Patent wars iPhone 5 targeted

Glenn · Sep 21, 2011, 11:14:34

Samsung may try to get the iPhone 5 banned from sale in Europe, once it gets to look at the device to see if any Samsung patents have been infringed.

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/09/21/samsung_could_block_iphone_5_in_europe_patent_wars_rumble_on/

Rik · Sep 21, 2011, 11:21:32

This is just getting stupid. It's certainly not good for consumers.

Glenn · Sep 21, 2011, 11:35:59

It is, why can't they just license each others patents?

Rik · Sep 21, 2011, 11:52:04

They'd make a lot more progress, in all ways, if they did.

Simon · Sep 21, 2011, 12:22:20

Rik · Sep 21, 2011, 12:25:29

That about sums it up, Simon.

Lance · Sep 21, 2011, 12:36:27

Quote
Any legal success for Samsung would be a massive blow to Apple's signature product, whose eagerly awaited launch has been delayed already.

I wasn't aware The Register had seen Apple's timetable for the product!

.Griff. · Sep 21, 2011, 12:44:28

There's a lot of "could", "try", "might" and general guess work but I guess it makes a good story

john · Sep 21, 2011, 12:56:07

Quote from: Rik on Sep 21, 2011, 11:21:32
This is just getting stupid. It's certainly not good for consumers.

No it's not but good news for lawyers though.

zappaDPJ · Sep 21, 2011, 15:06:40

It's in keeping with the way people do business these days and not without some merit. Keeping your competitors tied up in legal red tape maximises your profits even if you lose and the amount paid out to lawyers is generally insignificant. I'm not condoning it, it's appalling, but these kind of business tactics will continue until the courts start introducing swingeing penalties for bringing frivolous lawsuits.

Polchraine · Sep 23, 2011, 01:08:10

Quote from: Glenn on Sep 21, 2011, 11:35:59
It is, why can't they just license each others patents?

Ultimately they do ... it just needs the court case to decide if te patent is valid and keep hundreds of lawyers and support staff in work.

I believe that Apple already pay Nokia around $2.80 for every iPhone ...

Technical Ben · Sep 23, 2011, 09:52:26

It seems though, that at least this time Samsung have a reason to do this. Apple have gone after so many Samsung devices (phones and tabs) that are honestly "different" enough not to be mistaken of Apple products. How would you respond if every morning your neighbour stopped you going to work? So, Samsung are showing Apple what it feels like to have someone get a judge to block trade to an entire section of your business over a "technicality". (If every company sued over similarities, there would be no products. The funny thing is, Apple sued Samsung over a small similarity. Samsung is suing Apple over actual technology patent infringement!)

Rik · Sep 23, 2011, 09:54:27

Let's hope they win, and the industry realises they are doing themselves no favours.

Technical Ben · Sep 23, 2011, 09:56:24

Looks like everyone is out to put down the school bully. http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/09/23/via_technologies_sues_apple/
I don't agree with it all. But did a similar thing not happen to MS and even Apple in the past anyhow?

Rik · Sep 23, 2011, 09:59:54

If you live by the sword, Ben...

Technical Ben · Sep 23, 2011, 18:01:26

Better to live by your word.

Rik · Sep 23, 2011, 18:02:22

True.

Simon · Sep 23, 2011, 18:07:46

I find breathing helps too.

Rik · Sep 23, 2011, 18:15:26

Oh, definitely.

Tacitus · Sep 24, 2011, 11:44:26

Quote from: Technical Ben on Sep 23, 2011, 09:52:26
Samsung is suing Apple over actual technology patent infringement!)

Samsung claim they are suing for infringement of wireless technologies - IOW something fundamental to the operation of a mobile phone. If that is the case shouldn't these be part of a standard and, if so, aren't they obliged to license them to all comers on FRAND terms? Surely it would be the makers of the basic chips (Qualcom?) that paid the fee and AFAIK double dipping isn't allowed.

Given it's an Apple product we're talking about, there's an awful lot of hot air and little in the way of solid information.

john · Sep 24, 2011, 22:43:51

A further developmeent with chip designer Via

Whilst I don't blame any company for protecting it's patents it does appear to me that Apple started these tit-fot-tat legal actions as a ploy to stop it's competitors selling rival products which may not infringe its patents but provide a similar functionality.

However I'm not familiar enough with Apple products to know if any patents from any of the companies involved have actually been infringed and I suspect deciding if they have will require quite a complex investigation by experts but I hope that ultimately whoever judges it makes the right decision.

Technical Ben · Sep 25, 2011, 20:49:52

Tacitus as far as I have read on the news snippets, that's partly what is expected. However, it may be Apple did not use the freely available standard, or are still liable to royalty fees even if free to use (but not "free" as it has a fee). If they did step on Samsungs toes, then ouch!

Tacitus · Sep 26, 2011, 15:54:19

Quote from: Technical Ben on Sep 25, 2011, 20:49:52
Tacitus as far as I have read on the news snippets, that's partly what is expected. However, it may be Apple did not use the freely available standard, or are still liable to royalty fees even if free to use (but not "free" as it has a fee). If they did step on Samsungs toes, then ouch!

Quite possible and I agree they may still be liable for royalties even if RAND terms did apply. Nonetheless it does seem odd that Samsung only decided to sue once Apple filed the original complaint. In the end whatever happens I expect it will be the lawyers who gain together with lazy sub-editors who get the opportunity to trot out the usual, bad Apple, rotten Apple etc, clichés

Technical Ben · Sep 26, 2011, 20:00:43

Well, it's like giving some veg to the neighbour, then finding out they sneak over at night and steal from your veg patch. Samsung was happy when Apple was using their patents with the equipment Samsung had already supplied them with. Now Apple are both suing the hand that feeds them and running to another supplier.