[Ernest_at_the_Beach]

***********************************************************************************

This is the first part of a very lengthy post at Groklaw.

Much detail and photos.

[Ernest_at_the_Beach]

Related thread:

Apple aims for salted earth in Samsung fight (Patent Wars)

[BipolarBob]

Yeah, what is this frand all about anyway?

[Shadow44]

I’m not up on all the details, but from what I’ve heard, Apple seems to be angry that Samsung has been cutting into their iPhone sales, and is litigating them.

When a company is resorting to lawsuits to stifle their competitors, then that’s a sign of weakness.

[SueRae]

As an investor in Virnetx (VHC) for the past 3 years, I am only too familiar with Apple’s ‘business’ model.

[Goldsborough]

Much detail and photos.

Much detail, save for one giant one. Samsung's FRAND rate is not being negotiated by Apple because the opening rate Samsung set was not made in good faith. The analysis for FRAND is what is a fair rate in light of what all other licensees have paid for the same pooled standards essential patents. The most common FRAND abuse is the one Samsung is trying, i.e., attempting to charge more to Apple than Samsung has historically charged others. The ND in FRAND is for "Non Discriminatory." The benefit of FRAND to its holder is that EVERYONE voluntarily pays when it is done right. In return for this "nearly automatic" licensing, the issuer has to grant a license to all comers on more or less the same terms. Since companies want other corporations to pay without litigating the cost or trying to infringe their patents, the rates are generally reasonable.

OTOH, Apple is suing Samsung for the infringement of non-standards essential patents. Apple has not licensed many of their patents to anybody, and under the law, it is their right as a patent holder of such rights to NOT license if they do not wish to do so. They have the right to demand market exclusion for adjudicated "copiers." Whether they ultimately prevail at such a strategy is an open question, as this remedy is disfavored, but Apple is under no obligation to be reasonable as they have not released most of the patents they have ever been awarded to any competitors aside from some broad cross licensing with Microsoft.

I am all for balance in the coverage of these lawsuits, but leaving out a critical difference in the patent claims of the two parties involved, whether by omission or commission, undermines the "quest for balance" the author sought.

[Moltke]

Did you know that Apple is asking, among other things, for 100% of Samsung's profits from phones and tablets, because of the design of the *cases*?

I have not yet read the whole article and I can't tell (at a glance) whether Groklaw has any actual expertise in IP law, but YES, that's generally how (design) patent infringement works.

If someone copies Rolex watches or Hermes handbags, should the design owner only ask for a fraction of the unlawfully gained profits?

And YES, though the author seems surprised, it is the *case* of the item that is protected by a design patent. The external appearance. The design. The author should not feign astonishment about this. If your product has a multitude of novel *technical* features but you choose to make it *look exactly like* a competitor's product, well, sucks to be you. Your IP experts should've told you beforehand.

I am not on either side here, but IMO the design is close, but has sufficient differentiating features. The scope of protection for a design patent is narrow. I'm looking forward to seeing how this pans out.