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

Gear

Groklaw Gear

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


You won't find me on Facebook


Donate

Donate Paypal


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
Don't forget this is a battle | 113 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
Don't forget this is a battle
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, June 27 2013 @ 05:08 AM EDT
Apple launched their strike and the same weapons are being used against them.
Apple could and probably will find itself attacked with it's own precedent if
it does win in the EU and rightly so.

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

Let's recap
Authored by: jbb on Thursday, June 27 2013 @ 05:27 AM EDT
Apple tries to put itself in a monopoly position by suing Samsung for billions of dollars over non-essential smartphone and tablet patents. While launching that assault, Apple refuses to pay Samsung for use of its essential patents and then complains to the EU that Samsung is being anti-competitive.

Here is what Techdirt had to say about Apple's strategy:

In a scene straight out of Bizarro World, Apple, Inc.'s (AAPL) lawyers are crying foul about Samsung Electronics Comp., Ltd. and recent Google Inc. acquisitions Motorola's allegedly "anticompetitive" use of patents.

[...] Regardless of what Mr. Mueller says, it's hard to dispute that the "rules" of F/RAND are largely community dictated and ambiguous. This is clearly a highly specialized case in which one company is using questionable claims (e.g. the ownership of all modern smart phone and tablet designs) to try to dictate its will on the market and grant itself a monopoly. Whether the victims still have to bow down and offer their attacker F/RAND licensing is certainly debatable.

[...] This isn't the first time that Apple has accused competitors over something it itself is doing. Apple chief executive and co-founder, Steven P. Jobs has bragged about his mastery of stealing ideas from others, stating [video], "Picasso had a saying - 'Good artists copy, great artists steal.' And we have always been shameless about stealing great ideas."

But faced with large touch-screen competitors to his iPhone and iPad, the CEO and Apple's lawyers cried foul, accusing these rivals of "slavishly" copying the company's intellectual property.

---
Our job is to remind ourselves that there are more contexts
than the one we’re in now — the one that we think is reality.
-- Alan Kay

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

Apple Tries to Get USTR to Undo the ITC's Injunction Against It - More FRAND Arguments ~pj
Authored by: tknarr on Thursday, June 27 2013 @ 11:57 AM EDT

Well, so far the "anti-competitive behavior" seems to be expecting Apple to either pay royalties on basically the same terms as everyone else using those patents or cease selling devices that use those patents. But that's exactly what patents are supposed to do, that's the whole point of that "legal monopoly" thing. Apple's problem seems to be that, unlike other entities making smartphones, Apple has no essential patents to bring to the table that Samsung needs to license in return and they're whining that the cash price they need to pay is so much higher than everyone else who's offsetting some of that price by offering licenses to their patents in return. But that's like the guy with no trade-in whining that he's having to pay so much more for a new car than the guy trading in a 2-year-old low-mileage car for a newer model.

It reeks very much of Apple's outrage in the Brazil iPhone trademark case. Apple's problem wasn't that trademarks were protected, Apple loves trademark protection. It was that *gasp* their trademark was protected and belonged to a company that had the temerity to register it 7 years before Apple released it's first iPhone and now somehow believed that it had the right to keep using it and keep Apple from using it.

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

Apple can DO NO WRONG!
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, June 27 2013 @ 01:38 PM EDT
Evil Evil Samsung, trying to steal Apples hard earned technology!

Why, Apple went to all the trouble to develop BSD, and invent round corners for
it (BSD never worked with square corners) and condensed all that innovation into
a phone. Then Samsung came along, STOLE android, used that to unfairly sue
Apple, and now are trying to steal BSD too!

Troll mode=OFF

Hmmmm... no I didn't get a thrill... or even a sense of superiority. So what is
the attraction? Must just be a fanbois thing.

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

Apple Tries to Get USTR to Undo the ITC's Injunction Against It - More FRAND Arguments ~pj
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, July 01 2013 @ 07:23 AM EDT
The two aren't comparable. In the EU Samsung are being accused
of forcing Apple to pay over the odds, thereby abusing it's
FRAND license, In the US Apple are refusing to pay anything,
regardless of what Samsung are demanding.

[ 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 )