

Google joins Samsung in patent dispute with Apple - arpit
http://www.bgr.com/2012/07/02/samsung-apple-patent-dispute-google/

======
X-Istence
Isn't the whole point of FRAND licensing so that companies can't ask for
exorbitant amount of fees in licensing for technologies that are required for
standards defined by various standard bodies.

This reminds me of the Apple v. Motorola lawsuit in which Motorola was
attempting to charge more than FRAND for a patent that is related to UMTS
networks and is part of the standard. That case got dismissed with prejudice
(no re-filing). Samsung seems to be doing the same thing and I wonder if this
judge will throw that part out.

~~~
CountSessine
Actually, all of this talk of unscrupulous companies poisoning the standards-
bodies wells reminds me of the Rambus case with JEDEC.

Rambus applied for a bunch of DRAM patents and then simultaneously kept mum
when asked by their JEDEC co-members for a list of relevant patents (which
they were _required_ to provide as JEDEC members). JEDEC finalized their
standard, everyone started making and selling products, and then Rambus'
submarine patents surfaced and everyone was stuck having to pay Rambus license
fees. Rambus betrayed JEDEC, their JEDEC co-members, and everyone involved in
DRAM standardization and cleverly steered them all right into an iceberg.

Somehow what Motorola and Samsung are doing here is morally above this. I
guess it's because they're working with Google.

~~~
taligent
And we all know what happened with Rambus. They've spent the last decade in
litigation with the FTC/EU.

I hope history repeats itself with the Android OEMs and a hard lesson gets
sent to everyone that the standards process is sacrosanct.

------
kenjackson
This is the second time Google has supported a partner who is asking absurd
percentages on FRAND patents.

Of all the IP litigation that is happening, why is Google seemingly supporting
the least defensible and moral claims?

Maybe Google feels that the world is indifferent about their behavior here,
but outside of strong supporters of open source code I feel like Google is
losing the PR war about their integrity.

~~~
ajross
High fees are the "least" defensible? Apple _just asked for and got_ a full-on
import ban on the Galaxy Nexus...

None of this serves to justify the nonsense out there. But if you're willing
to look the other way when one side plays hardball, don't be shocked when
their opponent hits back. Patents are a huge mess, but this is hardly a one-
sided issue about "Google", and to try to make it so is plain disingenuous.

(I suppose the counter argument is that Apple's patents were never termed
FRAND, so that makes a technical difference. Might be so. But that's certainly
not a "moral" difference, which seems to be the terrain you're standing on in
your argument. _Edit: and multiple folks posted just that. Let's just say I
find that argument nonsense, "FRAND" is a technical distinction, not a moral
one; try explaining it to your non-industry friends for an existence proof of
that._ )

~~~
cooldeal
The moral difference is that they're not keeping their promise to the standard
bodies which would've tried to work around the patents otherwise.

Lets say a company abuses a FRAND patent related to Wifi or GPS (that it
previously deemed FRAND due to which their technology was included) and
demands 20% of the price, that is much worse than Slide2Unlock, since
Slide2Unlock can be worked around much easier than making a new Wifi or GPS
standard and shipping hundreds of millions of devices, routers, GPS chips and
launching satellites again.

Don't get me wrong, I hate the stupid Slide to Unlock patent as much as you,
but there is certainly a moral difference between abusing a regular patent and
a FRAND patent.

With Nokia getting into losses, this is a worrying trend since they own so
many FRAND patents. If all these cases set a bad precedent on FRAND patents,
we'll be doubly screwed.

~~~
ajross
I don't see it that way at all, sorry. Both have the effect of eliminating
valid competition from the market. Both are bad. Condemning one and not the
other _makes you, personally, part of the problem and not the solution_ ,
because you're fighting only on one side. Your utopia, apparently, has Apple
squeezing everyone else from the market. You'll forgive me if I question the
moral basis for your argument.

~~~
flyinRyan
One way might be ethically bad, but the other puts the squeeze on _everyone_.
What Google is involved in here is unquestionalby worse than what Apple is
doing (attacking one company for a perceived copy job).

I think the issue is that you're an Apple hater/Android Fanboy and you're
letting this clod your logic.

Getting kicked in the shin by a stranger is bad, as is getting shot point
blank in the belly by a sawed off shotgun. Two things being bad doesn't mean
one isn't worse.

~~~
ajross
No. Just no. Google (really Samsung, but whatever -- let's leave Google as the
proxy here for simplicity) isn't squeezing "everyone." They're squeezing
exactly one party, who happens to have already sued them. This is a defensive
move in a larger battle, and viewing it as one-sided while cheering for an at-
best-equally-at-fault party is just perpetuating the absurd status quo. Either
you think patents suits are bad, or you are part of the problem.

~~~
flyinRyan
Nonsense. If Samsung gets away with this it will have implicates for all
agreements of this kind. Your hate for Apple is completely clogging your logic
here.

~~~
ajross
What implications will it have, exactly? Let's just say what you seem to be
implying: that FRAND agreements are worthless once you sue someone. Is that so
bad? The patent covenants in the open source world almost always include this
kind of term already.

So explain to me why the world will fall apart if everyone gets to ignore
FRAND terms when used against parties that are already suing them over patent
licenses? That sounds like a _good_ thing to me.

------
sjwright
A patent owner can accept FRAND conditions and the patent becomes part of the
standard. They then earn a steady stream of licensing money off the ensuing
trillion dollar industry.

A patent owner can reject FRAND and their technology does not get included in
the standard.

There is no third option.

You can't decide after the trillion dollar industry establishes, to renege on
FRAND, because your patent was only made part of the standard -- and therefore
only has value -- because of that commitment to FRAND.

~~~
thechut
Not all of the patents are FRAND licensing related! See my answer in the other
comment

------
jkn
I've seen some hyperbolic statements on Google/Motorola/Samsung vs. Apple
FRAND patent litigation recently, as if such tactics were unprecedented, and
the amounts asked scandalous. I would suggest every person who is getting
emotional in the Apple-Android dispute to have a look at this document on 4G
FRAND patents:

[http://www.investorvillage.com/uploads/82827/files/LESI-
Roya...](http://www.investorvillage.com/uploads/82827/files/LESI-Royalty-
Rates.pdf)

It gives some context: _Audiences can expect to see the same licensing
challenges that first appeared in GSM (2G) and which re-appeared in UMTS (3G)
starring again in LTE (4G). The plot is essentially the same: lots of
essential patents and many different patent holders._

And an interesting quote from Motorola (undated, accessed in 2009):

 _Motorola expects that its essential patent royalty rate for LTE systems and
equipment will be approximately 2.25 percent._

I'll leave to the courts to decide if this is an appopriate royalty rate for
an iPhone. Note that there is a trend of declining rates: Qualcomm used to
collect between 4% and 5% of the sales price for FRAND patent royalties[1].
This has since declined to about 3% [2]. As for court actions, Nokia settled
with Apple in 2011[3] over FRAND patents[4] for €800m. Apple would also pay
Nokia €8 per device, equivalent to 1.75% of the sales price.

That being said, I agree that injunctions should not be granted on FRAND
patents. I can't imagine a case where it makes sense.

[1] [http://www.sramanamitra.com/2007/05/22/iphone-and-the-
future...](http://www.sramanamitra.com/2007/05/22/iphone-and-the-future-of-
qualcomm-addendum/)

[2]
[http://www.forbes.com/sites/greatspeculations/2011/01/21/qua...](http://www.forbes.com/sites/greatspeculations/2011/01/21/qualcomm-
faces-falling-cdma-royalty-rates/)

[3] [http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2011/jun/14/apple-
nokia...](http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2011/jun/14/apple-nokia-patent-
case)

[4] [http://www.scribd.com/doc/28285432/Nokia-s-Motion-to-
Dismiss...](http://www.scribd.com/doc/28285432/Nokia-s-Motion-to-Dismiss-
Apple-s-Implausible-Claims)

------
eitland
Direct link to full article:
[http://www.koreatimes.co.kr/www/news/tech/2012/07/133_114203...](http://www.koreatimes.co.kr/www/news/tech/2012/07/133_114203.html)

------
andybak
Isn't a FRAND agreement legally binding? Surely it's more than just a
"gentleman's agreement"?

------
etherael
Software patents are intrinsically a mutually assured destruction scenario.
The button has been pushed, it's too late to complain about the unfairness of
overly brutal retaliation.

This farce should never have been started, now that it has, the entire racket
needs to be ended, the ball is in the court of the legal system. I'm not
holding my breath on the expectation that they'll fix everything anytime soon,
so now the market suffers.

There's plenty of blame to hand out, but as in all mutually assured
destruction scenarios the lion's share has to go to the guy that pushed the
big red button.

------
clamps123
Time to boycott Google? /sarcasm

------
wissler
I suppose it's too much to hope that this patent war keeps on escalating until
the destructiveness of patents is evident to everyone, for at some point these
big companies will declare a truce and turn their attention to smaller
victims, at which point the patent war won't garner as much attention and
it'll be back to business as usual: keeping the smaller companies from
challenging the bigger ones.

