

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.
  - clhodapp 14y ago
    Interesting. I guess this is what is referenced here: http://www.zdnet.com/samsung-sacrificed-qualcomm-truce-for-apple-war-7000001348/ http://www.zdnet.com/samsung-sacrificed-qualcomm-truce-for-a... According to the article it was not a license agreement, but rather a contract not to sue. Apparently, Samsung claims that the agreement was terminated when Apple sued them, but I would not be surprised if we see Qualcomm doing something to make clear to Samsung that it does not appreciate this move.
    - gnaffle 14y ago
      OK, that puts it in a different perspective - the question at hand now is whether those patents are covered by the ETSI FRAND agreements, and if those agreements are relevant in Australia.

gnaffle 14y ago

Yes. Because, if they had not agreed to the FRAND terms, they wouldn't have been able to get their technology into the standards at all. Getting your patented technology into a widely adopted standard has huge benefits since you're forcing people that want to use the standard to license the patents, and the FRAND requirement is there to ensure a level playing field. Nobody is forcing any cell phone vendor to violate Apples patents, and Apple has made no attempts to get their patented technology into a standard body.