arstechnica.com— Samsung has officially landed itself in hot water with the European Commission, which is formally investigating its use of FRAND-encumbered, "standards essential" patents on 3G wireless technology against Apple.
Feb 1, 2012View in Crawl 4
"Qualcomm licenses the 3G standards essential patents from Samsung to make the cellular radio chips Apple uses in its iPhone and iPad."
The compensation entitling embedding the patented technology in the commodity, and in turn for the use of, has already been paid by Qualcomm.
Samsung is simply undertaking vexatious litigation against one of Qualcomm's customers for the primary purpose of stifling competition.
Both of these actions are illegal in countries such as Australia which is listed as one of the countries Samsung seeks to impact. Doing business in a country is a boon granted conditional upon compliance with the law. It is not by any means a right.
Perhaps it needs to be considered is Samsung should be allowed to continue doing business here (Australia) or in any country they seek to impact where such acts are illegal.
Big picture time. This is about copyright stuff. Copyright stuff isn't tech. It's legal. Legal stuff is a subsection of politics. In this case a business connection can also be made. Perhaps this is another example of a broken autoposter.
But it does involve a company that deals primarily in technology, and the results of the lawsuit could have an impact on technology that we use every day. I say it counts as both.
Being a "tech" company is irrelevant to the story. It hides the message of the story. In this case they are talking copyright. The copyright aspect to the story is much more important than the connection to a "tech" company. If you look at the pattern of the story, this could just as easily have been a "non-tech" situation.
Let me try from another POV. Suppose there is a story about Apple hiring a new receptionist for their front desk... What is more important the receptionist or the connection with Apple? Since Apple is a "tech" company, does it qualify as a tech story?
I'm sure arstechnica.com is being completely unbiased, and simply failed to mention that Apple no license fees *at all*, Samsung want backdated money with a penalty OR ignoring the fact that Apple are taking Samsung to court over trivial interface patents and natural standards, rather than real innovation like the ones these patents are used in.
redhautemamaFeb 1, 2012
One of the best brands of this century...
myztryFeb 1, 2012
"Qualcomm licenses the 3G standards essential patents from Samsung to make the cellular radio chips Apple uses in its iPhone and iPad."
The compensation entitling embedding the patented technology in the commodity, and in turn for the use of, has already been paid by Qualcomm.
Samsung is simply undertaking vexatious litigation against one of Qualcomm's customers for the primary purpose of stifling competition.
Both of these actions are illegal in countries such as Australia which is listed as one of the countries Samsung seeks to impact. Doing business in a country is a boon granted conditional upon compliance with the law. It is not by any means a right.
Perhaps it needs to be considered is Samsung should be allowed to continue doing business here (Australia) or in any country they seek to impact where such acts are illegal.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vexatious_litigation
genaamFeb 2, 2012
Next Apple device to get Facial recognition technology? http://myproffs.co.uk/index.php/home/1665-next-apple-device-to-get-facial-recognition-technology
blankmikeFeb 1, 2012
Big picture time. This is about copyright stuff. Copyright stuff isn't tech. It's legal. Legal stuff is a subsection of politics. In this case a business connection can also be made. Perhaps this is another example of a broken autoposter.
neondistractionFeb 2, 2012
But it does involve a company that deals primarily in technology, and the results of the lawsuit could have an impact on technology that we use every day. I say it counts as both.
blankmikeFeb 2, 2012
Being a "tech" company is irrelevant to the story. It hides the message of the story. In this case they are talking copyright. The copyright aspect to the story is much more important than the connection to a "tech" company. If you look at the pattern of the story, this could just as easily have been a "non-tech" situation.
Let me try from another POV. Suppose there is a story about Apple hiring a new receptionist for their front desk... What is more important the receptionist or the connection with Apple? Since Apple is a "tech" company, does it qualify as a tech story?
neondistractionFeb 3, 2012
Copyright is VERY relevant to technology. It has the potential to affect almost every aspect of tech that we use every day.
vsnrajuFeb 1, 2012
Awesome
robertnbrownFeb 1, 2012
unstoppable
tuppe666Feb 1, 2012
I'm sure arstechnica.com is being completely unbiased, and simply failed to mention that Apple no license fees *at all*, Samsung want backdated money with a penalty OR ignoring the fact that Apple are taking Samsung to court over trivial interface patents and natural standards, rather than real innovation like the ones these patents are used in.
Apple is not playing by the rules and wants the park for itself.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
zang74Feb 1, 2012
So, abusing the patent system is a valid response? Trying to double-dip on patent fees is legal if you don't happen to like the patent-licensee?
Fortunately for everyone else, the law tends to take each case on its own, and not make decisions based on personal bias of smartphone owners.
softpagesFeb 1, 2012
Why dont samsung go invent there own stuff. Any why we are at it why dont google as well