Request for E-book Letter by Mikey Campbell
DOJ Proposal Brief by Mikey Campbell
Sources: Apple Insider, DOJ Brief, Apple Brief
quote: Apple also criticizes Samsung for tying some of its license offers to the settlement of litigation. We find Apple's argument to be somewhat hypocritical. The following sentence from Apple's submission to the Commission on April 10, 2013, indicates that Apple has no intention of paying Samsung any royalties until after the conclusion of litigation: If the Commission were to determine that the '348 patent is valid, infringed, and enforceable -- and it should not for all the reasons the ALJ found and Apple previously briefed -- and if that judgment were affirmed on appeal, Apple would stand ready to pay FRAND royalties.Resp. Apple Inc.'s Reply Submission at 20 (April 10, 2013) (public version April 12, 2013). Apple's position illustrates the potential problem of so-called reverse patent hold-up , a concern identified in many of the public comments received by the Commission.20 In reverse patent hold-up, an implementer utilizes declared-essential technology without compensation to the patent owner under the guise that the patent's owner's offers to license were not fair or reasonable. The patent owner is therefore forced to defend its rights through expensive litigation. In the meantime, the patent owner is deprived of the exclusionary remedy that should normally flow when a party refuses to pay for the use of a patented invention….Samsung can hardly be accused of patent hold-up when it has licensed its declared-essential patents -- including the '348 and '644 patents -- to more than 30 companies.Apple and some public commenters have also argued that issuing a remedy for a patent owner that has breached its FRAND obligation would result in patent hold-up, undermine SSOs, and thereby harm competitive conditions in the U.S. economy and U.S. consumers. Whatever the merits of such arguments, they are inapt to the facts of this investigation. As we have determined above, Apple has not proved that Samsung violated a FRAND obligation, and Samsung has widely licensed the '348 patent. We need not decide here whether some future investigation showing evidence of patent hold-up or of harm to SSOs would require a different analysis
quote: As discussed above, in certain circumstances seeking injunctive relief may constitute a breach of the RAND commitment, whereas in other circumstances such conduct may be proper.
quote: The administration is preventing a situation that would have been overturned in court anyways. SEP's only mean that Apple would be obliged to pay for the patents if found to be infringing, there is no way Samsung can prevent them from using such patents as they are licensed under FRAND terms.
quote: The Judge in the Moto vs MS case pointed out that in other circumstances it *may* be proper, but this circumstance is remarkably similar to the Moto vs MS one.
quote: As for the rest, you are already misrepresenting the judge and the law. This would not have stood in any court, and that is the reason the administration overruled it.