x PhoneArena is looking for new authors! To view all available positions, click here.
  • Home
  • News
  • Apple's filing reveals DOJ investigation of Samsung's use of its FRAND patents

Apple's filing reveals DOJ investigation of Samsung's use of its FRAND patents

Posted: , by Alan F.

Tags:

Apple's filing reveals DOJ investigation of Samsung's use of its FRAND patents
Last week, we told you that Google was thinking about settling with the FTC over charges that the company refused to make an attempt to license its FRAND patents. These are basically standard-essential patents that under the FRAND designation must be licensed at a fair price. Google has said that many of its competitors, like Apple, are quick to take other companies to court rather than seek fair terms for its FRAND patents. A filing made by Apple with the ITC claims that Samsung is being investigated by the Department of Justice and the EC over misuse of its standard-essential patents. Apple's filing was in response to a demand from Samsung to the ITC seeking a U.S. import ban on Apple's major devices.

Apple's statement says the DOJ is after Samsung

Apple's statement says the DOJ is after Samsung

Did Apple reveal information it had learned from some source, or did the Cupertino based firm merely read the newspaper? According to a Bloomberg article from this summer, "U.S. antitrust regulators have agreed the FTC will focus on Motorola Mobility and the Justice Department will scrutinize Samsung Electronics Co.’s handling of industry-standard patent claims." By making a statement like this on a filing that will stay forever in the public record, Apple takes some of the heat off itself and turns it on Samsung. 

Samsung replied by filing a public interest statement on Monday saying that it's request for a 2.4% royalty for its FRAND patents is fair. As pointed out by Florian Mueller, if all holders of SEP ask for 2.4%, no one would make any money selling handsets. And if both Apple (as claimed by Google) and Samsung are both quick to use the courts to force their FRAND rates on companies willing to pay royalties to license these patents, what good is the FRAND structure?

"Permitting the owner of a FRAND-encumbered patent to have an injunction against someone willing to pay FRAND royalties is tantamount to making the patent holder the dictator of the royalties, which once again is the same thing as no FRAND commitment at all."-Professor Herbert J. Hovenkamp, University of Iowa College of Law

source: FOSSPatents via AndroidAuthority

17 Comments
  • Options
    Close




posted on 24 Oct 2012, 00:18 7

1. Naitto (Posts: 50; Member since: 15 Sep 2012)


Will this crap ever end.

posted on 24 Oct 2012, 00:33

2. Mxyzptlk (Posts: 4147; Member since: 21 Apr 2012)


Only when companies stop violating patents.

posted on 24 Oct 2012, 03:55 7

12. Savage (unregistered)


Correction - Only when Apple stops suing their biggest competitors over childish, trivial and troll patents.

posted on 24 Oct 2012, 21:46

16. Mxyzptlk (Posts: 4147; Member since: 21 Apr 2012)


Protecting your property isn't trivial

posted on 24 Oct 2012, 00:34

3. Mxyzptlk (Posts: 4147; Member since: 21 Apr 2012)


Should have figured Samsung's patents were FRAND. Just can't go out and sue a company for something that's fair and reasonable.

posted on 24 Oct 2012, 01:49 6

7. bayusuputra (Posts: 943; Member since: 12 Feb 2012)


still, if you compare the patents, one has industry essential patents, the other one only has patents that includes shapes resembling my toast in the morning and gesture that is similar to unzipping my pants..

just can't go out and sue a company for something that's so stupid and unreasonable..

posted on 24 Oct 2012, 01:59 2

9. rusticguy (Posts: 2828; Member since: 11 Aug 2012)


Which gesture is like unzipping which is patented by Apple? ... ... aah is it slide to unlock ?:D :D :D

posted on 24 Oct 2012, 01:06 6

4. Droid_X_Doug (Posts: 5951; Member since: 22 Dec 2010)


Sounds like a desperation move on Apple's part. If you can't get the patents invalidated, get them determined to be subject to FRAND rules.

BTW, just because DOJ is investigating, doesn't mean Sammy is guilty. What is that principle - Innocent until proven guilty?

posted on 24 Oct 2012, 20:34

14. cheetah2k (Posts: 867; Member since: 16 Jan 2011)


Agreed, I can't see why Sammy would be in trouble over seeking what's only fair for its FRAND patents.

I'm sure Apple asked Samsung for more than that for the gallery bounce patent, which has just been invalidated anyway (lol)

posted on 24 Oct 2012, 01:31

5. Naitto (Posts: 50; Member since: 15 Sep 2012)


I think people should just stop buying products from the both of them untill they grow up. Yeah it might mean giving up the best of both worlds for a year; but they will lessen to your wallet.

posted on 24 Oct 2012, 01:46

6. webOSlove (unregistered)


Here we go again....

posted on 24 Oct 2012, 01:58

8. rusticguy (Posts: 2828; Member since: 11 Aug 2012)


Simple solution is all SW patents should be free for all in 2 years from date of being alloted. 2 years bis big time to recover your so called expenses on R&D. Grow up.

posted on 24 Oct 2012, 03:34 2

10. someones4 (Posts: 619; Member since: 16 Sep 2012)


the problem which i see here is no one seems to actually know which terms are fair and which are not.
Maybe samsung feels that 2.4% is fair but apple does not.
This scenario is similar when someone tried to sell me homemade cookies for 10 dollars. She feels it is fair but i certainly don't

posted on 24 Oct 2012, 03:43

11. rusticguy (Posts: 2828; Member since: 11 Aug 2012)


Actually Samsung i guess had quoted that others are paying so what's the big deal with apple why can't they pay. On that note the judge wanted all the deal papers between to be tabled and that made M$ and some other company shiver so both started lobbying not to let that happen. This whole patent, licensing and cross licensing deals are more murkier than we all know. I think Reuters was pressing hard for the deal details to be tabled but both M$ and some otehr company were wanting it avoided. No one is a SAINT in all this.

posted on 24 Oct 2012, 10:16

13. tedkord (Posts: 5250; Member since: 17 Jun 2009)


Fair and reasonable would be the same rate others pay. Is that 2.4%? I don't know. But that's the only way a rate can be fair and reasonable.

However, it wouldn't surprise me to find out that Apple didn't want to pay the same as others.

Ironically, if Apple were to price their iPhone fairly and reasonably (with a 20% profit margin), they'd probably pay less than others at the same 2.4% royalty rate.

posted on 24 Oct 2012, 21:11 1

15. InspectorGadget80 (Posts: 6729; Member since: 26 Mar 2011)


FCK U APPLE AND FCK U ITC HAVE NO RIGHT TO BAN THE COMPETITION. JUST ADMIT YOU'RE SCARED AS FCK. there's no piece as long APPLE pays the court system and judges

posted on 25 Oct 2012, 14:10

17. networkdood (Posts: 6326; Member since: 31 Mar 2010)


peace

Want to comment? Please login or register.

Latest stories