Feeds

back to article Samsung seeks bans on the iPhone 4S

Samsung is making good on its promise to block the iPhone 5, even though it's now an iPhone 4S, announcing on its blog that it will be filing for preliminary injunctions in Paris and Milan against the new Jesus-mobe iteration today. The Korean electronics giant is citing two patent infringements related to the WCDMA standard for …

COMMENTS

This topic is closed for new posts.

Page:

Go

I hope Samsung win

Apple made the first move on Samsung as it felt threatened by the competition. They must have thought Samsung would roll over but I'm so glad Samsung decided to fight back on the bully. Despite all the patent confrontation, Samsung reached out with a truce in Australia that would have rippled across all the other world wide issues but Apple through this back in Samsung's face. I have no sympathy for Apple and hope it gets stung badly from the whole ordeal. Apple have created some good products but rather than raise it's game when faced with competition, it chooses to focus its efforts to stifle the competition. Grow up Apple and focus your efforts on producing better products!!

Go Samsung! You have my full support!

67
8
Anonymous Coward

threw

4
1
Anonymous Coward

You must really hate Apple

Samsung is suing Apple for using 3G patents that are licensed under the 3G patent pools. Apple, like everyone else who makes 3G phones, already pays to use those patents. But because it's Apple, paying the amount Samsung agreed to charge under FRAND is not enough! It is Samsung that can't raise it game which is why it has to ripe off other companies IP. Your mention of Australia just proves the point as it was already found in breach there. Meanwhile Samsung never told anyone what they offered Apple but the PR department made sure that tech site knew that they had offered Apple "something great", so great that it took Apple less than 48 hours to say"no thank you, just stop copying us".

2
14
Anonymous Coward

who the hell cares

Why are you so obsessed with it, who the hell cares who sues who, if this iS the most important thing in your life you really need to get out more.

Why should anyone care?

2
1

I hope one of the things they're pulling Apple on is the use of the letter S to indicate it's an improved bersion of an older model

2
1
FAIL

Likely to fail...

From my understanding of it, these patents are critical to 3G networks, and therefore fall under FRAND licensing laws. That means samsung MUST license them to apple for a reasonable fee, which makes an injunction extremely unlikely. So I guess they're doing this for PR or political reasons.

Apple's patents on the other hand aren't covered by FRAND, so if they're successful with those they have samsung by the balls and can get the products banned.

11
6

They may have to make the licences available at a fair price

Does not mean that Apple have to or has paid for them though does it?

7
0
Big Brother

@Chris 19

Failure is a relative word on this.

I don't know if Apple are already paying FRAND for these Samsung patents but lets assume they are not.

Whilst FRAND ensures a reasonable fee, there is likely wiggle room for Samsung to ask for the maximum permissable under these terms and if you apply this to every infringing Apple product ever sold (previously and in the future) it could add up to a very tidy sum (in the several billions perhaps). Given that it maybe that Apple decide to drop their other lawsuits around the world.

I and I'm pretty sure Samsung would not consider that outcome a failure

4
2
Thumb Down

Apparently these are FRAND licenced...

...but Apple declined http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/10/04/apple_rejects_samsung/

1
2

actually that's not about these patents but the point is that Samsung must be certain that Apple has not paid any sort of licence figure for these patents otherwise they would not be suing so I think its fairly safe to say they have declined to licence them, even on FRAND terms.

5
1
Anonymous Coward

Licenses are needed, and Lawyers are involved. Anything can happen.

Haven't dealt with lawyers much then? Samsung could try and license on FRAND terms, and it may still take the lawyers years to decide exactly what constitutes FRAND terms for Apple. All the whilst if Apple doesn't have a licence it will be infringing the patents, and SHOULD be blocked from selling any infringing products to ensure that it doesn't just ignore IP laws. Yep, lawyers are a wonderful bunch, I haven't met one that couldn't delay and delay and delay and delay and delay :-)

0
0
Anonymous Coward

@chris007 + ray11

Yes, from what I've read apple declined to license. They've also accused samsung of demanding excessive royalties, which they're not allowed to do with FRAND patents - and if it's true, what samsung has been doing is comes under anti-trust laws (they make it extremely difficult to offer a product by controlling a critical feature of a market standard - i.e. what microsoft has been done for multiple times). Apple are *very* unlikely to drop any other cases based on this, unless there's some new patents in play the case is weak and will get fought hard.

We'll have to wait and see which side is right, it could be apple lying and trying to screw samsung over, or it could be samsung trying to abuse patents that they're not allowed to abuse. But if these are FRAND-encumbered patents, samsung will surely fail to get an injunction. They'll know that, their lawyers will know that - so what are they doing it for? Spin.

3
0

Surely

These patents must be licences to other mobile phone makers. If the terms they were offered to apple were excessive it makes you wonder why the others licenced them without making a fuss?

4
1
Anonymous Coward

define reasonable

If it is an extension to a standard that Apple used .... it may not be under FRAND licensing laws. I encourage you to look at RAMBUS.

2
0
Boffin

@Chris007

"I don't know if Apple are already paying FRAND for these Samsung patents but lets assume they are not."

Let's assume they are because if they were not they would have got sued by every other phone maker the moment they released the iPhone and on 3G, the iPhone 3G. Also with FRAND licenses there is no "wiggle room", it's a "take it or leave it" proposition. One of the point's of FRAND is that if you pay the fee you don't get sued later, they are structured so that you know you are OK. If they weren't they would be worthless, there is no point in paying for a license where you can still get sued later because of "wiggle room". FRAND licenses are like motorway toll booths, you pay the fee and you can drive down the road, you don't won't to pay then fine find your own way, take a back route but don't ever put a wheel on our tarmac.

We have seen this before, Rambus tried to abuse a FRAND (OK more complex than this case) license and got it's arse handed to it, after about 8 years of litigation. Nokia tried to do what Samsung is doing with Apple but settled. In the Nokia vs Apple case Nokia was in an "almost can't lose position" because Apple agreed from the start that it was using Nokia IP and had to pay Nokia but said Nokia's IP was licensed under FRAND and so all Apple had to do was pay the same fee that everyone else was paying.

Apple won, well the outside lawyers won but it is clear from the settlement that Apple just paid the FRAND (maybe with interest) license. This is a PR job by Samsung and not for the tech heads and tech bloggers who don't matter but for the courts who do. It's also a sign of desperation as Samsung must know that if this ever gets to trial they will lose.

One final thought for anyone who thinks this is anything beyond PR and tactics, Samsung are the second biggest maker of smartphones and feature phones (Apple and Nokia are #1 respectivly as of Q2) and the largest LCD and memory manufacture in the world. All of those are produced under FRAND licenses!

0
0

Simple paul E

Under FRAND (Fair, reasonable, and non-discriminatory terms), you have to offer everyone the same deal, you can't charge one company X amount and another company Y for the same license. It's the Apple vs Nokia case again. That is Nokia wanted Apple to pay more than it was charging others and cross license some IP as well. AFAIK Samsung isn't asking for IP cross licensing but it is trying to abuse it's FRAND commitments.

FRAND licenses are as a rule very clear and very tight, they are done that way so that a) people get paid, most FRAND 's can easily involve between 10-100 companies and everyone wants to get paid so it's in everyones interest that everything is clear. b) relatively cheap, relative is well a relative term but the idea is that it should be cheaper to pay a FRAND than bother to work away around it. c) SAFE, that is "we won't say you will make money but you won't get sued if you pay us", the point being that you know what you are paying for so you can justify the risk and so the FRAND owners have a better chance of getting paid.

FRAND is one of the ways that the clusterfuck that is the USPTO hasn't totally fucked up silicon vally.

0
0
Unhappy

I don't quite understand how does this system work. Looks like critical patents MUST fall under FRAND licensing to avoid monopoly situations, allow free competition, etc... On the other hand, there are patents (e.g. rectangles with rounded corners, pixel arrangements representing a phone, a house, or whatever else) for which the owner may ask any price, or can even decline to grant licenses and so block competition. Am I stupid or is the whole system rotten? Who decides whether a license should be FRAND or discretionary?

0
0

Sorry...

Could you point me to any proof that Samsung asked for more money for these licences from Apple than they have charged other mobile phone companies? Also some definitive proof that the licences are covered by FRAND would be good (as others have said they could be about one method of implementing a standard not the standard itself which would exclude it from FRAND I believe?).

0
0
MJG

Would like them to get it blocked...

But to be the company that has got the "iPhone blocked/banned".... Will it do Samsung much good? I'm not too sure. Problem is, most people who buy the iPhone are blind (I'm not criticising people who have researched, and decide that the apps, especially games, available make the phone the best on offer). These people will start to HATE Samsung for stopping them getting their latest iToy....

I just wish people would continue to innovate, and improve it for everyone, at the end of the day, who pays for all these legal costs... ALL OF US, not matter when we like apple, google, samsung, HTC, etc.... We all end up paying, and that's the sad part of all of this...

3
0

Re These people will start to HATE Samsung

Why should that bother Samsung as Apple fanbois aren't going to buy Samsung products anyway? It's aimed at Apple.

4
2
Pirate

Likewise

Apple's efforts to ban HTC and Samsung phones don't exactly make me think "Well, I ought to buy an iPhone when my Android's contract is up, so that they leave me alone!" Starts to feel like a protection racket.

4
2
Silver badge

If both companies have their phones and fondleslabs banned due to violating the other's patents, it will force them to reach a cross licensing deal. That's what Samsung wants so it can sell its Galaxy range again.

1
0

@jonathanb

Yep

0
0

Dual core ARM processors on a phone: Yep, my Samsung Galaxy SII already has this. Apple has just announced theirs.

Voice recognition (speech to action and text to speech for navigation and others): Ditto

8MP camera: Ditto

I'm sure Samsung has a case there.

9
3
Anonymous Coward

Would you like to explain the case to us lesser mortals?

0
0
Silver badge
Happy

@Richard C. RE "Voice recognition...............

.......................(speech to action and text to speech for navigation and others): Ditto"

Indeed, and what is more you do not have go online to use those facilities with your GSII nor I with my Desire Z in contrast to the new and magical iPhone 4S where the eager purchaser will rapidly discover that "Siri" doesn't "just work" unless you are logged on. In fact it does not work *at all* without being online.

2
4
Silver badge

If Siri isn't available, they can still use voice recognition

Siri isn't voice recognition and the iPhone has had normal, offline voice recognition built in for years. Arguing that Siri is voice recognition is like arguing that because Safari uses the touchscreen, the touchscreen isn't available when the user is offline.

So, in contrast to the GSII or Desire Z, a hypothetical user will find that Siri is available when online rather than not available at all under any circumstances.

Based on the demonstration and the simple obvious facts, a real user will quickly find that they don't want to use either Siri or voice recognition, both being essentially useless marketing puff. They'll subsequently then fail to notice whether the service is available on the handset they happen to own on the connection they currently have.

1
1
Silver badge
Devil

More money to the wrong people...

H6242 – Kill all the lawyers

0
0
Thumb Down

Are you ThomH from OSNews?

WTF are you trying to say and how do you know what you are saying because you have never used the device? BTW who are these fake users? I'm assuming there are fake users because otherwise why mention "real users"

0
0
Bronze badge
Go

Oh what joy to be a lawyer . . . .

. . in these days of high technology.

They are the real winners here, whatever happens in court.

(I am not a lawyer - thank the stars!)

0
0
Bronze badge

Lawyers

You won't thank them soon if they are the only ones making money.

1
0
Silver badge
Mushroom

Lawyers

TheY are nothing but parasites that feed on the rotting carcass of what could have been a great civilisation.

These people are second only to market day traders in the completely worthless money grubber stakes.

It does not take much scrutiny of their profession to come to the conclusion that they are the equivalent of the pre-Renaissance Catholic Church.

They operate in an arcane world which we are told cannot be understood by mere mortals who have not been inducted into their ranks.

They wrap themselves in ceremonial robes and wigs and confer upon themselves impressive titles that are intended to convey an image of superiority over lesser men.

They infiltrate our governments and pass countless laws that are designed to do nothing but cause conflict between groups.

They sit in judgment over the common man and use their own conflicy promoting laws to simultaneously exact tribute from and maintain control over those that otherwise would be free.

Provoking conflict is not only profitable for members of the legal class but also dissuades groups that otherwise might join forces to squabble amongst themselves insteas of joining forces in order to unburden themselves from the predations of the legal class.

They have convinced the common man that their predations are a "necessary evil" and that civilisation would indeed be reduced to a state of chaos were it not for the servitude they force upon us (backed by threat of force for those that refuse to bend).

0
0
Silver badge
WTF?

Samsung 3G patents + LG 3G patents = screwed Apple

Samsung and LG both have some of the largest 3G patent troves around and together they ARE the biggest.

Apple should hope they never get together.

Apple is claiming it has rights to Samsung technology by virtue of the fact Intel is licenced for it's chips which Apple uses.

2
3
Silver badge
Thumb Up

interesting piece in Forbes ....

http://www.forbes.com/sites/elizabethwoyke/2011/09/21/identifying-the-tech-leaders-in-lte-wireless-patents/

0
0
Bronze badge
Devil

more of this please

I hope Samsung win AND Apple win too, thus fragmenting the market geographically into "Apple zone" and "Samsung zone". Of course that means consumer losing (but I don't give a sh* about either of these brands).

I also hope this war, and future patent wars, will eventually make lawmakers notice that patents do actually harm competition and do stifle innovation. So more of this, please.

2
0

Yes. This could end up as a war of mutual banning. You won't be able to buy a Samsung product because it has round corners and you won't be able to buy an Apple product because it uses 3G.

RIM / Microsoft end up as winners in this case.

1
1
Silver badge

Time, time

I just want there to be so many patent suits going on that the entire world's mobile phone network gets switched off. I may get some work done to schedule then.

2
0

YOU started it !

YOU started it.

We did not start it!

Yes you did — you invaded Poland.

6
2
Thumb Up

The most intelligent comment so far

0
0

Baffles me

why any tosser should downvote this.

0
0
Silver badge
Trollface

Slavish copy...

Remind me again, how I get a weather widget running on my iPhone home screen? ;-)

4
0

First, you have to pull down the notification bar, another one of Apple's "retroactive innovations".

3
2
Anonymous Coward

RE: Slavish copy...

There's one built in and it's on the home screen...

0
1
Silver badge

Icon...

Therer might be an icon, but unlikeWP7 or Android, iOS doesn't show the current weather, until I launch the app, and that was just an obvious example.

0
0
Pirate

don't own any fruity product but hope Apple wins

On grounds of being fair: they both have probably infringed a few actually important patents of the other, a many more trivial ones. but consider this, do you know how to make a light bulb. You might go "what?". Well, I am sure you're not a mental invalid, probably with a degree in physics. But just because you're not a mental invalid, doesn't mean you know how to make a lightbulb. And that goes on for everything you see made by Koreans. Many electronics that brought Samsung its current wealth weren't invented in Korea, or any parts of the asiatic world. No no no no, they have absolutely brilliant people in Korea I am sure, but as said, b/c you're brilliant, doesn't mean you have to know how to make an LCD tv, a car engine, basically almost everything in btwn A-Z.

At least Apple doesn't have a government that pseudo backs it. And looking at the smart phones before and after the iPhone, I mean, c'mon. Even alien dropping by can clearly see definable change thanking to the iPhone.

3
10
Anonymous Coward

I'm guessing English isn't your first language, right?

Still, thanks for the post. I look forward to spending a happy hour or two trying to figure out what you were trying to say...

1
1

@KAMiKZ

Are you a lawyer?

0
0

I Should Have Been Patent Lawyer

That is one of the few professions that are inherently recession-proof. Well, that and being a Mortician. Either way you work with a bunch of stiffs.

0
0
Anonymous Coward

"Apple made the first move on Samsung as it felt threatened by the competition."

Apple made the first move on Samsung as Samsung blatantly copied it's products.

5
11
Anonymous Coward

Don't confuse fandroids with Facts, it just causes them to rage.

0
1

Page:

This topic is closed for new posts.