Not good when your own designers are saying "too bad it looks like an iPhone". The Sony concept is interesting; it would be interesting to do a courtroom test (can the lawyers differentiate when the judge holds them up). I don't think it would e a problem with the original iPhone, but the iPhone 4 might be. Of course, Sony never created that product.
Now, of course one can say that the consumer should have paid more attention to the branding, but I think that's missing the point. It seems that for a few (?) people the Galaxy tab looked similar enough to the iPad to cause confusion and that the big box retailer conveyed the message to Samsung.
That data point doesn't mean much. Many people who aren't into tech will just lump a whole category of devices together with the most prominent member of the group. I suspect it's impossible to design a tablet-like device with any commercial potential at all that someone won't confuse for an iPad.
For example, I've had someone call my original Eee Transformer an iPad. And here we're talking of a device that's a different color (brown), different texture (smooth vs. crosshatched), different shape (16:10 vs. 4:3), and much thicker. Oh, and of course attached to a keyboard...
If I understand your point correctly, you are referring to the fact that some products by being first-to-market or by popularity start to define a category of products. For example, vacuum cleaners in the UK are mostly called "Hoovers", or say "Coke" represents a cola soft drink etc.
In those cases, people won't buy a product and return it. Although they refer to a vacuum cleaner as a "Hoover", they go in knowing fully well that they are buying a product that does what a "Hoover" does, i.e. pick up dust. Here people didn't go in wanting an iPad-esque product and buying a product in the same category, but rather they mistook it to be the iPad.
Pardon me if this seems a little circuitous, having trouble with words today :)
From the fine article: “An Apple industrial designer, Shin Nishibori, then mocked up the design, even using Sony’s logo on the back of the CAD drawing.”
Of course this won’t stop the internet from believing that Apple copied the iPhone design from Sony, but I’ll try to make this my last comment on it.
1. Apple’s early vision for the iPad [...] were extraordinarily chunky and included a kick-stand
2. Google told Samsung that its devices looked “too similar” to Apple’s iPad. Google demanded “distinguishable design vis-à-vis the iPad for the P3.”
3. Apple made 23 to 32 percent on gross margins for iPads sold between April 2010 and March 2012.
4. The iPhone design was inspired by a Sony designer talking about "portable electronic devices that lacked buttons and other ‘excessive ornamentation,’ fit in the hand, were ‘square with a screen’ and had ‘corners [which] have been rounded out"
5. Apple researches consumer sentiment on existing products in order to optimize future designs.
Apparently, Apple argues that FRAND patents should be effectively free, estimating that Samsung's standards patents are worth less than 1¢ per device. Whereas, Apple thinks its design patents are worth $24 per device, and their utility patents are another $3 on top of that. Were that to hold, it would eliminate Samsung's profit margin. So, it's hard not to read this as Apple trying to cage viable competitors entirely out of the market through legal maneuvering.
FRAND patents of the like Samsung are complaining about are usually patents on the individual component chip. Manufacturer of said chipset license the patent when they make the chipset then sell the chipset to downstream integrators like Apple. Given the cost of the chipset is far cheaper than the overall cost of the device 1c per chip is reasonable, especially when said chipset may require the licensing of hundreds of other patents as well and devices requiring several chipsets. If Samsung wins here they will effectively kill FRAND licensing and costs will increase significantly as everybody will now want $25 per device for their patents.
As part of the standards process Samsung has committed to licensing these patterns under Fair, Reasonably and Non-Discrimartory terms, which means they can't ask Apple for a different rate than they give say Motorola or HTC. Because Apple's Design patents are not FRAND they are under no obligation to give anything to Samsung.
Because Samsung's patents are standards essential you can't build a cellphone without needing them (hence the FRAND licensing), while its certainly possible to build a cellphone that doesn't violate Apple's design patents (RIM, Nokia et al don't seem to be getting sued for example). This doesn't mean that Apple is right for suing companies for violating them, but what Samsung is doing is far far worse.
So if Samsung builds ground breaking technology that is so important that it gets included in every smartphone, they can't charge more than 1c per chip. However, if Apple builds trivial "slide to unlock", they can charge $25 per phone and block devices from entering the market? What is the incentive of doing research and developing important wireless technologies if you'll be less rewarded than the company who developed "slide to unlock". Shouldn't important techs get the most rewards? I'm against software patents, but if the law's going to support them at least it should be coherent.
FRAND patents are going to be more widely used and seen as more "essential". Slide to unlock is not exactly "essential" and more of an option. It's more optional than a FRAND patent would be.
If Apple charge $25 for a patent that isn't worth that much then people won't licence it and will find alternatives. If Samsung charges a high rate for one patent (of hundreds) people have to either completely drop the standard or pay.
I don't know if the Samsung patents are groundbreaking or not. It could be that there were other similar options the standards committee could have selected but with Samsung in the room the choice with the Samsung patent was made so all implementers need a license.
Big companies often want to get their technology into the standard as that enables them to get a small per unit license fee across large numbers of devices. I know that was the case when I worked at Sony. If Samsung didn't want to make that patent FRAND they could have made it clear during standardisation and I'm sure it would have been left out. If patents in this area don't get into standards they are effectively worthless.
Remember that the a group of competitors sitting in a room discussing future terms of business is either a standards committee or an illegal cartel. The difference is the rules under which they operate to give others access to the market which include the FRAND commitments.
I'm not sure that really is the case. Nokia, Sony Ericcson, Palm and MS had touchscreen handhelds for years before the iPhone. Either that should have generated clear prior art or there are other options that aren't silly. If Apple came up with something new that really makes all the old ways seem silly maybe it really is a valuable technology that they can charge high prices for.
If the Apple patent is shown to be invalid they won't get anything and Samsung won't have to work around it but whatever the situation there is no value in comparing prices between FRAND and non FRAND patents.
I don't recall any of the tech giants including Google and Samsung campaigning to get rid of whole categories of patents of for other major reforms. I would like patent reform but The law as it exists should be enforced.
Edit: Note that in this and my earlier post I am not commenting on the validity of either sides patents or what exactly the damages or license fees for either should be BUT that there is little value making a comparison between FRAND committed prices and those for any non FRAND prices.
> Nokia, Sony Ericcson, Palm and MS had touchscreen handhelds for years before the iPhone
They had enough physical buttons to make button unlock a viable option.
When you have only a touchscreen, the gestures available to you are taps and swipes. Taps easily happen accidentally, so some composition of swipes to unlock is the main obvious remaining option.
If that is the case anyone can work around the patent for the cost of a hardware button.
Those saying this is a major critical feature (I'm not)that reduces hardware costs and improves product design are really making the case that it is a good patent, novel and useful.
Then what you consider the invention here is really the touch screen and not the unlocking. Adding a physical button just for unlocking is less obvious than just using a gesture already available.
A touchscreen is an invention but people managed to use touchscreens without slide to unlock for years. That is a separate and dependent invention.
Either the designers didn't think about this approach or thought it wasn't the best solution. If anyone produced such a solution or documented it the patent should be invalidated for prior art.
My initial reaction to the patent was probably that is a bit trivial but better than many that get granted and that there should be plenty of workarounds. The slide to unlock definitely seems obvious once you have seen it but I'm not sure it is so obvious before you have seen it (it's quite hard to unwind your mind to a state of unknowing). You certainly need to asking the right questions: how can we remove all the buttons, how do you prevent it waking too easily.
There is no need for touchscreen phones to go completely buttonless. That is a design choice not an essential feature to exist in the market.
I'm sorry, but I'm tired of seeing this blatantly disingenuous argument parroted everywhere. The fact is that Apple started this mess by ignoring FRAND obligations entirely--standards that make the entire iOS ecosystem possible. Now, I'm totay fine if Apple wants to make the argument that the existing patent system is unreasonable. But what Apple did instead is pure, self-serving hypocrisy.
Apple launched into a rampage trying to sue every other viable competitor out of the market for supposed infringement. In defending themselves from these attacks, Apple's victims are responding aggressively with their FRAND patents and whatever else they have (and even then, they're asking for a tiny fraction of what Apple is). Put simply, if you engage in the kind of anti-competitive and bullying behavior that Apple does, and subsidize your own profit margins on the backs of everyone else, then you shouldn't be surprised when everyone else starts swinging back.
Can you explain how Apple ignored FRAND obligations entirely?
Qualcomm already licensed the patents in its chips that they sold to Apple, but then Samsung wanted more because it was Apple. That itself is violating the "non-discriminatory" part of FRAND. How is this Apple's fault?
This kind of misinformation is the problem. Qualcomm never had a license for Samsung's FRAND patents. If they did, there wouldn't be an issue here. What Qualcomm had was a contractual agreement protecting their customers from Samsung pursuing FRAND patent fees, but that contract expired in early 2011. So, now Samsung is using their FRAND patents in defense against Apple's thermonuclear patent war.
Can you provide a source for that? If this is true, that changes quite a lot.
Also, how do you feel about Samsung asking for 2.4% of the chip price for a single patent when there are so, so many patents that go into making a device like the iPhone? Is that fair?
Edit: Forget about the source, I found some very easily (Google "samsung frand qualcomm"). But still, I think it's quite discriminatory to demand from Apple 2.4% for each patent, especially when these patents are seen as standards for cellphones.
Let's try that question the other way. Is it fair that Apple is trying to extort $27 per device out of Samsung (many times more than Samsung is asking for on its FRAND patents)? While we're at it, is it fair that non-iPhone users in the US subsidize Apple's huge profit margins? Because, Apple demands such a high subsidy (and competitive pricing on-contract) that the carriers make the difference up on other customers. So, is it fair that I'm forced to pay higher rates on my plan because Apple is intentionally leveraging their size to distort the market?
Non-US iPhone users aren't subsidizing anything. While the carriers in the US do subsidize phones, carriers don't just absorb that cost, it gets passed along to the end user. These arguments are kind of similar to those presented by people wanting higher corporate taxes without realizing that those costs are ultimately paid by the consumer.
Uhm... you misread my comment entirely, and then diverged into politics. I don't know how to respond, because I'm not sure what argument you're making that relates to my point.
Fair, I don't know if the patent is valid Samsung could just work around it. If Apple have a valid patent as I understand it they can license it for any price that they want OR completely refuse to license it provided they haven't made any agreements or commitments to the contrary.
That is the normal case with patents, exclusive rights. When you step into a standards body and offer your technology you give up those rights unless you specifically and clearly declare that you aren't doing so (in which case other options will be chosen by the standards body).
So there are other ways to look at it. Is it fair that Samsung pushed it's technology into a standard and then holds other implementers to ransom or asks them to give up their legal rights to enter the market?
As I say elsewhere I'm not picking sides on the validity of particular patents or what damages or even FRAND license fees should be but I do think it is important that FRAND commitments are given weight and enforced.
For me forced cross licenses and percentages of finished product price are both discriminatory and not FRAND. Even percentage of chip price I have my doubts about as it discourages integration of chips with its hardware and power advantages. This doesn't mean that it must be less than 1c or even $1 but some mechanism to be fair to all patent holders while not pricing the standard out of use needs to be found.
Your argument doesn't hold. Samsung has already shown that the rates they're asking of Apple are consistent with other licensees; Apple is just refusing to pay. I think this quote sums it up:
Companies who like to get patent royalties from competitors,
like Apple and Microsoft, and who use patents aggressively,
have noticed that if everyone who was in the mobile phone
business before they were sues them over their patents, they
won't be able to make a phone anyone can afford, so they want
to get the courts to force folks like Samsung and Motorola to
accept less than a penny per handset for their standards
patents, while still charging the regular price for their own
later-issued patents.
And really, the purpose of FRAND patents is to encourage innovation and competition. Every class of product has basic functionality that's essential for viability, and patents on such functionality shouldn't be used to cage your competitors out of a market. So, if you really support the principle of FRAND patents, then logical consistency demands that you acknowledge Apple is violating that principle.
Apple's patents are on such basic and obvious product aspects that it's nearly impossible to bring a viable product to market without running afoul. Would Apple's patents be overturned on reexamination? Almost certainly, but only after a long and protracted legal battle. Meanwhile, all it takes for Apple to kneecap their competitors is one injunction delaying the launch of a flagship product, or caging them out of peak holiday shopping season (which Apple did to Samsung last year).
It is possible to build a viable smartphone without Slide to Unlock or making it look like an iPhone (Palm did it, Nokia did it, even Samsung did it with the Galaxy S3). It isn't possible to build a viable smartphone without the various UMTS patents. That's the key difference here.
Also the rates that Samsung is asking aren't consistent with other licensees as Samsung is tying the rate to the device rather than the baseband processor that uses the patent. Asking for $25 royalty on a $10 component is unreasonable, especially when said component requires a 100 other standards essential patents to function.
Does a patented oil pump cost more if fitted to a BMW verses a Ford Escort ?
"Samsung is known to have demanded 2.4% of Apple's sales as a royalty for its wireless SEPs. That figure showed up in an Italian court ruling and was mentioned in open court in The Hague, Netherlands, by Apple's Dutch counsel."
2.4% of $650-$850 (Retail range of Unlocked iPhone 4S) is around $16-$20 per device. Quad-band 3G UMTS modems retail as low as $13 in lots of 1000. That's a full modem not just the UMTS chipset. And trust me Apple is not buying chipsets retail or in lots of 1000.
If Samsung is asking everyone for the same absolute (not percentage) rate and isn't demanding cross licenses then Apple should have to pay that rate (assuming the patents are valid). I'm not sure that contradicts anything that I said.
I think Samsung can raise invalidity issues in the case before the judge/jury. If Apples patents are deemed invalid then they will get nothing.
The Apple patents that I'm aware of are fairly basic but can be worked around. E.g. by stopping scrolling dead at the end of the range and requiring something other than a swipe to unlock.
FRAND is a commitment made in standardisation to prevent the standards group from being an illegal cartel. That commitment should be kept. But a single company making a patented feature desirable would not trigger antitrust concerns in the general case so they wouldn't have needed to make an FRAND commitment. The potential exception would be for the Microsoft FAT patent because FAR is effectively a standard and while not created by a group of companies Microsoft was a monopolist. This is a rare case when I think FRAND may be appropriate rule for MS to adopt even if not legally require.
Yes the patent system is currently ridiculous and needs to grant far fewer but that is a complaint against the system which I would like to see reformed but you have to play by the rules in force. As I've said in a few posts I don't remember any tech giants (even Google and Samsung) campaigning against the patent system or even software patents. If the rules as they exist are enforced maybe that will change and the big players will want to change the system.
To be honest, I'm not sure what point you're even making here. You seem to be redefining the parameters to what's strictly legal in a system you agree is seriously flawed. But that's not where the thread of this conversation started. I never claimed what Apple was doing was illegal. Someone accused Samsung of behaving "unfairly," so I pointed to Apple's unfairness. As far as the law is concerned both parties are still behaving entirely legally (as no one's been found guilty of anything yet). Accepting that, I do consider the ethics of the issue a different story.
I know this is an old thread but I think I do want to respond.
Legally the court will decide but that doesn't mean that we can't have views or that either company is necessarily behaving legally (if you steal something you aren't behaving legally until convicted). For my perspective I am assuming all patents valid (if they are invalidated the license fees are no problem as they will be zero).
Samsung is in my view breaching promises made to the world including me and threatening the whole standardisation process. At the very least everyone needs to understand just how weak FRAND commitments are and adjust their behaviour accordingly. If allowed to stand Samsung's view of FRAND could do massive global harm as it will mean even more desperate fights to keep patented technologies out of standards where the patents are owned by companies not trusted to 'do the right thing' which could lead towards standardisation deadlock. It could also lead to all sorts of other companies all trying to extract all the value of standards making them unaffordable in many use cases.
Compared to this I really can't see anything unfair at all in what Apple is doing. Saying if you want to use this unnecessary feature you have to pay us a lot of money sounds fair to me, you can freely choose not to use it (damages/back licenses before the patents are confirmed by a court should probably be lower). The damages claims are just claims I don't expect to be fully granted but that is just the system isn't it, claim the moon on a stick expecting to get half a stick at the end.
It is absolutely fair. Apple's patents aren't FRAND and so they can ask for whatever they want to ask for and Samsung has the option to either use it or not. It's not that simple when it comes to FRAND patents because the whole point of FRAND patents is to ensure that everyone uses it so that fragmentation doesn't occur in necessary standards.
2.4% for a single patent when there are potentially hundreds of patents is ridiculous. There's no way you can argue against that. How many patents go into making a phone? Samsung wants 2.4% for each one.
And yes, it's absolutely fair (about the subsidizing). That's how the market voted and that's how the carriers decided to do business. Majority rules here. If you don't like it, then vote with your wallet. Go to T-Mobile.
As a sidenote, I'm currently using a Samsung Galaxy S III on T-Mobile. But I still think what Samsung is doing with FRAND patents is wrong.
Also, as I recall Apple moved to Qualcomm chips from another chipset provider after they got sued by I think Motorola because neither they nor the chipset provider had come to any kind of licensing or contractual deal over the FRAND patents.
The agreement didn't just expire, Samsung terminated it with the express purpose of counter-suing Apple. Note that Samsung to date has not gone after any other Qualcomm customers for increased patent license fees they can hardly claim they are being non-discriminatory.
Not sticking to the FRAND terms it agreed to is a pretty bad move on Samsung's part. I believe the EU not happy about this development and is already looking into this so the move could blow up in Samsung's face.
It’s really depressing that for the first time we can have a glimpse into Apple’s design process (which, whether you like the company or not, is unarguably interesting) and all HN can talk about is petty score counts.
Is "revelation" really too tough a word for the authors of this article or the readers of Wired?
I really don't appreciate this linguistic trend in the tech community to turn verbs into nouns in a non-standard, ad hoc way when perfectly fine nouns exist. I (unfortunately) hear it with "ask" fairly frequently at work, and it makes me feel like Jules from Pulp Fiction ("Use 'ask' as a noun again, I dare you...")
Can anyone shed some linguistic light on this trend?
Hey Falling. You've been hellbanned. Your comments are not appearing to anyone except those who have "turn dead comments on". You may have been hellbanned for daring to defend Apple on HN, who knows since they never say, but they are really active at censoring people for having diverse opinions.
Just thought I'd share this in case you're still reading the thread... I can't even reply to your hellbanned comments alas.
Maybe it was for another offense? Something like appearing like a voting bot? Maybe falling wrote a script that was scraping the site too quickly? I guess only pg or rtm know for sure.
45 comments
[ 3.3 ms ] story [ 122 ms ] threadLink: http://allthingsd.com/20120726/documents-in-apple-v-samsung-...
Now, of course one can say that the consumer should have paid more attention to the branding, but I think that's missing the point. It seems that for a few (?) people the Galaxy tab looked similar enough to the iPad to cause confusion and that the big box retailer conveyed the message to Samsung.
For example, I've had someone call my original Eee Transformer an iPad. And here we're talking of a device that's a different color (brown), different texture (smooth vs. crosshatched), different shape (16:10 vs. 4:3), and much thicker. Oh, and of course attached to a keyboard...
In those cases, people won't buy a product and return it. Although they refer to a vacuum cleaner as a "Hoover", they go in knowing fully well that they are buying a product that does what a "Hoover" does, i.e. pick up dust. Here people didn't go in wanting an iPad-esque product and buying a product in the same category, but rather they mistook it to be the iPad. Pardon me if this seems a little circuitous, having trouble with words today :)
Of course this won’t stop the internet from believing that Apple copied the iPhone design from Sony, but I’ll try to make this my last comment on it.
1. Apple’s early vision for the iPad [...] were extraordinarily chunky and included a kick-stand
2. Google told Samsung that its devices looked “too similar” to Apple’s iPad. Google demanded “distinguishable design vis-à-vis the iPad for the P3.”
3. Apple made 23 to 32 percent on gross margins for iPads sold between April 2010 and March 2012.
4. The iPhone design was inspired by a Sony designer talking about "portable electronic devices that lacked buttons and other ‘excessive ornamentation,’ fit in the hand, were ‘square with a screen’ and had ‘corners [which] have been rounded out"
5. Apple researches consumer sentiment on existing products in order to optimize future designs.
Apparently, Apple argues that FRAND patents should be effectively free, estimating that Samsung's standards patents are worth less than 1¢ per device. Whereas, Apple thinks its design patents are worth $24 per device, and their utility patents are another $3 on top of that. Were that to hold, it would eliminate Samsung's profit margin. So, it's hard not to read this as Apple trying to cage viable competitors entirely out of the market through legal maneuvering.
As part of the standards process Samsung has committed to licensing these patterns under Fair, Reasonably and Non-Discrimartory terms, which means they can't ask Apple for a different rate than they give say Motorola or HTC. Because Apple's Design patents are not FRAND they are under no obligation to give anything to Samsung.
Because Samsung's patents are standards essential you can't build a cellphone without needing them (hence the FRAND licensing), while its certainly possible to build a cellphone that doesn't violate Apple's design patents (RIM, Nokia et al don't seem to be getting sued for example). This doesn't mean that Apple is right for suing companies for violating them, but what Samsung is doing is far far worse.
I don't know if the Samsung patents are groundbreaking or not. It could be that there were other similar options the standards committee could have selected but with Samsung in the room the choice with the Samsung patent was made so all implementers need a license.
Big companies often want to get their technology into the standard as that enables them to get a small per unit license fee across large numbers of devices. I know that was the case when I worked at Sony. If Samsung didn't want to make that patent FRAND they could have made it clear during standardisation and I'm sure it would have been left out. If patents in this area don't get into standards they are effectively worthless.
Remember that the a group of competitors sitting in a room discussing future terms of business is either a standards committee or an illegal cartel. The difference is the rules under which they operate to give others access to the market which include the FRAND commitments.
Apple should never have been granted a patent for slide-to-unlock, that's a trivial consequence of using a touchscreen UI.
If the Apple patent is shown to be invalid they won't get anything and Samsung won't have to work around it but whatever the situation there is no value in comparing prices between FRAND and non FRAND patents.
I don't recall any of the tech giants including Google and Samsung campaigning to get rid of whole categories of patents of for other major reforms. I would like patent reform but The law as it exists should be enforced.
Edit: Note that in this and my earlier post I am not commenting on the validity of either sides patents or what exactly the damages or license fees for either should be BUT that there is little value making a comparison between FRAND committed prices and those for any non FRAND prices.
They had enough physical buttons to make button unlock a viable option.
When you have only a touchscreen, the gestures available to you are taps and swipes. Taps easily happen accidentally, so some composition of swipes to unlock is the main obvious remaining option.
Those saying this is a major critical feature (I'm not)that reduces hardware costs and improves product design are really making the case that it is a good patent, novel and useful.
Either the designers didn't think about this approach or thought it wasn't the best solution. If anyone produced such a solution or documented it the patent should be invalidated for prior art.
My initial reaction to the patent was probably that is a bit trivial but better than many that get granted and that there should be plenty of workarounds. The slide to unlock definitely seems obvious once you have seen it but I'm not sure it is so obvious before you have seen it (it's quite hard to unwind your mind to a state of unknowing). You certainly need to asking the right questions: how can we remove all the buttons, how do you prevent it waking too easily.
There is no need for touchscreen phones to go completely buttonless. That is a design choice not an essential feature to exist in the market.
Apple launched into a rampage trying to sue every other viable competitor out of the market for supposed infringement. In defending themselves from these attacks, Apple's victims are responding aggressively with their FRAND patents and whatever else they have (and even then, they're asking for a tiny fraction of what Apple is). Put simply, if you engage in the kind of anti-competitive and bullying behavior that Apple does, and subsidize your own profit margins on the backs of everyone else, then you shouldn't be surprised when everyone else starts swinging back.
Qualcomm already licensed the patents in its chips that they sold to Apple, but then Samsung wanted more because it was Apple. That itself is violating the "non-discriminatory" part of FRAND. How is this Apple's fault?
Also, how do you feel about Samsung asking for 2.4% of the chip price for a single patent when there are so, so many patents that go into making a device like the iPhone? Is that fair?
Edit: Forget about the source, I found some very easily (Google "samsung frand qualcomm"). But still, I think it's quite discriminatory to demand from Apple 2.4% for each patent, especially when these patents are seen as standards for cellphones.
That is the normal case with patents, exclusive rights. When you step into a standards body and offer your technology you give up those rights unless you specifically and clearly declare that you aren't doing so (in which case other options will be chosen by the standards body).
So there are other ways to look at it. Is it fair that Samsung pushed it's technology into a standard and then holds other implementers to ransom or asks them to give up their legal rights to enter the market?
As I say elsewhere I'm not picking sides on the validity of particular patents or what damages or even FRAND license fees should be but I do think it is important that FRAND commitments are given weight and enforced.
For me forced cross licenses and percentages of finished product price are both discriminatory and not FRAND. Even percentage of chip price I have my doubts about as it discourages integration of chips with its hardware and power advantages. This doesn't mean that it must be less than 1c or even $1 but some mechanism to be fair to all patent holders while not pricing the standard out of use needs to be found.
Apple's patents are on such basic and obvious product aspects that it's nearly impossible to bring a viable product to market without running afoul. Would Apple's patents be overturned on reexamination? Almost certainly, but only after a long and protracted legal battle. Meanwhile, all it takes for Apple to kneecap their competitors is one injunction delaying the launch of a flagship product, or caging them out of peak holiday shopping season (which Apple did to Samsung last year).
Also the rates that Samsung is asking aren't consistent with other licensees as Samsung is tying the rate to the device rather than the baseband processor that uses the patent. Asking for $25 royalty on a $10 component is unreasonable, especially when said component requires a 100 other standards essential patents to function.
Does a patented oil pump cost more if fitted to a BMW verses a Ford Escort ?
2.4% of $650-$850 (Retail range of Unlocked iPhone 4S) is around $16-$20 per device. Quad-band 3G UMTS modems retail as low as $13 in lots of 1000. That's a full modem not just the UMTS chipset. And trust me Apple is not buying chipsets retail or in lots of 1000.
sources: http://www.fosspatents.com/2012/07/apple-seeks-25-billion-in...
http://www.alibaba.com/product-gs/571149685/Low_peice_OEM_7_...
I think Samsung can raise invalidity issues in the case before the judge/jury. If Apples patents are deemed invalid then they will get nothing.
The Apple patents that I'm aware of are fairly basic but can be worked around. E.g. by stopping scrolling dead at the end of the range and requiring something other than a swipe to unlock.
FRAND is a commitment made in standardisation to prevent the standards group from being an illegal cartel. That commitment should be kept. But a single company making a patented feature desirable would not trigger antitrust concerns in the general case so they wouldn't have needed to make an FRAND commitment. The potential exception would be for the Microsoft FAT patent because FAR is effectively a standard and while not created by a group of companies Microsoft was a monopolist. This is a rare case when I think FRAND may be appropriate rule for MS to adopt even if not legally require.
Yes the patent system is currently ridiculous and needs to grant far fewer but that is a complaint against the system which I would like to see reformed but you have to play by the rules in force. As I've said in a few posts I don't remember any tech giants (even Google and Samsung) campaigning against the patent system or even software patents. If the rules as they exist are enforced maybe that will change and the big players will want to change the system.
Legally the court will decide but that doesn't mean that we can't have views or that either company is necessarily behaving legally (if you steal something you aren't behaving legally until convicted). For my perspective I am assuming all patents valid (if they are invalidated the license fees are no problem as they will be zero).
Samsung is in my view breaching promises made to the world including me and threatening the whole standardisation process. At the very least everyone needs to understand just how weak FRAND commitments are and adjust their behaviour accordingly. If allowed to stand Samsung's view of FRAND could do massive global harm as it will mean even more desperate fights to keep patented technologies out of standards where the patents are owned by companies not trusted to 'do the right thing' which could lead towards standardisation deadlock. It could also lead to all sorts of other companies all trying to extract all the value of standards making them unaffordable in many use cases.
Compared to this I really can't see anything unfair at all in what Apple is doing. Saying if you want to use this unnecessary feature you have to pay us a lot of money sounds fair to me, you can freely choose not to use it (damages/back licenses before the patents are confirmed by a court should probably be lower). The damages claims are just claims I don't expect to be fully granted but that is just the system isn't it, claim the moon on a stick expecting to get half a stick at the end.
And yes, it's absolutely fair (about the subsidizing). That's how the market voted and that's how the carriers decided to do business. Majority rules here. If you don't like it, then vote with your wallet. Go to T-Mobile.
As a sidenote, I'm currently using a Samsung Galaxy S III on T-Mobile. But I still think what Samsung is doing with FRAND patents is wrong.
Not sticking to the FRAND terms it agreed to is a pretty bad move on Samsung's part. I believe the EU not happy about this development and is already looking into this so the move could blow up in Samsung's face.
http://i.imgur.com/KPGYL.jpg
I really don't appreciate this linguistic trend in the tech community to turn verbs into nouns in a non-standard, ad hoc way when perfectly fine nouns exist. I (unfortunately) hear it with "ask" fairly frequently at work, and it makes me feel like Jules from Pulp Fiction ("Use 'ask' as a noun again, I dare you...")
Can anyone shed some linguistic light on this trend?
Which is slightly different from “revelation”, though I agree with you that “revelation” is better word in this context.
Just thought I'd share this in case you're still reading the thread... I can't even reply to your hellbanned comments alas.
If anything, I would say this place is a little too full of apple fanboys, not the other way around. Get a grip on reality.