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
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.

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?

source: FOSSPatents via AndroidAuthority



1. Naitto

Posts: 50; Member since: Sep 15, 2012

Will this crap ever end.

2. Mxyzptlk unregistered

Only when companies stop violating patents.

12. Savage unregistered

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

16. Mxyzptlk unregistered

Protecting your property isn't trivial

3. Mxyzptlk unregistered

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

7. bayusuputra

Posts: 963; Member since: Feb 12, 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..

9. rusticguy

Posts: 2828; Member since: Aug 11, 2012

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

4. Droid_X_Doug

Posts: 5993; Member since: Dec 22, 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?

14. cheetah2k

Posts: 2213; Member since: Jan 16, 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)

5. Naitto

Posts: 50; Member since: Sep 15, 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.

6. webOSlove unregistered

Here we go again....

8. rusticguy

Posts: 2828; Member since: Aug 11, 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.

10. someones4

Posts: 627; Member since: Sep 16, 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

11. rusticguy

Posts: 2828; Member since: Aug 11, 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.

13. tedkord

Posts: 17302; Member since: Jun 17, 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.

15. InspectorGadget80 unregistered

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

17. networkdood

Posts: 6330; Member since: Mar 31, 2010


Latest Stories

This copy is for your personal, non-commercial use only. You can order presentation-ready copies for distribution to your colleagues, clients or customers at or use the Reprints & Permissions tool that appears at the bottom of each web page. Visit for samples and additional information.