scene straight out of Bizarro World, Apple, Inc.'s (AAPL) lawyers are crying
foul about Samsung Electronics Comp., Ltd. (SEO:005930) and recent Google Inc. (GOOG) acquisitions Motorola's allegedly
"anticompetitive" use of patents.
I. Apple Claims Android Phone makers are "Abusing" Patent System
Yes, this is the same Apple that has initiated a patent war  with these smartphone rivals. And
it's the same rival that has tried to remove competing
products from the market, rather than agree to negotiate a licensing
fee. And it's the same company that patented multi-touch gestures 26 years after they were invented at
a research university. And it's the same company that allegedly doctored
evidence in European courts  to support its lawsuits
Yet in Apple's rose-colored glasses it is Samsung and Motorola who are bullies.
Apparently Apple is irate about these companies' countersuits, which rely largely on
patents covering wireless communications.
Many of these patents are governed by the "fair, reasonable and
non-discriminatory" (F/RAND) principle, as they were developed as part of
industry standards. Basically the premise is that R&D companies are
guaranteed to be paid, but generally have to license F/RAND patents to whoever
wants to use them.
But given Apple's legal belligerence, the carriers have made a special
exception when it comes to Apple. And Apple, struggling in court, is
growing increasingly frustrated.
The company's lawyers stated in a recent Motorola hearing, "By making
false commitments that led to the establishment of worldwide standards
incorporating its own patents and eliminating competing alternative
technologies. Motorola [Mobility] has become a gatekeeper, accruing the power
to harm or eliminate competition in the relevant markets if it so
Apple takes issue with the fact that Motorola in its countersuit declines to
differentiate the 7 F/RAND patents in its 18 patent collection. In a
previous case Finland's Nokia Oyj. (HEL:NOK1V)
used F/RAND patents, along with other patents, to win a cross-licensing settlement with Apple.
However, apparently in that case Nokia differentiated the F/RAND patents
in a special section of its court filings -- something Apple is supposedly okay
II. Apple Supporters Chime In
Apple has some allies in the F/RAND debate.
On Bloomberg TV the founder and CEO of a leading standards certifier M-CAM, Dr.
David Martin, joined the attack, calling Motorola's patents "crap"
and stating, "And the relatively
best ones MMI has -- which wasn't discussed on Bloomberg -- are subject to
And pro-Apple patent blogger Florian Mueller comments, "[T]here have been
completely off-base claims by some people that the 18 patents MMI is asserting
against Apple are so powerful that they can protect Android as a whole
(including other OEMs, such as Samsung, HTC and LG). [Google is] issuing
statements that blow the strategic value of MMI's patents completely out of
proportion. Googlorola won't help Samsung, as I explained before."
He quotes Apple's lawyers writing, "Samsung has unlawfully acquired
monopoly power in markets for the technologies purportedly covered by patents
which Samsung claims are essential to industry standards ('declared essential
patents') by deceiving standards-setting organizations ('SSOs')... having
obtained this ill-gotten monopoly power, Samsung has engaged in a relentless
campaign of illegal and abusive assertions of its declared-essential patents to
try to coerce Apple into tolerating Samsung's continuing imitation of [the
iPhone and the iPad]."
III. EDITORIAL: Our Take
Regardless of what Mr. Mueller says, it's hard to dispute that the
"rules" of F/RAND are largely community dictated and ambiguous.
This is clearly a highly specialized case in which one company is using
questionable claims (e.g. the ownership of all modern smart phone and tablet
designs) to try to dictate its will on the market and grant itself a monopoly.
Whether the victims still have to bow down and offer their
attacker F/RAND licensing is certainly debatable.
And Mr. Mueller's assertion that the IP won't help Motorola and Samsung's case
seems disingenuous. After all, if it were so inconsequential, why would
Apple be so upset about it in court?
This isn't the first time that Apple has accused competitors over something it
itself is doing. Apple chief executive and co-founder,
Steven P. Jobs has bragged about his mastery of stealing ideas from
others, stating [video], "Picasso had a
saying - 'Good artists copy, great artists steal.' And we have always
been shameless about stealing great ideas."
But faced with large touch-screen competitors to his iPhone and iPad, the CEO
and Apple's lawyers cried foul, accusing these rivals of "slavishly"
copying the company's intellectual property.
quote: It looks this round is for SamsungApple cannot try to protect themselves to the point where they want a different treatment in court. So if they fail protect their iDevices, then be it.
quote: However as a digital artist I can't never justify Samsung copying/stilling, etc and NO matter if Steve Jobs or someone else says so I don't respect stilling as an art expression. Although I like the Galaxy line and I can recognize a merit in them I can see to much of Apple's own design. Like it or not there are virtual infinite ways to approach a design. And to me there is no justification on the "Apple trying to monopolize the tablet design" argument. I bet in the next incarnations we will see more differentiated devices and equally winning designs from someone else. Come on!
quote: Also I don't understand why Apple haters want to defeat Apple is they end up with at least some of Apple taste in other devices. If you hate something try something different and don'r include in your diet the same ingredient you hate.
quote: Whether or not it's true is irrelevant to the metaphor.
quote: Come to think of it, Steve Jobs never claimed to invent the iPhone...
quote: And indeed Samsung wasn't crazy/arrogant enough to try to claim ownership of multi-touch, something that had long ago entered into the public domain. Apple was, and thanks to its high priced legal team somehow squeaked the patent by incompetent reviewers at the USPTO and other international patent offices.