

Samsung to Seek Block on iPhone in Europe  - danso
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/06/technology/samsung-to-seek-block-on-iphone-in-europe.html?pagewanted=all

======
saturdaysaint
If Samsung's IP was really that strong - if they really have patents
"essential" to wireless communications - then my first question is why they
allow any competitors.

Florian Mueller makes a reasonable case that Samsung is trying to assert a
very different kind of patent in a highly unusual way -
[http://fosspatents.blogspot.com/2011/10/samsungs-attempt-
to-...](http://fosspatents.blogspot.com/2011/10/samsungs-attempt-to-ban-
iphone-4s-over.html). TLDR: these kind of patents fall under the FRAND (fair
reasonable non-discriminatory framework) and Samsung is obligated to grant
them to anyone ("non-discriminatory") that wants them for a "reasonable" fee.
To press an injunction without any arbitration violates the basic spirit of
FRAND. Agree with their case or not, Apple's patents in question do not have
these restrictions.

~~~
ajross
Because basically everyone has patents "essential" to something their
competitors do. So there's been a broad detente in the industry, where no one
sues indiscriminately on patents as a way to block their competitors. Except
that Apple broke the truce, so now out come the guns. Yawn. I find it hard to
believe that either side is really going to impede the other's sales much;
this is a play for better negotiating position by Samsung.

And yes, Apple was wrong to have shot first.

~~~
Steko
"So there's been a broad detente in the industry... Except that Apple broke
the truce... Apple was wrong to have shot first"

Apple shot first in the mobile industry the same way Greedo did.

[http://news.cnet.com/8301-27076_3-20073471-248/a-brief-
histo...](http://news.cnet.com/8301-27076_3-20073471-248/a-brief-history-of-
apples-mobile-tech-patent-battles/)

~~~
ajross
Way, way out of scope. I was talking specifically about Apple and Samsung.
That they got sued earlier by Nokia doesn't make it OK to go after other
vendors, sorry. And yes, Nokia was wrong too.

~~~
Steko
"I was talking specifically about Apple and Samsung."

previously on HN:

"broad detente in the industry"

I call shenanigans.

~~~
ajross
Indeed. It looks pretty bad when you selectively quote and drop the stuff I
said about Samsung. Please. This site should be better than that. Frankly I
don't even see where you disagree with anything I said. Apple sued Samsung in
a high stakes bit of asshattery, and Samsung did the same. You think either of
those is a _good_ thing?

~~~
Steko
"drop the stuff I said about Samsung."

Your stuff is right there, I parsed the quote I originally responded to that
made it clear you were very clearly _not_ originally talking about a specific
case -- a "broad detente in the industry" that Apple was the first to violate.
Saying after the fact that you were only talking about Samsung is moving the
goalposts. Maybe we don't disagree there but I'm hardly wrong for pointing out
what I did when I did.

"You think either of those is a good thing?"

I think Nokia had many innovations that Apple infringed on and Apple probably
deserved to be sued by Nokia and they paid up. I certainly don't remember
anyone crying about how Nokia started "high stakes asshattery" in that case.
Apparently it's only when Android vendors are the target of lawsuits that
people get up in arms.

I think Samsung comes very close to if not crossing the line of infringement
and Apple has the right to test that in court. You call this "high stakes
asshattery" but you can just as easily make the case that Samsung is the
asshat for blatant copying.

I think Samsung (like Nokia) has many technologies that Apple may infringe on.
Based on limited evidence we've seen it's not as compelling as Nokia's but
they have the right to test this in court or leverage it for a settlement or
whatever.

------
itg
From what I'm reading, it seems like Samsung is trying to use FRAND patents in
their injuction against Apple which I thought is a big no-no.

[http://fosspatents.blogspot.com/2011/10/samsungs-attempt-
to-...](http://fosspatents.blogspot.com/2011/10/samsungs-attempt-to-ban-
iphone-4s-over.html)

~~~
patrickaljord
This blogs is anti-google and anti-android and he constantly paints the google
side as the losing one even though he got proven wrong many times. No wonder
he did it again today. Samsung isn't just using FRAND patents in this
lawsuits. The majority of the patents Samsung claimed in their lawsuit
weren't.

> Also, Samsung can sue Apple if Apple is unwilling to pay which they aren't.
> The correct route (going by what I've read) to license FRAND patents would
> be: negotiate on price; if negotiations fail go to court to determine a fair
> price; if still the infringer doesn't want to pay seek an injunction and
> forced payment. (from
> [http://www.reddit.com/r/Android/comments/l1jcu/samsung_seeks...](http://www.reddit.com/r/Android/comments/l1jcu/samsung_seeks_iphone4s_sales_ban_in_italy_and/c2p32cy))

Also, a few years ago, Nokia sued Apple based on wifi FRAND patents, how did
it end up? With a settlement in favor of Nokia. If FRAND patents were
impossible to enforce, do you think it would have ended with a settlement?

~~~
cube13
>Also, a few years ago, Nokia sued Apple based on wifi FRAND patents, how did
it end up? With a settlement in favor of Nokia. If FRAND patents were
impossible to enforce, do you think it would have ended with a settlement?

It's not that FRAND patents are impossible to enforce. Nokia sued Apple after
neither side could get an agreement about the licensing terms. Apple held that
the terms Nokia was demanding were not fair. That was the entire reasoning
about the suits.

At the end of the day, it was not about whether or not Apple would pay Nokia.
That was a foregone conclusion. The entire suit was over how much Apple would
pay.

------
tlear
Seems that Apple decided to live by the sword so it might die by it,
depressing to watch such waste

~~~
raganwald
This comment frames it in a way that makes it sound like Apple is going to
suffer some negative consequences solely because it asserted its own patent
rights.

Companies like Microsoft and Nokia collect royalties from companies like Apple
and others by threat of patent litigation. By which I am suggesting that the
“sword” falls on everyone, not just those who wield it themselves. Thus, it
may be true that Apple wielded the sword and also true that Samsung is
wielding it against Apple, but we cannot assert that companies who don’t wield
the sword won’t find it wielded against them.

I suggest that the underlying problem with the patent situation in a field as
complex as technology is that since every non-trivial product seems to
infringe on a non-trivial number of patents owned by a wide range of
practising and non-practising entities, _everyone_ ends up dying by the sword.

Some pay by the month and die slowly, some resist and may face a more sudden
demise.

------
etherael
Such a terrible waste of time and money, yet you start a fire and it may well
burn you.

~~~
technoslut
With Apple's bank I don't think this is just about money. Since the beginning
of these lawsuits I felt Jobs was personally offended. This may be because he
felt backstabbed by Google or that OEM's were copying his creations at a
faster rate than he could innovate.

Regarding the article, I couldn't less what goes on between these companies. I
only care about major court decisions. What I'm more interested in is the
lawsuit regarding Motorola and Apple's multitouch patents.

~~~
etherael
I have severe difficulty with the idea that's actually what's happening here,
the iphone was nothing new when it came out and the good parts of it were
assimilated into pretty much everything after it, and the better phones that
came out after that point continued to beat the iphone in the feature and
performance war generally speaking, it seems to me that apple got annoyed that
the usability improvements that they made ended up being so trivial in the
grand scheme of things and were/are unable to compete with the pace of
evolution in the marketplace so wanted to try and force a result in the
courtroom.

For this, I think they deserve what they're getting here.

------
brackin
Samsung previously said they would try this the moment it was released so far
from a surprise. Big waste in time and money.

------
markokocic
Fight fire with fire.

------
nextparadigms
Apple has no one to blame by themselves. Instead of focusing so much on
lawsuits, they should've focused on launching the new iPhone on time, and also
on launching a real successor to the iPhone 4.

This is like US starting a nuclear war with China because "they stole their
jobs", and then when China sends some nukes back, they realize that maybe they
shouldn't have done that. Plus, it ends up destroying its own economy
financing a huge war, too, and focuses more and more on the war instead of
economical growth.

~~~
Shengster
> This is like US starting a nuclear war with China because "they stole their
> jobs"

This is more than a bit of a stretch. Apple has indeed launched a new iPhone 4
successor on time, so I'm not sure where you're trying to go with your
argument.

What indicates to you that Apple is using ALL of their financial resources to
go after Samsung?

