Hopefully Samesung and Google (Motorola) will stop trolling Apple with Standards Essential Patent court cases now.
Jsut when everything was going against apple and was time for apple to pay back to other companies, this comes up.
Anonymous, 29 Apr 2014I don't get the news at all.
I havent heard of a single court case, where a company asks fo... moreI don't have any details on Apple's demand on Samsung for licencing their patents, but the ITC ban that was vetoed last year shed some light of some of the tactics Samsung used to try to license its SEPs and limit its competitors. It should noted that this was the only court that allowed Samsung to ban Apple's products based on SEPs. Every other court has thrown out such cases.
This action seems to strike at the heart of the strategy Samsung is using against Apple. It is related to the $18 billion fine that the EU is threatening to impose on samsung for using SEPs as a weapon.
According to the dissenting opinion of one of the ITC Commissioners, Samsung attached strings to their licence agreements with Apple. They were trying to add conditions to non-FRAND patents as a condition to the licensing their FRAND patents to Apple.
As I mentioned before, I don't know the details and exact terms that Samsung is requiring of Apple, but you seem to know more that me. What are Samsung's terms? How does that compare to their terms with similar companies? The patent that Samsung used in the ITC ruling was apparently an extremely small part of a larger communication standard. How does Samsung's demands compare to the other parts of that standard?
I don't get the news at all.
I havent heard of a single court case, where a company asks for injuction against another company on patents that they have licensed. I've heard of cases where a company seeks injuction against another company that does not want to license but still uses the technology, or in cases, where there is no licensing on the patent, but the other company infringes (Nokia vs Apple, Nokia vs HTC, are example of those).
Since Apple is mentioned, it should also be made clear that most of the time Apple is not willing to pay for teh license, at least not on a level anywhere near what competitors license at. You also have to factor in, that companies like Motorola, Samsung, Nokia and Ericsson (two of those no longer making phones), holds many standard essential patents, and have been on cross licensing deals, where they only paid a fraction in license cost, due to cross licensing, or perhaps did not pay at all, since the parties agreed that their patents where at least valued at the same level.
What Apple is trying to do, is to get the same cross licensing deals, despite their lack of standard essential patents. They claim to have patents that have the same value, like slide to unlock or pinch-to-zoom, but those patents should have been invalidated long time ago, due to prior art. So Apple clearly isnt willing to pay, so really, they should be punished, extremly, unless they change their attitude aginat other companies patents.
It seems that this ruling is aginst those aggresive cases, where injuction really seems ridiculess, but on the other hand they say the companies should settle this out of court. But if a case has gone so far that another company seeks ijunctions, there should at least be a damage case, instead, and thus not at all something that can be settled out of court.
I read the source, and it wasnt any more clear on the whole thing.