Apple v. Samsung: Surprises in Latest Court Documents • Hacker News Board

Re: Apple v. Samsung: Surprises in Latest Court Documents

#11

Post by spiralpolitik » Sat, Jul 28, 2012, 6:00 PM UTC

justinschuh wrote: post #5

Wired's article certainly presents Apple's side of the story. Although, the Samsung take is pretty interesting: http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20120726121512518 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 a…

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.

Re: Apple v. Samsung: Surprises in Latest Court Documents

#12

Post by tl » Sat, Jul 28, 2012, 6:06 PM UTC

nirvana wrote: post #10

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.

Looking at the comments, his last non-dead comment was 22 days ago. I don't see anything particular worthy of a ban though.

Re: Apple v. Samsung: Surprises in Latest Court Documents

#13

Post by jsnell » Sat, Jul 28, 2012, 6:11 PM UTC

amartya916 wrote: post #4

SoftwareMaven wrote: post #2

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.

I also read that Best Buy had people returning the Galaxy Tab because they had originally thought that it was the iPad. Link: 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 confu…

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...

Re: Apple v. Samsung: Surprises in Latest Court Documents

#14

Post by patrickaljord » Sat, Jul 28, 2012, 6:30 PM UTC

spiralpolitik wrote: post #11

justinschuh wrote: post #5

Wired's article certainly presents Apple's side of the story. Although, the Samsung take is pretty interesting: http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20120726121512518 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 a…

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…

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.

Re: Apple v. Samsung: Surprises in Latest Court Documents

#15

Post by justinschuh » Sat, Jul 28, 2012, 6:34 PM UTC

spiralpolitik wrote: post #11

justinschuh wrote: post #5

Wired's article certainly presents Apple's side of the story. Although, the Samsung take is pretty interesting: http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20120726121512518 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 a…

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…

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.

Re: Apple v. Samsung: Surprises in Latest Court Documents

#16

Post by gareim » Sat, Jul 28, 2012, 6:54 PM UTC

justinschuh wrote: post #15

spiralpolitik wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

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 ramp…

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?

Re: Apple v. Samsung: Surprises in Latest Court Documents

#17

Post by weaksauce » Sat, Jul 28, 2012, 6:54 PM UTC

nirvana wrote: post #10

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.

Re: Apple v. Samsung: Surprises in Latest Court Documents

#18

Post by gareim » Sat, Jul 28, 2012, 6:55 PM UTC

patrickaljord wrote: post #14

spiralpolitik wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

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 develo…

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.

Re: Apple v. Samsung: Surprises in Latest Court Documents

#19

Post by justinschuh » Sat, Jul 28, 2012, 7:11 PM UTC

gareim wrote: post #16

justinschuh wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 ramp…

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.

Re: Apple v. Samsung: Surprises in Latest Court Documents

#20

Post by jacobolus » Sat, Jul 28, 2012, 7:57 PM UTC

jemfinch wrote: post #8

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 an…

Pretty sure the “reveal” here is supposed to be this kind: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reveal_(arts_and_showbusiness)

Which is slightly different from “revelation”, though I agree with you that “revelation” is better word in this context.