Apple: Samsung facing EU antitrust probe

by Tom Brewster | Saturday 5 November 2011

Samsung might be in a spot of bother if an Apple court filing is anything to go by.

Apple has claimed in a court filing that Samsung is facing an antitrust probe over a potential abuse of FRAND patents against the iPhone creator.

Samsung and Apple have been fighting a wide-ranging patent war in various courts across the globe. In a number of them, Samsung has attempted to assert 3G-related patents covered by FRAND (fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory) licensing commitments.

FRAND commitments are made when companies work on industry standards so monopolies cannot be enforced. Any company abusing those commitments could face legal issues.

"Samsung has launched an aggressive, worldwide campaign to enjoin Apple from allegedly practicing Samsung's patents. Samsung has sued Apple for infringement and injunctions in no fewer than eight countries outside the United States," Apple's court filing read.

"Indeed, Samsung's litigation campaign and other conduct related to its Declared-Essential Patents is so egregious that the European Commission recently has opened an investigation to determine whether Samsung's behavior violates EU competition laws."

Samsung is believed to have FRAND licensing commitments, meaning it may not be able to try to stop other companies, such as Apple, from selling products that infringe related patents.

FRAND patent holders should not be able to "shut down" products of infringers, according to IP expert Florian Mueller.

"In my view, FRAND patent holders can ask for reasonable compensation, but they are not allowed to overcharge or to shut down products as long as an alleged infringer is willing to take a license on FRAND terms (if there actually is an infringement of valid patents)," Mueller said.

He said an investigation by the EC, which has not yet been officially confirmed, would be a significant moment in the battle between Apple and Samsung.

"This is the most important development to date related to the world-spanning dispute between these two companies," Mueller said.

"This investigation has the potential to force Samsung to withdraw most of its claims against Apple."

"Samsung will now have to tread very carefully. If it continues to aggressively pursue its cases against Apple based on 3G patents, it will only make things worse in the EU antitrust case."

At the time of publication, Samsung had not responded to a request for comment.

This article originally appeared at itpro.co.uk

Readers of this article also read...

photohounds 7 November 2011	Two finger pinch zooming = FRAND (it is a HUMAN gesture after all) Rectangular phones with glass face = FRAND Rectangular phones with glass back = FRAGILE Software driven interface = FRAND ICONS = FRAND Icons HAVE have to look similar to what they represent (the definition of an icon and the POINT of ICONS, the meaning of "ICON" has existed for millennia) Minimal buttons = NOT EVEN FRAND unl;ess a dozen artists can sue. Who's kidding who here? I read an interesting article recently about the dangers of having unlimited found to conduct stupid litigation. The curent goings on are an excellent example of what the author wrote about. I'll try to find it and post it if anyone is interested. Those bendy phones will usher in the new era, anyway and all the now in vogue gear will be old hat - again. Groan. Comment made about the PC & Tech Authority article: Apple: Samsung facing EU antitrust probe? Samsung might be in a spot of bother if an Apple court filing is anything to go by. What do you think? Join the discussion.
skarpethinn 7 November 2011	and when those bendy phones come in, the newspaper magnates can start suing the phone companies for infringment of "media format" technologies! After all, flexible paper has been around for centuries. And someone must own that, right? Right? Rupert Murdoch is my bet! Edited by skarpethinn: 7/11/2011 11:03:03 AM Edited by skarpethinn: 7/11/2011 11:04:01 AM
photohounds 7 November 2011	Nyuk, nyuk ... The Egypytians? Perhaps someone owns the patent for the dead sea scrolls, even ... Right now we're using stone tablets that light up :) Almost unbreakable bendy tech - suits me well :) It's why I have warer resistant camers, most with sensor dust removers that actualy work.
photohounds 7 November 2011	I see that fanboy Johny adams is already reporting it as a fait acomlli ... another piece of his stellar 'journalism'. They're now fighting over the past, something of only short term relevance. Let 'em, while the real innovators do tangible sceince and materials tech. Now we need photosensitive sunnies you can sit on without breaking ...
amcmo 7 November 2011	Photo, You have it all wrong, yet again. There is a VERY specific definition of FRAND. it applies to a technology incorporated into a standard makes the design and manufacture of any product conforming to that standard unable to be achieved without use of that tech. The industry standard groups and governments worldwide insist that holders of patents incorporated into that standard allow use of that technology under FRAND licensing. As for pinch to zoom. Whoever thought of the concept would have a valid patent in most countries. It's not the fact tat you use the fingers we all have, but the way the fingers are used. As forthe Dead Sea Scroll crap - it's just that -crap. Edited by amcmo: 7/11/2011 09:04:12 PM
photohounds 7 November 2011	FRAND, AM? Apple don't NEED the fastest wireles tech, it still works at 1`/4 the speed or whatever. As long as the cashed up greedies don't welch on royalties like they did/do with ipods. That ongoing situation is plain dishonest (but apparently legal) greed. Support it if you want. Nothing wrong with being wealthy, there IS something wrong with cheating others when you have plenty, and they demonstrably do that. Not confined to just this company BTW. Company: "A legal entity, sometimes with no conscience". A place where cash and hypocrisy rule and ethics are sometimes completely discarded. They had predecessors and will have successors in this. It's just their turn today - sigh.
amcmo 8 November 2011	Let's get a couple of things clear. Apple are ENTITLED to use the latest tech for the highest speed as are all other phone mfrs. Samsung and other patent holders of designs incorporatedinto the standard MUST by law licence it under FRAND. There remains the question of whether the Qualcomm payments to Samsung cover users of the Qualcomm chip, not just Apple, but others as well. Either way, on that score, Apple are in the right and Samsung trying the bully act and being called on it by the court and the EU. End of story. Just the same as those industry standard techs where Apple have been developers, the same requirement applies. As for iPod, the idiot allowed his patent to expire. Your claims of Apple welshing on royalties are rubbish. They do not have to pay anything, legally and morally. That's one of the realities of patents. If you do not renew them, you lose all protection and are entitled to nothing. No good not renewing then when someone turns the idea into a market changer whining about how unfair the world is. I have heard there are some discussion being held, despite this. We are up for renewal costs on 2 at present and must decide if the cost is worth it, given changes in the market. Edited by amcmo: 8/11/2011 12:23:52 AM
rubaiyat 8 November 2011	amcmo Harsh to call the man an idiot, it was his invention, and after the collapse of the company that held the patent it was probably beyond his financial means to maintain the patents. That is the catch, they are expensive to maintain and enforce. Apple seems to have an excellent research dept. that avidly locates and acquires most of the innovative technologies that the others ignore. Guess it helps that they know a good idea when they see one.
amcmo 8 November 2011	Agreed, perhaps a little harsh, however there was a substantially lower cost option. Patent in his home country and the US only. He Then has protection in one of the largest markets, preventing an Apple for example using the patent without agreement. As circumstances change add other market patents. My comment remains, if you don't patent in te first place, or maintain them, it' no point crying when someone else maes a success of your idea, and no right to expect anyone to give your hand out. I have learned from first hand with not making a patent broad brush enough that a competitor can analyse your patent and find a way to scrape around te edges of it and pinch a good slice of yor market. Life's a bitch and you have to learn from the mistake and get on with not repeating.
rubaiyat 8 November 2011	Possible also that the patents got caught up in the fracas of the failing company (sounds like the dissolution was acrimonious). He may simply have been powerless to do anything about it.
photohounds 8 November 2011	And credit where it is due is better than theft, when you make a lot of loot from someone else's idea. Speaking of being called in court .. http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9221550/Motorola_gets_injunction_against_Apple_in_Germany?source=CTWNLE_nlt_dailyam_2011-11-07 Apple says it will ignore the court. As far as I am aware, Samsung obeys court rulings. Another example of Apple's piggish "I am above the law" mentality. When a court rules against apple I presume they are ignorant and "wrong". And this ... http://www.computerworlduk.com/news/it-business/3315920/judge-rules-in-favour-of-ntk-in-apple-ipad-piracy-case/ 10 million is small change. A company with a conscience and a sense of fair play would have signed him up. The INVENTOR - not 'some idiot'. Did you look at the drawings? It could have been the early ART work for ipods fer krissakes ... His company had a stack of trouble and it's all a hard luck story. Stealing unprotected ideas? Still theft, but 'legal theft' so that's defensible.
rubaiyat 9 November 2011	Both cases have yet to pan out. You may as well be commenting on what the judge wore to the hearings for all that it matters. Apple has enormous amounts of money and will be both the target of lawsuits from anyone who thinks it can get a piece of the action and it will itself sue companies it considers are selling or making knock-offs of its products. This is all normal business. It is also normal photohounds' normal 'hate-Apple' interpretation of events. No mention of Samsung or Motorola being "evil and anti-competitive" for suing Apple in their own interests. btw Loved the usual bit of miserable sub-editing at ComputerWorld "If Apple does not respect the judgment, it may have to pay a 250,000, the court ruled." If I can check my own work, I can't see why these 'professional' journalists can't give their paid work at least a once over before hitting the Send button. But then maybe they consider their own efforts as pointless gumpf not worth a read.