|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, January 03 2013 @ 11:04 AM EST |
Given the known reaction here, I'll try and explain this
anyway.
Samsung is in (some) trouble. That is why they withdrew
their requests for injunctions over their SEP in Europe-
they were hoping to avoid the EU's SO.
Samsung has had the opportunity to explain themselves. There
has already been an investigation. Samsung has provided
their explanation to the EU. Samsung's explanation was found
wanting, hence the SO.
However, this isn't in any way an adjucation of guilt. That
said (and I now quote): "Precedent tells us that an SO does
not issue unless the Commission believes it can make out its
case and if necessary justify the imposition of a
prohibition decision. The SO cannot therefore be dismissed
as a mere preliminary step, but rather is already the
product of considerable investigatory work. Indeed, in
recent years, every investigation of abuse of dominance
where the European Commission has issued an
SO has resulted in significant alterations to the business
practices of the dominant company."
So while it isn't a given that Samsung will get screwed now
that the SO has issued, it is exceedingly likely that they
will face substantial fines or far-reaching commitments.
Put another way- the SO is a major thing, and Samsung's
actions in dropping the SEP enforcement in Europe was an
attempt to stop the SO from issuing. While it is not a final
adjucation, past practice shows how serious it is.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
