Feeds

back to article Samsung plots 3G iPhone, iPad bans in the Netherlands

Samsung is seeking a sales ban on all 3G iPhones and some iPads in the Netherlands as the South Korean giant's bitter war with Apple rumbles on. According to Dutch IT website Webwereld, Samsung will ask for a recall of all 3G iPhones and 3G iPads from Dutch retail stores, including large outlets such as Media Markt. It will also …

COMMENTS

This topic is closed for new posts.
Anonymous Coward

Payback

In the same coins... I hope.

Why dont Samsung just stop supplying Apple the screens and panels ?

Now that would be interesting, then.

6
3
Silver badge

They'd just lose the business

Apple source screens and panels from multiple suppliers; all that would happen would be that somebody else would step up production. So Apple would be barely affected and Samsung would lose a lot of money.

Conversely, Samsung obviously have a government-granted monopoly on anything they've patented, so — without having an opinion about the merits of the case otherwise — it makes sense to kick back there.

1
1

Most likely then cannot not, due to contract terms

but it would be great to force apple to keep on buying components they cannot use to make sellable products :)

3
1
Silver badge
Linux

and ...

How does that contribute to a fair, competitive market ?

0
0
Mushroom

Duke Nukem

Come Get Some

3
0

Injunctive relief and FRAND don't mix

It's really hard to see what Samsung is playing for here. Their chance of getting an injunction on FRAND patents is incredibly low - at least in major markets like the EU or US. Injunctions are given when cash cannot be adequate recompense - but if the patent holder is obligated to offer a license for cash cash is by definition adequate recompense.

3
1
Megaphone

Samsung wins only if these are "implementation patents" not part of FRAND pool

Standards covered by FRAND do not include the best or cheapest way to implement the standard - they just show what you need to do to be compliant. How you implement the standard may be subject to additional patents, not part of FRAND pool (additional patents not essential, just bloody useful to implement the standard cheaper, faster, or taking less battery power).

I guess until Samsung makes their case (or submits a list of patents they claim Apple is crossing) we do not know if they are part of FRAND pool or not.

1
1

Gee, I don't know; maybe pointing out to Apple that "ban your device" wars aren't so smart to start when your opponent has patents on stuff while you're just complaining that Samsung made a flat tablet with rounded corners and a screen on one side -- just like every tablet ever made.

5
2
LPF
Thumb Down

I'm confused.....

You can have a 3G phone, pay for a license to make and sell one and still have the license holders come after you for more? I assume that there are some patents the company did not put in the pool, so are not covered by license to use against those people who make better products than them, that they can't rip off?

2
2
Holmes

I don't believe that there was a 3G patent pool, not for all 3G technologies anyway. Instead 3G standards were set by standards bodies such as 3GPP, and all the big participants took part. During that process each participant was required to identify essential patents, and they entered into agreements to license those patents on FRAND terms.

Failure to identify a patent is a serious offence if you participated in the standard - which is why Rambus got roundly spanked over their attempt to put one over the SDRAM guys. If you don't participate though you can still lurk and troll.

For what it's worth Samsung is a member of 3GPP (which established UMTS and HSPA+).

So Apple may not be licensed to practice these patents, and Broadcom (who supply their 3G chip) may or may not turn out to provide them cover - but Samsung would only be entitled to FRAND license fees - something along the same order as Nokia extracted for licensing their GSM patents.

1
0

I think you'll find that they didn't licence the 3G technology...

I think you'll find that 3G technology was probably licensed exactly the same way that Sun licenses Java, and numerous other technologies are licensed. In a manner that the technology is released, and normally the company will not implement a licensing structure, and not normally go after other companies who use their technology as long as they behave reasonably with it, but the company still maintains the rights to the item and can come down on companies like a ton of bricks if they do start taking the mick (as Apple is doing!). Sun did the same thing with Java and Microsoft, they released Java and didn't mind who used it or installed it on their systems with the exception of Microsoft, and then when Microsoft assumed it was ok for them to use the technology (without properly reading the terms and conditions) and incorporated into Windows, Sun came down on them like a ton of bricks letting them know that it was their technology and they didn't want Microsoft to include Java in Windows (instead customers have to download it as an add-on.)

2
2

@Darren Forster

Your wrong, all the patents needed for 3G are under FRAND. Anything that could be worked around may or may not be under a FRAND licence but the stuff to make a 3G phone is.

0
0

"I'm confused. You can have a 3G phone, pay for a license to make and sell one and still have the license holders come after you for more?"

You are, indeed, confused. If Apple was playing nice, Nokia wouldn't need to sue them 2 years ago. You know, sue them because Apple was trying not to pay royalties/license feels like everyone else in the phone market.

To Apple, IP is important only when it's Apple's IP.

And it's not important when it's someone else's IP.

1
1
Boffin

Actually your point isn't correct...

Sun's beef with Java was that Microsoft installed their own version of Java & whilst that idea was ok, under the Sun terms Java had to be cross-system compatible & have a secure box in which to run so that the system wasn't accessed. Microsoft didn't either & kept a very old version of Java installed basically inhibiting the uptake of newer versions.

M$'s inhibitory tactics were why they got fried at the time...

0
0
Thumb Up

I hope Samsung kicks Apple's backside...

Well it seems when you mess around with the big boys you get your fingers burnt, and hopefully it seems after Apple taking the mick and banning Samsung's devices just because they happened to look similar to an iPad they are about to get some recompense.

Apple are just like a little kid trying to stop companies making similar items, can you imagine where we'd be if car manufacturers tried this, you'd only have a Ford car because all others look and operate too much like the Model T.

I do notice though Apple for some strange reason don't seem to bothered about going after the companies making things like SciPhone's etc, and yet more about annoying the companies that partly supply them their technology, yeah I'm sure that makes good business sense.

6
5
Anonymous Coward

?

Since when did Apple gain the power to ban Samsung devices? Last i heard it was the German court.

1
1
Anonymous Coward

Why hasn't Samsung stopped supplying Apple with hardware components?

1
2

An i for an i

So far, I don't have faith in Samsung's lawyers.

1
0
Anonymous Coward

Apple gone mad

So why doesnt Apple sue the many Chinese clone makers ? They also use the Apple logo (and also the other bits , including packaging etc).

Dare them to go there!

1
1
Facepalm

This is just massivly stupid

For Samsung to win they have to invalidate the FRAND licence. Good luck with that, no one company has all the essential patents to make a 3G phone and the FRAND licence only covers the minimum patents needed. Any patent that can be worked around isn't deemed essential and so wasn't included in the patent pool.

So if Samsung wins, no one will be able to make a 3G phone, you won't even see 2 companies agreeing to share patents to make a phone as Samsung will have invalidated contract law when they invalidated the FRAND licence. That's simply not going to be allowed to fly.

The Nokia v Apple is also not a good example as both sides agreed that Nokia held patents that Apple needed to licence to make a phone. The argumeant was on how much Apple had to pay Nokia. Apple said "It's FRAND so the same as everyone else", Nokia, iirc wanted something like $15-18 per device, which was ~3x more.

1
1

@A_been

Nokia vs Apple, Nokia wanted triple damages because they considered Apple's infringement of its patents to be will full (ie, they knew about the patents and then went and didn't license them anyyways).

Samsung may be suing over FRAND patents, but they could also have some patents specific to Apple's 3g implementation that weren't included in patent pools because they work as extras or add-ons to base 3g?

2
2

Korean War II

I believe America lost the last Korean war.

1
0
This topic is closed for new posts.