4 ms·

>"Frankly, the most astounding part of this decision was that Samsung's standard-essential patents were not considered infringed." Apple submitted evidence (re

by sbuk 14y ago

>"Frankly, the most astounding part of this decision was that Samsung's standard-essential patents were not considered infringed." Apple submitted evidence (receipts) proving that they had purchased the chip from Intel, who had in turn already licensed the patents from Samsung[1]. A business cannot demand payment for a patent license twice. They also cannot dictate who the patent encumbered products may be sold to. This is not a matter of opinion, it is a matter of simple fact. If Samsung do file a JNVO, then it will be thrown out with prejudice for that reason. [1]Known as patent exhaustion - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exhaustion_doctrine http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exhaustion_doctrine

mbreese 14y ago
I thought it was Qualcomm that supplied the offending chips. Anyway, it's not a straight Apple win on the standards-essential patents. The jury didn't find that Apple violated the patents, but they did, at least, uphold the patents. The jury just determined that the patents were exhausted, so Apple couldn't have infringed. This should give Motorola (Google) pause in their lawsuits too, since they had asserted standards-essentials patents against Apple too. I'm not sure where they are with these cases though, it's getting too hard to follow.
- catch23 14y ago
  I think it's Intel, although Qualcomm chips are being used in their CDMA variants of the iPhone. Apple uses Infineon baseband chips, however the company (Infineon) was bought out by Intel, hence it is Intel who supplies the offending chips. Apple tried to pay Samsung for the license after Samsung revoked it (probably to get more money from Apple), but Samsung turned down the license fee claiming they wanted more. To me, this sounded like Samsung wanted Apple to violate some of their patents for some ammunition in the case. I don't think Apple willfully infringed anything here. They just bought chips from a manufacturer, assuming that they can use the chips they paid for in their products. It seems crazy someone could sell you chips, and then sue you if you happen to use them in your products.
  - KirinDave 14y ago
    > I don't think Apple willfully infringed anything here. Apple knew this was coming. See the stuff in the case about the Sherman act. They're "willfully infringing" to the extent that they are "refusing to end negotiations and pay the fee Samsung claims they own." Samsung seems to have brought this in to show what the dispute was really all about. And that show with the Intel receipts didn't address the entire problem from my reading.
    - cube13 14y ago
      >Samsung seems to have brought this in to show what the dispute was really all about. And that show with the Intel receipts didn't address the entire problem from my reading. That has never made sense to me, though. Unless Samsung could prove that Apple was actually assisting in designing the silicon of the chips(in which case, patent exhaustion would not apply), they were suing the wrong people. The infringement would have been on Intel/Qualcomm/whoever is supplying the chips.
VanL 14y ago
There are appealable issues relative to exhaustion. If I were Samsung, I would file on both issues (infringement and exhaustion) to preserve for appeal.
- sbuk 14y ago
  I'd be careful if I were Samsung. Their motives over the FRAND patents are extremely questionable and they are already being investigated for antitrust over the abuse of these patents. The fact they revoked patents clearly in a bid to extort monies, either through relicensing or litigation, is an antitrust violation. Again, these are the facts as they stand.
its_so_on 14y ago
Very interesting, thank you. Could you talk about what the liability is if you buy from someone who is (unbeknownst to you) infringing, and what your responsibility is if the seller turned out not to have a license? What if the component you bought has already made it into your products?
- cube13 14y ago
  Unless you directly designed the chip, you shouldn't be liable at all. The liable one is the seller.
  - VanL 14y ago
    The rule is that you can be liable if you make, use, sell, or import the infringing device. In theory, end users are also liable. Individuals as end users usually are accused - no upside. Businesses as end users sometimes get sued.

by sbuk 14y ago

mbreese 14y ago

I thought it was Qualcomm that supplied the offending chips. Anyway, it's not a straight Apple win on the standards-essential patents. The jury didn't find that Apple violated the patents, but they did, at least, uphold the patents. The jury just determined that the patents were exhausted, so Apple couldn't have infringed. This should give Motorola (Google) pause in their lawsuits too, since they had asserted standards-essentials patents against Apple too. I'm not sure where they are with these cases though, it's getting too hard to follow.

catch23 14y ago
I think it's Intel, although Qualcomm chips are being used in their CDMA variants of the iPhone. Apple uses Infineon baseband chips, however the company (Infineon) was bought out by Intel, hence it is Intel who supplies the offending chips. Apple tried to pay Samsung for the license after Samsung revoked it (probably to get more money from Apple), but Samsung turned down the license fee claiming they wanted more. To me, this sounded like Samsung wanted Apple to violate some of their patents for some ammunition in the case. I don't think Apple willfully infringed anything here. They just bought chips from a manufacturer, assuming that they can use the chips they paid for in their products. It seems crazy someone could sell you chips, and then sue you if you happen to use them in your products.
- KirinDave 14y ago
  > I don't think Apple willfully infringed anything here. Apple knew this was coming. See the stuff in the case about the Sherman act. They're "willfully infringing" to the extent that they are "refusing to end negotiations and pay the fee Samsung claims they own." Samsung seems to have brought this in to show what the dispute was really all about. And that show with the Intel receipts didn't address the entire problem from my reading.
  - cube13 14y ago
    >Samsung seems to have brought this in to show what the dispute was really all about. And that show with the Intel receipts didn't address the entire problem from my reading. That has never made sense to me, though. Unless Samsung could prove that Apple was actually assisting in designing the silicon of the chips(in which case, patent exhaustion would not apply), they were suing the wrong people. The infringement would have been on Intel/Qualcomm/whoever is supplying the chips.

VanL 14y ago

There are appealable issues relative to exhaustion. If I were Samsung, I would file on both issues (infringement and exhaustion) to preserve for appeal.

sbuk 14y ago
I'd be careful if I were Samsung. Their motives over the FRAND patents are extremely questionable and they are already being investigated for antitrust over the abuse of these patents. The fact they revoked patents clearly in a bid to extort monies, either through relicensing or litigation, is an antitrust violation. Again, these are the facts as they stand.

its_so_on 14y ago

Very interesting, thank you. Could you talk about what the liability is if you buy from someone who is (unbeknownst to you) infringing, and what your responsibility is if the seller turned out not to have a license? What if the component you bought has already made it into your products?

cube13 14y ago
Unless you directly designed the chip, you shouldn't be liable at all. The liable one is the seller.
- VanL 14y ago
  The rule is that you can be liable if you make, use, sell, or import the infringing device. In theory, end users are also liable. Individuals as end users usually are accused - no upside. Businesses as end users sometimes get sued.