Groklaw - Digging for Truth

	When you want to know more...

Home
Archives
Site Map
Search
About Groklaw
Awards
Legal Research
Timelines

ApplevSamsung
ApplevSamsung p.2
ArchiveExplorer
Autozone
Bilski
Cases
Cast: Lawyers
Comes v. MS
Contracts/Documents
Courts
DRM
Gordon v MS
GPL
Grokdoc
HTML How To
IPI v RH
IV v. Google
Legal Docs
Lodsys
MS Litigations
MSvB&N
News Picks
Novell v. MS
Novell-MS Deal
ODF/OOXML
OOXML Appeals
OraclevGoogle
Patents
ProjectMonterey
Psystar
Quote Database
Red Hat v SCO
Salus Book
SCEA v Hotz
SCO Appeals
SCO Bankruptcy
SCO Financials
SCO Overview
SCO v IBM
SCO v Novell
SCO:Soup2Nuts
SCOsource
Sean Daly
Software Patents
Switch to Linux
Transcripts
Unix Books

Gear

Groklaw Gear

You won't find me on Facebook

Donate

No Legal Advice

The information on Groklaw is not intended to constitute legal advice. While Mark is a lawyer and he has asked other lawyers and law students to contribute articles, all of these articles are offered to help educate, not to provide specific legal advice. They are not your lawyers.

Here's Groklaw's comments policy.

What's New

STORIES
No new stories

COMMENTS last 48 hrs
No new comments

Sponsors

Hosting:

On servers donated to ibiblio by AMD.

Webmaster

Ericcson filing patent infringement suits against Samsung | 219 comments | Create New Account

Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.

And you base all that on....????

Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, December 03 2012 @ 08:13 PM EST

A link to the particular article/blog/whatever you read for the information you have disseminated would be nice.

I take it you have access to all the evidence being presented so you can back your statements including:

Samsung is refusing to [pay a FRAND fee]

Or are you simply going by the accusations of Ericcson?

Over the years, some of us have learned not to necessarily take the claims in the initial pleading at face value. After all - SCOG insisted Linux contained Unix SYS V code. A claim that SCOG was unable to prove after having "MIT deep divers" go through the source code of both.

In other words: it might be just a little early for your jubilation at the pain of Samsung.

RAS

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

Ericcson filing patent infringement suits against Samsung

Authored by: PJ on Monday, December 03 2012 @ 10:52 PM EST

Apple is not at all willing to pay for FRAND
patents. In fact, its case against Motorola,
where it claimed Motorola was asking for too
much for FRAND patents, was just thrown out
in large part precisely because Apple told the
judge they'd only pay if she set a price low
enough to suit.

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

From what I read in the press

Authored by: hardmath on Tuesday, December 04 2012 @ 03:03 AM EST

Ericsson seems to have refused to renew the licenses Samsung
paid for patents in the past, except by bundling in some
newer patents and increasing the price accordingly.

To the extent that is so, it seems unfair to characterize
Samsung as "refusing" to pay FRAND licensing fees for the
patents they used, as the prior licensing arrangement was
agreed by both parties.

---
Recursion is the opium of the mathists.

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

Groklaw © Copyright 2003-2013 Pamela Jones.
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners.
Comments are owned by the individual posters.

PJ's articles are licensed under a Creative Commons License. ( Details )