Fight fight fight fight fight...
Right, gentlemen, handbags at dawn?
Samsung is demanding the source code of the iPhone 4S firmware, while Apple wants copies of Samsung's contract with Qualcomm and both companies are looking to France in their Australian case. France is important, as that's where the European Telecommunications Standards Institute (ETSI) is based and where Samsung agreed to …
As an outsider I don't really care who started it (actually, I do - who?) - both are now covered in mud. The ONLY people that gain from this are lawyers - I'm now not interested in either. As I cannot plan a corporate strategy on a phone I may not be able to use, both of them are out of the picture..
INAL but I recon that it depends on what the patents say, and what the Qualcomm chip does / what the software does. If the operation of the Qualcomm chip uses inventioned patented by Samsung, and Qualcomm has a license to use that technology I would _imagine_ that Apple is OK (similar to the way that you can use Nokia patented technology in a phone made by HTC even though you didn't pay Nokia anything, because HTC has already paid to use the invention).
However, if Apple's software implements something that is in the patent, that the Qualcomm chip doesn't do all by itself, then maybe there is an issue and that Apple should be paying the FRAND license fee.
All in all though, I've run out of popcorn and this is getting tiresome.
Just because a license is granted to a 3rd party, it does NOT mean it automatically covers people using that 3rd parties software / hardware.
For example, if I license my super-amazing technology engine to Ford to make and use, I could stipulate that it is only for use in Ford cars. If they then sell this engine for use in Honda's, they are in breach of that License.
Also, if you license it to Ford, you may have a non-transferable agreement in there to state that if they are bought out, the license is revoked. This is VERY common. I could name onelittle tech company currently using such a mandate against a huge tech company, but I'd probebrly get fired.
You sue Ford for breach. You also get a TRO against Ford for violating terms of license.
You don't or cant sue other company since they entered into an agreement w Ford in good faith.
Note the following... If you sue and lose, you open yourself up to a counter suit for damages when you idled the other company's production line.
With respect to the actual lawsuit, methinks that Apple has the upper hand. Qualcomm is a chip manufacturer. They build chips for resale. You can't sell tech that you licensed without extending the license agreements on said tech to your customer.
I think this really depends on the specifics of the technology and the details of the license.
As to selling something you're licensed to make to someone who isn't licensed to use it: Well, that's not your fault, is it? So long as you are clear about it and so long as the license you hold does not explicitly restrict such sales.
It would also depend very much on if the item sold could be used without implementing the patented technology. For example, a speed boost function: If you're not licensed to use it, you simply don't implement it. And that is what is implied by this request for Firmware code: Did Apple implement functionality off the chip they weren't licensed to use?
We're outsiders: We don't know the details. We can only guess for now.
The doctrine of sale in good faith depends highly from country to country and has changed over time.
There used to be countries where you were not at fault even if you have obtained stolen goods if it was in good faith (this particular legal anomaly in some Eastern European legal code has been fixed now). Similarly there are countries where you can always go after the end user as long as one chain in the contractual sequence is broken.
So even if the Apple acted in good faith based on their Quallcom contract, what happens next depends on each and every country legal code.
There's really no need mush, the strength of your argument should carry it, SHOUTING is for lesser minds.
Heh, reminds me of a "shit-for-brains" director I worked for back in the day, used to title his (always very important) memos using the following:
Title: Centre, embolden, uppercase, underline.
Armstrong, where are you now?
Because obviously, if someone says they do not wish to own an Apple device it must be because they can't afford one. After all, how could anyone who has sufficient funds not want to show the world they have money by waving a shiny Apple toy around?
I'm not surprised you posted anonymously. You're clearly overcompensating for some kind of personal lack.
I don't see how luck has anything to do with it. You can get a 2nd hand ipod shuffle for not much money*. I think that dropping principles rather than acquiring money is the issue here.
*Frankly, I'm shocked at how much these things still cost. My Sony 2Gb player with colour screen, drag-and-drop file access and FM radio is cheaper 2nd hand than a 512Mb 1st gen shuffle with itunes hobbling its usefulness. It suggests there are too many people with more money than sense and a deeper desire to belong than to see justice; too many people refuse to think different.
Remind me again how Samsung seeking an injunction against the iPhone is an example of Apple being a 'bully' and 'control freak'?
Whilst a lot of these patents disputes seem petty, If *I'd* invented something worth millions, I'd be unhappy if others were using it without paying for it, and I'd also be unhappy if I'd come up with a some clever software technique for my product only to be told I couldn't sell it because company X said that software technique was theirs and I couldn't use it.
Steve Ives wrote...
"Remind me again how Samsung seeking an injunction against the iPhone is an example of Apple being a 'bully' and 'control freak'?"
Samsung is reacting to being bullied by Apple who is desperately trying to keep competing Samsung (and other) products, off the market by means of litigation. Apple claims that their "intelectual property" has been stolen by the competition. From that vantage point Apple is the bully (and control freak) who started the fight, Samsung is attempting to give said bully a bloody-nose to make them go-away.
As far as I can see Apple hasn't sued RIM regarding their smart phones, they haven't sued MS regarding Windows Phone 7. They have applied for injunctions against Samsung because they believe that Samsung has copied their devices to such a degree as to cause confusion to the average person in the street. Why is this bullying?
If there was no case to answer then Samsung should just fight that battle in court and everyone would see the folly of Apple's case. The judiciary would smack Apple and levy a large fine for the misleading litigation and their repuation would be sullied.
Instead Samsung are trying every angle they can to throw FUD on the issue by trying to leverage FRAND patents. They really must be very unsure about their ability to defend the Apple charges.
I know its impossible for some people to comprehend here due to prejudice that used to be reserved for '70s sitcoms but consider that Apple might just be in the right.
We should support the innovators, not the mimics. Here's just one of the things Apple mimicked this year:
Samsung already have access to the source of a superior mobile OS. They have no use for iOS. Apple also have access to it. Reckon they'll mimic some more?
"Samsung are guilty of being lazy. Them calling for iPhone 4S source code is stupid, they probably want to steal that as well."
No, they're trying to show that Apple have utilised patented technology they're not licensed to use. It's in the article. Apple are calling for a copy of the license with the supplier to show they are covered already so don't need a separate license.
And why would Samsung need to steal Apple's source code for? Do you believe Samsung are planning on building iOS phones? Be a bit obvious, that one, don't you think?
I am quite sure that in Samsung's eyes fair and reasonable means a full cross licensing of all mobile patents. So yes they have to license them under fair and reasonable terms, it is just Apple is not willing to accept the fair and reasonable terms that Samsung is offering because it just wants to pay money and do a one way license deal while keeping it's patents all to it's self. Which way the courts go I don't know but to my mind Samsung's position seems pretty reasonable to me and until Apple pressed the nuclear button what everyone in the mobile business was doing which makes it a pretty strong precedent for what fair and reasonable means in this context.
"I pretty much doubt there were any patent claims against Apple from Samsung until Samsung were sued."
From what I read, Samsung had approached Apple about the FRAND license before all this litigation came up. They had to wait until Apple launched their latest phone before going to court as until that point Apple hadn't actually infringed on the patents.
I think this legal battle is a charade. They will officially finish it with an "agreement".
Doesn't Apple have a contract to buy "all" of Samsung's Flash chip production for several years? And isn't Apple also using Samsung as a foundry to build their SoC's (A4, A5, etc?). Buying flash elsewhere is possible but not without issues and moving chip production to another foundry's process is costly to say the least.
I think Apple is either trying to bully Samsung into negotiating a better deal for the future or they are both in this together - lots and lots of free publicity anyone?
Besides, if something is "banned", people get the urge to try to get it at any price. I didn't even know Galaxy Tab 10.1 existed before I read it was banned in Germany. The news made me want to buy a couple before they are banned across EU...
The Book Of Jobs says "I'm going to destroy Android, because it's a stolen product. I'm willing to go thermonuclear war on this."
The Holy book says so so rise up fanbois and destroy all Android products especially ones from Samsung and HTC! This is a Holy war. Our glorious leader has commanded it : "I will spend my last dying breath if I need to, and I will spend every penny of Apple's $40 billion [£25bn] in the bank, to right this wrong."
Steve Jobs by Walter Isaacson is available at from our Church (the iTunes Store)
No where did I leave my straight jacket lol!
'Cupertino obviously believes patent rights should be transferable, but that will depend on the contract Samsung has with Qualcomm, which is why Apple wants to see it.'
This isn't about patent rights being transferable, non-exclusive licenses generally aren't - this is about double dipping not being allowed because patents rights are exhaustable.
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2019