frand
Latest
EU prevents Motorola and Samsung from suing over standards-based patents
The patent wars are about to cool down in Europe... a little bit, anyway. The European Commission has revealed measures that prevent both Motorola and Samsung from using lawsuits over standards-based patents as offensive weapons against competitors, rather than last-ditch options when negotiations fail. To start, the regulator has ordered Motorola to cut out any "anticompetitive" terms in patent licensing deals with Apple and other companies. Motorola is allegedly abusing its control of cellular patents by forbidding companies from contesting those patents' validity; companies and their customers shouldn't be forced to pay for licenses that might not hold up in court, the Commission says. Motorola won't pay a fine for the claimed violation since there's no precedent, but the phone maker now can't threaten a lawsuit simply because Apple wants to challenge the patents it's licensing.
The TUAW Daily Update Podcast for February 27, 2014
It's the TUAW Daily Update, your source for Apple news in a convenient audio format. You'll get some the top Apple stories of the day in three to five minutes for a quick review of what's happening in the Apple world. You can listen to today's Apple stories by clicking the player at the top of the page. The Daily Update has been moved to a new podcast host in the past few days. Current listeners should delete the old podcast subscription and subscribe to the new feed in the iTunes Store here.
Bipartisan group of senators sends letter about trade ban to US trade rep
According to Florian Mueller of FOSS Patents, a bipartisan group of senators has asked the Obama administration to veto a looming import ban against older iPhone and iPads. The letter, dated July 30, was sent to US Trade Representative Michael Froman, who holds the power to veto this ban. Signing their names to the letter were Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.), Sen. Mike Lee (R-Utah), Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) and Sen. Jim Risch (R-Idaho). The senators expressed concern that standard essential patents (SEPs) covering 3G cellular technology were at the heart of the ITC complaint between Samsung and Apple. These patents are meant to be licensed under fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory (FRAND) terms and not used in litigation. The senators note that the government has a chance to defend FRAND licensing terms. If it fails to act, then it might be setting a precedent that encourages other companies to withhold their SEPs and use them in litigation against their rivals. The senators write, Competition and consumers benefit tremendously from the creation of technology standards that promote interoperability, lower costs, and expand consumer choice. Standards are crucial to ensuring that consumers have access to a competitive market of compatible products. The standards setting process depends on a commitment from companies contributing patents to license those patents to all parties implementing the standard on fair, reasonable, and non-discriminatory (FRAND) terms. If companies implementing standards cannot rely on FRAND commitments, they will be less likely to participate in standard setting, which will drive up costs for consumers and reduce the pace of innovation. The import ban goes into effect on August 5, 2013, unless it is vetoed by Froman.
Big guns have Apple's back in iPhone 4 ban
What do Microsoft, Oracle, Intel and AT&T have in common? All four of the major corporations are jumping to Apple's defense against the impending iPhone 4 ban ordered by the US International Trade Commission (ITC). The Wall Street Journal reports that a trade group representing Microsoft, Oracle and Intel -- BSA -- was joined by AT&T in supporting Apple's side of the ban, which was brought about thanks to arch-rival Samsung. Samsung won a case before the ITC, and the potential ban, which still has to be approved by US Trade Representative Michael Froman before going into effect on August 4, was sought as a patent-infringement settlement. BSA argues that the use of essential industry patents to ban products should not be allowed, except under unusual circumstances. The companies are concerned, though, that the ban sets precedent. Companies must license patented technology to competitors at a reasonable rate. This is known as FRAND (fair, reasonable, and non-discriminatory) licensing. Apple and the other companies are concerned that the ITC ruling might allow companies to demand excessive royalties by threatening a product ban on rivals if they don't open their wallets. AT&T's concern is that the ITC ruling eliminates a highly popular entry-level iPhone for AT&T customers, and they argue that a ban is "inconsistent with the president's goal of ubiquitous broadband deployment."
ITC rules in favor of Samsung, issues import ban on older AT&T iPhones, iPads
Once again the ugly patent battles between Apple and Samsung have come to a head, only this time it's Samsung enjoying a victory. According to Reuters and Bloomberg, the International Trade Commission has issued an order to Apple to stop importing AT&T models of the iPad 3G, iPad 2 3G, iPhone 4, 3GS and 3. While newer models of the iPhone and iPad no longer use the tech the ITC says is infringing (mostly iDevices with Qualcomm chips), this ban is final and can only be negated by the White House or challenged and overturned in a Federal circuit court. The ITC ruling is here in PDF form. FOSS patents has a good breakdown of this case, noting that the ITC considered Apple's FRAND defense, then pretty much dismissed it. In other words, Apple argued there were standards-essential patents (SEPs) needed to make these products, and it was willing to license the infringing patents for a fair price. The ITC didn't see it that way and told Apple to stop importing the devices immediately. I'm not a lawyer, and that's a huge oversimplification, but the idea is that Samsung shouldn't be able to hobble a competitor when a competitor needs certain tech to actually make a product. Patent holders should license those for a fair price instead of arguing a wholesale ban on the product after it is designed, developed, manufactured and sold. In this case, the ITC saw differently. As Nilay Patel points out, the ITC is largely out of step with everyone else when it comes to SEPs, however. And there are lawmakers from both parties now getting involved in the dispute -- we are talking about a rather profitable American business that just got handed a huge "stop making money" order, after all. I'm sure to some this is seen as karma for Apple's other battles with Samsung, but I disagree. It's not like the patents we're talking about gave the iPhone some unique edge over the competition -- from what I can tell these were necessary components that at the time were the best engineering choice. Using communications chips is quite different than mimicking the look and feel of an operating system, or wholesale aping the design and functionality of another device. Does this mean AT&T (and anyone else using the CDMA tech) will have to quit offering cheaper iPhones? Probably not. Companies have had to pull products before, although this would be a huge blow to AT&T and Apple, who have seen growth in new smartphone users who are upgrading to the iPhone from feature phones and taking advantage of the older devices. President Barack Obama has 60 days to review and potentially veto this, however. It's unlikely, but it's not like the White House is a huge fan of heavy-handed patent rulings, offering a big slap to patent trolls just today. We'll keep you posted, but Apple appears to have spoken to CNBC, who tweeted that Apple will appeal and you won't see an impact on product availability in the US. Update: AllThingsD quotes Apple directly with the news that it will appeal and this changes nothing for customers thus far.
EC says Motorola broke antitrust rules, abused its patent position
It was almost a year ago to the day that the European Commission began investigating Motorola over reported abuse of its standard-essential patents (SEPs), and now the regulators have a little more to say on the matter. The Commission has issued Motorola Mobility a Statement of Objections, which doesn't mean any judgment has been reached, but lets the company know its preliminary view, and it ain't good news. According to these initial findings, Motorola wanting an injunction against Apple in Germany based on some of its GPRS-related SEPs -- the particular legal encounter that was the catalyst for a complaint by Cupertino and ultimately, the EC's investigation -- "amounts to an abuse of a dominant position prohibited by EU antitrust rules." Motorola originally said it would license these patents under FRAND terms when they became standard-essential, which Apple was happy to pay for. However, the company pursued an injunction nonetheless. The Commission's statement goes on to say that while injunctions can be necessary in certain disputes, where there is potential for an agreement under FRAND terms, companies with bulging SEP portfolios should not be allowed to request injunctions "in order to distort licensing negotiations and impose unjustified licensing terms on patent licensees." Joaquín Almunia, the Commission Vice President who's responsible for competition policy, echoed what we've heard from other important folks entrenched in the never-ending patent battlefield (such as Judge Koh), saying: "I think that companies should spend their time innovating and competing on the merits of the products they offer -- not misusing their intellectual property rights to hold up competitors to the detriment of innovation and consumer choice." So, what happens next? Motorola will first have its right to address the statement before the EC makes a final decision, but it's looking like a fine is headed the company's way. Hopefully, the outcome will also have a wider impact on patent cases of the future, so companies will spend more time making shiny things for us, and less on courtroom squabbles.
Washington court rules Motorola can get millions, not billions, from Microsoft for its patents
Among the many patent cases currently ongoing between Motorola and Microsoft is one in US District Court in the state of Washington concerning standards-essential WiFi and h.264 patents. AllThingsD reports that while Motorola was requesting billions in royalties for the technology it owns, Judge James Robart -- who invalidated a number of its patent claims a few months ago -- ruled it's entitled to around $1.8 million per year. The reason given? There are so many patents that are part of the h.264 standard, that if every patent were licensed at the amount Motorola sought, those fees would be more than the current cost of the Xbox 360. And, Judge Robart found that Motorola hadn't proven its patents were more valuable than those of other companies included in the same pool. All 207 pages of the decision are available beyond the source link if need more info on the hows and whys of today's decision. ATD also has quotes from each company, and while Microsoft called it a good decision for consumers, Motorola chose to acknowledge the decision, but didn't hint at any reaction or future moves.
Samsung loses UK lawsuit against Apple over 3G data
Samsung hasn't been catching many breaks in its court battles with Apple as of late, and that trend isn't quite over yet. A UK court just tossed out claims that Apple violates three Samsung standards-essential patents relating to 3G data transmission, tentatively leaving the American firm free to sell iPhones and other cellular devices in the country -- as long as other lawsuits don't get in the way. Samsung hasn't determined whether or not it will appeal, but a second try isn't as surefire as it might be elsewhere, not when the Galaxy maker has a less-than-stellar record in winning cases where 3G is involved. We'd just like the whole mess to be over.
Judge invalidates 13 Motorola patent claims against Microsoft
Google's Motorola branch isn't having much success lately in getting patent claims to stick against Microsoft. A few months after the company dropped some ITC claims, the judge in a Seattle contract lawsuit has granted Microsoft's motion to invalidate 13 of Motorola's claims across three standards-based patents, all of them linked to H.264 video coding. The individual claims aren't well-defined enough to hold, Judge James Robart says. The ruling takes most of the thunder out of components in the lawsuit that aren't directly related to the contract, and could lead to lighter penalties against Microsoft should Google and Motorola win -- not that Google has much sway when it's prevented from seeking bans over standards-based patents.
Judge dismisses Apple lawsuit versus Motorola over standards-based patents
Apple may have just learned a lesson about all-or-nothing gambles. Judge Crabb has dismissed the company's lawsuit against Motorola over fair royalties for standards-based patents after the firm said it would only accept court-dictated payouts to Motorola of less than $1 per iPhone. To say that Crabb isn't eager to be used as leverage for a discount is an understatement -- she flipped from leaning towards a trial just days earlier to preventing Apple from suing over the same dispute unless it wins an appeal. The decision doesn't represent the first time the Cupertino team has had a lawsuit tossed this year, although it comes as Motorola has faced its own share of legal setbacks; the two parties are still very much in a stalemate. All we know for certain is that any royalty decision will have to come through either a (currently unlikely) settlement or through a separate trial.
Apple makes Motorola $1 per iPhone offer to settle wireless patent case
In a move meant to avert a potentially costly trial, Apple has offered to pay Motorola up to $1 per iPhone to license the latter's "standard-essential wireless" patents pertaining to basic cellular and WiFi technology used in the devices. According to FOSS Patents, Apple attorneys said that the company intends to put up a fight if Motorola decides to ask for more than $1 per device in compensation. This news comes two months after Apple announced its intent to license similar patents from Motorola in Germany, although the amount it will pay per device there has yet to be determined. In its settlement offering here in the U.S., Apple asked the Wisconsin court to set a rate for licensing the patents in Germany based on a FRAND basis.
ITU roundtable narrows scope of debate around standard-essential patents, doesn't create world peace
The ITU's roundtable discussing the controversy over standard-essential patents has wrapped up its first day, and surprise -- there wasn't immediate harmony. While strict press rules prevent discussing exactly which companies said what in the Geneva meeting, the UN's telecom agency mentioned that the initial, partly publicized discussions saw a "heated debate" that mostly followed party lines. Certain companies kept to their view that bans over standard-essential patents hurt innovation, while others were adamant that bans were harmless and potentially necessary -- you can probably guess who's on each side. The meeting mostly helped whittle down the subjects for the closed meetings, which should focus on how much of a curb there should be on injunctions as well as the definition of just what the "reasonable" in Reasonable and Non-Discriminatory (RAND) patent licensing terms should mean. ITU officials remain ever the budding optimists, however. They felt that it was tough to leave injunctions "completely unchecked" and that their institution could shape policies, even if it wouldn't get involved with ongoing talks. Legal Officer Antoine Dore also explained to Engadget that his organization wasn't surprised at the uncompromising stances early on and expected the companies involved to open up "a lot more" once they weren't under the watchful eyes of cameras and reporters. If they don't, we suspect other international organizations could exert their own pressure.
Apple avoids group pooling LTE patents
Rather than fight patent lawsuits on an individual basis, 10 mobile phone carriers and electronics manufacturers are forming a patent pool to protect themselves from future litigation surrounding the use of 4G technology. Details on this patent licensing program were reported by the Wall Street Journal. Companies will donate their standard essential patents to the collective and cross-license them to the other members of the group. Patents will be licensed on "fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory" (FRAND) terms. Via Licensing, a patent licensing firm and subsidiary of Dolby Laboratories, will oversee the group, which includes AT&T, HP, Clearwire, Telecom Italia, Telefonica, KDDI, NTT DoCoMo, SK Telecom, ZTE and DTVG, a subsidiary of DirecTV. Noticeably absent are major companies such as Apple, Samsung, Qualcomm, Ericsson, Motorola and Nokia. [Via The Mac Observer]
Via Licensing assembles an LTE supergroup to share standards-essential patents
Dolby spinoff Via Licensing has shone a signal into the night sky and assembled some of the world's biggest telecoms players to form a patent supergroup. AT&T, NTT DoCoMo and Telefonica are some of the names that'll pool their standards-essential LTE patents to prevent getting embroiled in litigation over FRAND licensing. While there are some notable holdouts to the team, we suggest company president Roger Ross coax them over by hiring Michael McCuistion to write them a rockin' theme song.
US Appeals court rules Motorola can't enforce injunction against Microsoft in Germany... again
In another face of the ever turning world of patent battles, Reuters reports Microsoft has snagged a victory over Motorola as the 9th US Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in its favor today. Motorola had obtained an injunction in Germany against Microsoft products -- including the Xbox 360 and Windows 7 -- based on its h.264 patents back in May, but today the court upheld a previous decision putting enforcement on hold because of Microsoft's existing lawsuit against Moto for breach of contract. Microsoft's push to leverage its patents into licensing payouts from manufacturers of Android devices have seen the two at each other's throats since at least 2010, when the folks from Redmond lodged an ITC complaint over nine patents and followed up with another suit accusing Motorola of charging unfair license fees for its patents. Motorola fired back with its own pair of lawsuits -- all of this a year before we heard it would be acquired by Google -- and the battle was on. Whether or not this moves us any closer to any resolution remains to be seen, but at least Bavarian gaming consoles are safe, for now.
ITC says Apple didn't violate four Samsung patents with iPad, iPhone
This just hasn't been Samsung's summer. On top of Apple winning its earliest civil lawsuit against Samsung, the International Trade Commission has just handed out an initial determination that Apple didn't violate any of four Samsung patents (including two reportedly standards-essential examples) by offering the iPad and iPhone. While Judge James Gildea didn't publicly outline why Apple was in the clear, he added that Samsung lacks a domestic business that uses the patents -- important when it's trying to claim economic harm in the US. The verdict still gives Samsung at least four months' room to breathe while the ITC reviews the decision, but it's hard to see Samsung enjoying the reduced offensive strength when it's already on the defensive in American courtrooms.
South Korea investigating Apple's antitrust complaints of Samsung
Samsung and Apple are engaged in a bitter legal battle over patents both here in the US and overseas. Besides court cases like the high-profile one in the Northern District of California, Apple and Samsung are also taking their complaints to the FTC and other, smaller regulatory boards. According to a report in Reuters, the latest battleground is in South Korea, which is investigating whether Samsung broke antitrust rules when it accused rivals of infringing its 3G cellular patents. The South Korean complaint was filed by Apple and alleges that Samsung is unfairly competing by abusing its dominant position in cellular technology. The company holds many patents on 3G cellular technology and pledged to license these patents on fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory terms (FRAND). Apple claims that Samsung is not licensing these patents fairly and is using them as a legal weapon against its competitors. Samsung denies Apple's assertion and claims it is licensing its patents under FRAND terms.
Apple strikes licensing deal with Motorola in Germany, heralds more peaceful times?
Motorola's war with Apple has certainly been overshadowed by the showdown with Samsung. But, with the latter melodrama shifting into quiet mode, focus is coming back to the battle with Moto. That ongoing story has taken a rather unexpected turn, however. A filing on Monday revealed that the Google subsidiary has agreed to license some (if not all) of its standards-essential patents to Cupertino... in Germany, at least. When exactly the deal was struck isn't clear, and neither side has announced a royalty rate as of yet. It could be that the German courts will decide what is appropriate according to FRAND rules, but the agreement also includes an admission by Apple that it is liable for past damages relating to these patents. The terms seem to include only "cellular standard-essential" patents, which means the company's claims regarding WiFi and video codecs could still be used as an avenue of attack. But, with at least one set of FRAND patents set aside, we wouldn't be surprised if the rest followed. It may be that Moto has simply decided to pick its fights more carefully, in light Apple's recent legal victory and growing pressure from the European Commission surrounding potential abuse of standards-essential patents. Or, it could be an olive branch and a sign that the patent wars are winding down -- a possibility we'd joyously embrace.
ITC decides Apple didn't violate Motorola WiFi patent after all, tosses case back to judge
Trouble looked to be brewing for Apple last April: an International Trade Commission judge made an initial ruling that Apple infringed on a standards-essential Motorola WiFi patent, raising the possibility of a trade ban if the verdict held true. The fellows in Cupertino may have caught a big break. A Commission review of the decision on Friday determined that Apple didn't violate the patent, and it upheld positions that exonerated the iPhone maker regarding two others. Apple isn't entirely off the hook, however. The ITC is remanding the case to the judge to review his stance that Apple hadn't violated a non-standards-based patent, which still leaves Apple facing the prospect of a ban. However, having to revisit the case nearly resets the clock -- we now have to wait for another ruling and a matching review, and that likely puts any final decision well into 2013. Google-owned Motorola isn't lacking more weapons in its arsenal, but any stalled proceedings take away bargaining chips in what's become a high-stakes game.
Post-acquisition Motorola files fresh ITC complaint against Apple
We hope you didn't think that Motorola would fight a purely defensive patent war against Apple after Google's acquisition closed. Just days before a final ruling on its initial complaints, the RAZR maker has filed another dispute with the International Trade Commission that accuses Apple of violating patents through some iOS devices and Macs. Exact details of the dispute are under wraps for now; Motorola, as you'd imagine, only contends that it has no choice after Apple's "unwillingness to work out a license." While Apple hasn't said anything about the subject, we already know how much it disagrees with Motorola's previous licensing strategy -- it's unlikely Apple will just roll over, no matter what's at stake.
