decoration decoration
Stories

GROKLAW
When you want to know more...
decoration
For layout only
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
Your contributions keep Groklaw going.
To donate to Groklaw 2.0:

Groklaw Gear

Click here to send an email to the editor of this weblog.


Contact PJ

Click here to email PJ. You won't find me on Facebook Donate Paypal


User Functions

Username:

Password:

Don't have an account yet? Sign up as a New User

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:
hosted by ibiblio

On servers donated to ibiblio by AMD.

Webmaster
Please produce evidence of Samsung's abuse | 264 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
How is Samsung related to RealTek?
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, December 12 2012 @ 03:52 PM EST

You stated:

Samsung is abusing their FRAND patents in a much worse way
I asked for evidence to support that and you pointed me to the "Realtek Semi v. LSI" case and your summary conclusion of how the future will play out.

I'm sorry, but your expectation of the future does not prove wrong-doing today. I asked for evidence of wrong-doing today as you claimed. As a result, you pointed to a case that does not seem to involve Samsung. You didn't event point to any specific behavior within that case that you view to be incorrect.

So - given your evidence of wrong doing by Samsung with regards abusing Samsung's FRAND patents appears to be non-existent, some further questions:

    What is Samsung's relationship to Realtek?
    What is it that Realtek has done that you believe to be wrong?
You can choose to continue not to be explicit if you really want to. But you'll not sell most here on your point of view without getting into explicit details so we can judge for ourselves.

RAS

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

Please produce evidence of Samsung's abuse
Authored by: PJ on Wednesday, December 12 2012 @ 08:26 PM EST
You know, the Realtek case (cases) is stayed while the ITC does its thing. So there is zero proof of anything yet. The Realtek v. LSI case, 2012 WL 4845628 (N.D. Cal., Oct. 10, 2012) was dismissed by the judge.

If you read this document, a powerpoint by Kirkland & Ellis, it gives a run down of all the RAND cases that have been going on. And what you will see is that there is an issue with FRAND, in that there have been a lot of complaints to regulatory bodies, but sometimes a lot of complaints means there is a plot afoot and Microsoft and its running dogs are filing complaints just to cause trouble for competition. What I discern is those who don't have FRAND patents to shake a stick at, like Microsoft, wish to disarm those who do, like Motorola, using strategies cooked up from earlier cases. That's why they all claim more or less the same things. What a coincidence.

So is there FRAND abuse? Or are entities like Motorola trying to defend themselves from patent infringement attacks by using what they have? Since both Microsoft and Apple sued instead of negotiating a price, and later Apple's case against motorola in Wisc. was thrown out when Apple revealed it wasn't planning to abide by the royalty set by the judge unless it met their approval, one might assume that this is just a legal strategy, not sincere claims of abuse.

[ 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 )