Seeking Alpha

A Dutch court has rejected an attempt by Samsung (SSNLF.PK) to get the iPhone and iPad banned,...

A Dutch court has rejected an attempt by Samsung (SSNLF.PK) to get the iPhone and iPad banned, stating the patents Samsung was asserting must be licensed on FRAND terms. Of interest is the court's claim that Apple (AAPL) doesn't need a FRAND license since it uses Qualcomm (QCOM) chips, and Qualcomm has licensed Samsung's patents. Such a ruling could give Apple motivation to continue using Qualcomm chips in future iPhones and iPads. (also)
Comments (8)
  • D_Virginia
    , contributor
    Comments (2280) | Send Message
     
    What a mess. Fix patent law!!!
    14 Mar 2012, 07:32 PM Reply Like
  • Minnesota_Steve
    , contributor
    Comments (139) | Send Message
     
    LOL - I think that is what is occurring now. If you read Florian Mueller's blog over at Foss Patents, you can see how different the European court rulings are vs. the initial German court rulings. Apple is helping the laws get straightened out.
    14 Mar 2012, 09:18 PM Reply Like
  • D_Virginia
    , contributor
    Comments (2280) | Send Message
     
    Apple is one of the biggest offenders that needs to be smacked down. As innovative as they claim to be, they do their best to otherwise stifle innovation in the industry.
    14 Mar 2012, 09:56 PM Reply Like
  • Minnesota_Steve
    , contributor
    Comments (139) | Send Message
     
    Sure - you may not support their position There are two different issues here. One is standard essential patents that Motorola, Samsung and others are trying to use against Apple. The courts are siding with Apple. This is in everyone's best interest. The second issue are Apple's patents that are not standards essential. Right now they are testing all of them in the courts as they issue in order to see which ones stand up and can be leveraged towards high licensing fees, product injunctions or product redesigns that lessen the user experience for competitors.

     

    1. Design patents are not doing them much good. Samsung has transcended this.
    2. Many argue that software patents should not be allowed. Apple is aggressively using existing laws to push their software patents. This will be debated for a long time. I don't have a personal opinion on this.
    3. Hardware patents. Actual physical products are what the patent system was created around to stimulate research spending. We will see what they get. But any opinion against hardware patents being legitimate is really a vote against having a patent system in general.
    14 Mar 2012, 10:06 PM Reply Like
  • D_Virginia
    , contributor
    Comments (2280) | Send Message
     
    > But any opinion against hardware patents being legitimate is really
    > a vote against having a patent system in general.

     

    There is some merit to scrapping the system, or at least parts of it. Especially in technology, things just get copied anyway (by China at a minimum), and the only ones who make money on patent disputes are the lawyers -- companies and consumers lose out. The patent system, simply serves to encourage stagnation.

     

    The classic challenge is "without patents why would anyone have any incentive to innovate?"

     

    And to that I respond that patents or no patents, any company today that does not innovate is doomed anyway, so why not incentivize *continuous* innovation rather than occasional innovation?

     

    > Many argue that software patents should not be allowed.

     

    As a software developer, I do agree with this to a point. (Assuming patents are still worthwhile at all -- see above.)

     

    I could understand patenting some particularly clever algorithm or something like that, but software companies have used the technical ignorance of most patent lawyers to patent the "nuts and bolts" of the software industry -- simple things that often blatantly fail the criteria of being novel and non-obvious.

     

    For example, apparently Apple's new 1080p videos look almost as good as full Blu-Ray, but are 10% of the size -- that kind of quality-preserving compression might be worth a patent: http://bit.ly/xH93lH

     

    But Apple's patent for "app switching while on a call" doesn't pass the sniff test to me: it is obvious and it's not novel. And on Verizon with their CDMA network, it's not even useful! :)
    14 Mar 2012, 10:26 PM Reply Like
  • Minnesota_Steve
    , contributor
    Comments (139) | Send Message
     
    You make some great points. I have watched patents in industries I work - pharmaceuticals and chemicals - and there is little room for confusion. A molecular structure can be well defined in most cases, for example. Same for a formulation. They can clearly pass the test of novelty - new molecular structure. As for unobviousness, the rules have been rewritten lately in the USA to match European rules. But this is usually the patent debate.

     

    For consumer electronics, I think novelty is much harder to establish. Unobviousness too. Thus far, Apple isn't winning much on these. Ways to display photos when zoomed, rubber banding on scrolling lists and slide to unlock are their three partial victories to date. So I don't think they are destroying innovation amongst their competition yet. We'll see.
    14 Mar 2012, 10:48 PM Reply Like
  • D_Virginia
    , contributor
    Comments (2280) | Send Message
     
    For the record, the slide to unlock patent makes me want to throw up -- or punch a patent attorney. :)
    15 Mar 2012, 08:08 AM Reply Like
  • Minnesota_Steve
    , contributor
    Comments (139) | Send Message
     
    Me too.
    15 Mar 2012, 01:41 PM Reply Like
DJIA (DIA) S&P 500 (SPY)
ETF Tools
Find the right ETFs for your portfolio:
Seeking Alpha's new ETF Hub
ETF Investment Guide:
Table of Contents | One Page Summary
Read about different ETF Asset Classes:
ETF Selector

Next headline on your portfolio:

|