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

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

#21

Post by gareim » Sat, Jul 28, 2012, 8:06 PM UTC

justinschuh wrote: post #19

gareim wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

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

#22

Post by josephlord » Sat, Jul 28, 2012, 8:40 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…

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.

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

#23

Post by makomk » Sat, Jul 28, 2012, 9:00 PM UTC

justinschuh wrote: post #19

gareim wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

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.

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

#24

Post by nolok » Sat, Jul 28, 2012, 10:03 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.

Banned for defending apple on hackernews ? Are you actually believing what you say ?

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.

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

#25

Post by justinschuh » Sat, Jul 28, 2012, 10:09 PM UTC

gareim wrote: post #21

justinschuh wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

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?

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

#26

Post by [deleted] » Sat, Jul 28, 2012, 10:17 PM UTC

justinschuh wrote: post #25

gareim wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

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.…

[deleted]

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

#27

Post by briandear » Sat, Jul 28, 2012, 10:38 PM UTC

justinschuh wrote: post #25

gareim wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

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.…

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.

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

#28

Post by amartya916 » Sat, Jul 28, 2012, 10:40 PM UTC

jsnell wrote: post #13

amartya916 wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 diffe…

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 :)

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

#29

Post by Peaker » Sat, Jul 28, 2012, 11:01 PM UTC

josephlord wrote: post #22

patrickaljord wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

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 roo…

The problem is a patent may be worth so much because it is so trivial that doing anything else is silly.

Apple should never have been granted a patent for slide-to-unlock, that's a trivial consequence of using a touchscreen UI.

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

#30

Post by josephlord » Sat, Jul 28, 2012, 11:21 PM UTC

Peaker wrote: post #29

josephlord wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 roo…

The problem is a patent may be worth so much because it is so trivial that doing anything else is silly. Apple should never have been granted a patent for slide-to-unlock, that's a trivial consequence of using a touchscreen UI.

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.