|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, December 21 2012 @ 05:19 PM EST |
1. It is not the much reported intention to 'charge'.
2. Samsung has the right of reply and that may shine an interesting searchlight
into murky corners (where some might prefer remained in darkness).[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: PJ on Friday, December 21 2012 @ 05:31 PM EST |
This doesn't mean it's their view. It's preliminary.
Meaning Samsung gets to speak. All they've listened
to so far is Apple (and Microsoft).[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: tinkerghost on Friday, December 21 2012 @ 06:48 PM EST |
While recourse to injunctions is a possible remedy for patent
infringements, such conduct may be abusive where SEPs are concerned and the
potential licensee is willing to negotiate a licence on Fair, Reasonable and
Non-Discriminatory (so-called "FRAND") terms.
Isn't that sort of
the whole problem? Apple isn't willing to negotiate a licence - they want to
dictate how much FRAND patent holders can charge them.---
You patented
WHAT?!?!?! [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, December 22 2012 @ 12:25 PM EST |
| A bit of media twisting going on or lack of understandin? [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, December 22 2012 @ 06:06 PM EST |
I have taken the dire liberty of transcribing the words of European Commissioner
Joaquin Almunia from the Press
Conference which was held to explain the Spanish
Banking situation. At the
conclusion of the business in hand the chair invited some questions on other
topics. It appears that
Sr Almunia was prepared for such questions.
38'39" Q1. Matthew [inaudible]
I just want to turn to some
news that happened a couple of days ago with Samsung. Samsung announced that it
was going to
withdraw injunctions in Europe, in five European countries. The
commision has been investigating Samsung and other
companies for quite some
time now. I'm just wondering if this latest announcment will prompt you to
reconsider the
investigation. You may consider to drop the case or would you
continue, would you pursue it? What kind of effect does the
announcement have
on your thinking?
[Q2] and just while I have the chance if you could
update us on the Microsoft case, the browser one in which the commission
has
accused Microsoft of not fulfilling its commitments to provide a browser choice
screen. Do you expect a decision soon in
that case?
A1. [Sr. ALMUNIA]
OK, regarding the Samsung case, what happened in the Samsung case. We will adopt
the statement of
objections very soon. I don't know, before the end of this
year or the beginning of next year I don't know because we are in
the last,
last step of our internal procedures and once these steps will be fulfilled by
written procedure we will adopt the
statement of objections as soon as
possible. I cannot anticipate the day, but just the period, in a very short
period of time.
Recently, the past days, we have been informed by Samsung
representatives that they have decided to withdraw injunctions.
And we are very
happen to listen this because one of the most important objections that we have
when dealing with holders of
standards essential patents is their possible
abuses when using this ownership of standard essential patents to launch
injunctions before having tried to license these patents on FRAND terms, Fair
Reasonable and Non Discriminatory terms and
provided that the licensee
expressed a willing to license, this is the way to proceed. What we are
analysing investigating in the
Apple-Samsung case is their possible abuse
because Samsung launched injunctions, and we will continue to investigate this
for sure. We are very happy if these injunctions are withdrawn, but we will
continue to investigate the possible abuses that
existed according to our view
in the past.
41'40" A.2. Microsoft, well you know we are not accusing
Microsoft. We are [chuckle] in an investigation where Microsoft
recognises
that they were not implenting properly their commitments, binding commitments.
We are close also, our decision
could be one of the first anti-trust decisions
in 2013, but as we are still in 2012 I will elaborate any more on
this.
Chair: Very quickly a followup if you, because there are still
other questions.
41'44" Q. Just on the same issue of Samsung, so I
understand correctly, even though the injunctions have been withdrawn it's
the
threat of the injunctions that you are still dissatisfied with?
A. We
are dissatisfied every time that we see that launching injunctions can show an
abuse of the dominant postion of the
holder of the standards essential patents
in a particular market, and the injunctions in the Apple-Samsung case were
launched. It was not only a threat, it was a fact.
Somehow some
of the press have equated this with the other Spanish Inquisition. I'm surprised
that the few words spoken on MS'
browser affair wasn't fluffed up more by the
press.
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: symbolset on Sunday, December 23 2012 @ 04:49 AM EST |
Pursuing legal remedy is Samsung's legal right. If an injunction is not
appropriate is for the court. This is absurd.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
