backtop


Print 29 comment(s) - last by Kiffberet.. on Jun 25 at 7:07 AM


  (Source: Getty Images)
No word on what they said about Apple's "rounded edges" design patent

It's all over again.  Samsung Electronics Comp., Ltd. (KSC:005930) has been smacked by a top federal court for violating Apple, Inc.'s (AAPL) patent on a bounce animation, according to a report by Reuters.

The "bounce" patent, also known as the "rubber band" patent, has long haunted Samsung.  In the U.S. that patent was used by Apple to slam Samsung with a bombshell $1.05B USD jury verdict and bans on certain products.  

But the win started to unravel with the preliminary invalidation of Apple's bounce patent -- U.S. Patent No. 7,469,381 -- one of three "technology" patents asserted in the case (the pinch to zoom patent has also been since invalidated).  The invalidation did find some individual claims in the bounce patent valid, which Apple is trying to leverage to preserve the patent in some form.

But the U.S. invalidation offered no protection to Samsung in Japan, where Apple holds an identical patent on the animation.  A Tokyo court on Friday ruled that Samsung had infringed on Apple's technology patents, including the infamous bounce patent.

Samsung Japan
Samsung lost a ruling in Tokyo court this week. [Image Source: Bloomberg]

Samsung has already tried to counter by implementing a new user interface feature in Japan.  When a users scrolls to the end of the document, rather than scroll slightly past and bounce, instead a blue bar now flashes on the bottom of the screen.  That may save Samsung's current handsets from bans in Japan.

Previously the Tokyo court circuit had largely refused to buy into Apple and Samsung's patent spat.  Back in Aug. 2012, it shot down Apple's accusations that Samsung infringed on patents pertaining to the syncing of music metadata.  Then in March of this year the court ruled that Apple did not infringe on Samsung's wireless standards patents.  

Apple first sued Samsung in Japan back in April 2011.  Currently Apple is in second place in the Japanese market, while Samsung is several spots back [source].

Source: Reuters



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

RE: It's actually valid.
By Reclaimer77 on 6/22/2013 11:13:55 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Software patents need to be outlawed and Samsung needs to respect the FRAND rules.


Uhhh Samsung did. They tried to negotiate with Apple for a fair and equitable licensing agreement, as stipulated by FRAND rules.

Apple then decided to refuse negotiating, and just steal the use of Samsung's FRAND technology anyway. And continue doing so for years!

Now please show me which "FRAND rules" say that you can just indefinitely use FRAND patented technology without ever paying anyone ONE red cent?


RE: It's actually valid.
By testerguy on 6/23/2013 1:49:43 AM , Rating: 1
quote:
They tried to negotiate with Apple for a fair and equitable licensing agreement, as stipulated by FRAND rules


No, the FRAND license means that Samsung has to offer Apple fair and reasonable rates. Samsung claims they did, Apple claims they did not.

quote:
Apple then decided to refuse negotiating, and just steal the use of Samsung's FRAND technology anyway


Consider the case that the reality was the latter - that Samsung was asking Apple for a price 2x more expensive than any other company, and unwilling to reduce the value. Should Apple now halt production of all of their devices, because Samsung made an unreasonable offer - or pay way over the odds for a FRAND patent? Clearly not. It's also debatable whether you can ever 'steal' use of a FRAND patent anyway - if you use it you incur liabilities but that isn't the same thing as stealing.

quote:
Now please show me which "FRAND rules" say that you can just indefinitely use FRAND patented technology without ever paying anyone ONE red cent?


Nobody, even Apple, is claiming that Samsung aren't entitled to fair and reasonable rates. The disagreement is over what constitutes 'fair' and 'reasonable'. But more importantly, when we refer to the abuse of FRAND patents in Samsung's case it's their choice to seek permanent bans (injunctions) on Apple's products over the FRAND patents, whereas they should really just seek the license fees they are due.

This can amount to anti-competitive behaviour and is against the spirit of FRAND patents.

If this behaviour was allowed, Samsung could deliberately offer Apple an unreasonable license fee for all of their products (claiming that it was reasonable) and then seek bans for all of their products. I highly doubt the injunction they sought will stand and I think it's becoming more and more likely that they will find themselves under investigation for FRAND abuse.


RE: It's actually valid.
By Reclaimer77 on 6/23/2013 9:32:01 AM , Rating: 4
quote:
Samsung claims they did, Apple claims they did not.


Apple's reputation in such areas is to the point that nobody would believe their side of the story except the most fervent fanboi. Like you.

quote:
Should Apple now halt production of all of their devices, because Samsung made an unreasonable offer - or pay way over the odds for a FRAND patent?


That's the point of arbitration. It's not up to Apple to decide "oh well, I don't like the way this is going, I'll just use the technology anyway and pay zero."

Apple has gone years, literally years, without paying one red cent for the technology that Samsung spent billions in R&D to develop. And you're sitting here talking about "FRAND abuse"? There's only one party here that's abusing the system, and everyone knows it.

Also just fyi, but you keep using the term "reasonable" as if there's some concrete legal definition of what is and isn't reasonable. I'm sure from Samsung's point of view, their offer was perfectly reasonable. From Apple's point of view, "reasonable" clearly means "free".


RE: It's actually valid.
By testerguy on 6/24/13, Rating: -1
RE: It's actually valid.
By retrospooty on 6/24/2013 12:28:59 PM , Rating: 1
The obtusely clandestine fanboy has spoken. :P


RE: It's actually valid.
By Reclaimer77 on 6/24/2013 4:17:03 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
What's certain is that Apple will not be under investigation for any kind of FRAND abuse.


On this we agree. It's hard to get in trouble for FRAND patents when you never actually develop any technologies ever.

quote:
That doesn't give Samsung the right to seek complete bans of the products


AHAHA if this isn't the pot calling the kettle man. As if Apple seeking bans for using rectangles is any more legitimate.


RE: It's actually valid.
By testerguy on 6/25/2013 5:45:00 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
It's hard to get in trouble for FRAND patents when you never actually develop any technologies ever.


Whether you have FRAND patents or not is not determined by whether you 'develop any technologies'. It's whether or not you want to OBLIGATE yourself to license a patent to the world at reasonable rates because the ALTERNATIVE is that every other company builds a workaround and your patent is worthless. It's a purely financial decision.

quote:
AHAHA if this isn't the pot calling the kettle man. As if Apple seeking bans for using rectangles is any more legitimate.


The Apple patents in question are not FRAND (and nor are any of them for 'rectangles' - so ignorant). Apple did not obligate itself to license them to any other company and is therefore legitimately able to seek bans for any products which infringe their patent. You need to understand that a FRAND obligation LESSENS THE POWER of the patent - the return is widespread adoption. The whole idea of FRAND is that an industry will only adopt a particular method of doing something (a standard) if the companies who developed it agree to never do anything anti-competitive with those patents - which is why they have to license them for fair and reasonable rates.

If Samsung hasn't agreed to the FRAND license, the industry would have picked any of the other several available options.

You need to grasp what FRAND means and why companies do it.


"We basically took a look at this situation and said, this is bullshit." -- Newegg Chief Legal Officer Lee Cheng's take on patent troll Soverain














botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki