Samsung wins 3G patent ruling; demands Apple compensation

Samsung wins 3G patent ruling; demands Apple compensation

Summary: Samsung has won a rare victory against Apple in a patent infringement case in the Netherlands.

SHARE:

A court in The Hague has sided with Samsung in a case, which found Apple to have violated a 3G patent belonging to the Korean smartphone giant.

A Samsung spokesperson said:

"Samsung welcomes the decision of the court in The Hague, which again confirms that Apple makes free use of our technological innovations. In accordance with this statement, we will recover adequate damages that Apple and its products have caused."

While figures have yet to be thrown around, it's likely Samsung will seek a sum worth at least seven-figures, if not more.

However, because the infringed patent is registered under 'fair and reasonable' (FRAND) terms, the court said today that Samsung was no longer allowed to pursue any more sales injunctions against the iPhone and iPad maker as long as Apple is open to licensing negotiations.

Samsung originally brought the case to The Hague in October 2011, accusing Apple of infringing four 3G networking patents.

A Dutch court last year threw out an earlier motion to ban the Apple smartphone and tablet from store shelves based on four patents essential to 3G.

Both companies have been locked in acrimonious battles over patents since Apple fired off the starting pistol in April 2011.

Since then, the companies have engaged in dozens of cases across four continents. Both have suffered sales injunctions at each others' hands --- though Samsung arguably came off worse most of the time.

The two companies will go to trial on July 30 following the breakdown of two-days of settlement talks in May.

Image credit: Brian Bennett/CNET.

Related:

Topics: IT Employment, Apple, CXO, Hardware, Legal, Mobility, Samsung

Kick off your day with ZDNet's daily email newsletter. It's the freshest tech news and opinion, served hot. Get it.

Talkback

27 comments
Log in or register to join the discussion
  • time to sell the apple stock

    apple is going down at the hands of FOSS force.
    iHype is just a pile of stolen technology wrapped in a shiny box!
    The Linux Geek
    • Er, right

      First of all, I'm not even sure where FOSS comes into this, other than Samsung uses Android, which really has nothing to do with the 3G patents. Second of all, assuming that Samsung makes the most of its seven figure damages, they'll get around 10 million dollars. Need I remind you that Apple has somewhere around 100 billion dollars? 10M is a drop in the bucket for Apple.
      Aerowind
      • what you are saying

        is that it is ok to steal as long as you can pay later if you get caught
        pupkin_z
      • Apple will be happy to pay

        As long as the amount is fair, reasonable and most importantly NON-DISCRIMINATORY (ie. Apple will not have to pay anymore than any other company - big or small).

        Apple bone as been that Samsung have been discriminitory...they want a cross licesning deal and Apple don't want that. They want to pay the license and not license their technology to Samsung. Too bad for Samsung....this win is actually a loss for them because now they only get a small amount of cash which is a drop in the ocean for both companies.
        global.philosopher
        • "may the punishment fit the crime"

          Just like errant and uncouth basketball and football players paying a $20k fine when they "earn" $250m for running around holding a ball as "work", that's no punishment.

          May the punishment fit the crime.

          If Apple upended the whole industry by playing big baby bunting bully, what in turn is "fair, reasonable", and I will side for discrimination - a person murdering a dozen people in cold blood is a bit of a different context (sheer offense) compared to a battered wife who killed in self-defense.

          Unless you mean "death" - and with corporations being people, and the bumper sticker claiming people will believe corporations are people the moment the nastiest and most "competition-intolerant" that use predatory means to wipe out everyone else be given such a penalty...
          HypnoToad72
      • Well, size of the market?

        This is one small country. I am sure that Samsung would use that when negotiate with Apple. If Apple had to pay let's say 10M multiplied by the ratio of USA market/Netherlands market. You realize this could be 150M or more? Then there is most of EU, Japan, AU, etc.... It adds up.
        kirovs@...
    • time to sell apple stock

      Samsung won on 1 of 3 patents it was asserting. What the article fails to point out is that Samsung lost on the other 3 patents it was trying to assert and under the rules has to also pay Apple money for losing on those 3 patents. The lawsuit only applied to Dutch jurisdiction. How much iPhones did Apple sell in that market?
      bulldogbobby
      • but it sets legal precedents

        that *could* have a ripple effect across the planet. It might or might not mean anything, but if it does, it will mean something in a big way.
        admiraljkb
      • @admiraljkb

        The precedent it sets is that companies that have patents that are part of standards must abide by FRAND terms, something Samsung was trying to avoid. This is actually a good thing.
        msalzberg
    • Idiotic statement

      Apple has over $25 BILLION in cash and short term investments. They can write a check for any settlement without a problem. In reality both sides will use this to reaching a co-licensing agreement and perhaps settle all outstanding lawsuits. There is more smoke than fire here.
      Jim__J
      • True, Apple has over $25 Billion in cash...

        in fact, they have over $100 Billion.
        Yuniverse
    • FOSS innovation all the way

      yup totally agreed with you..
      linuxforhumanbeing
  • Good job Samsung

    I'm sure Samsung would be happy if Apple would just stop slavishly copying Samsung's stuff.
    toddbottom3
    • According to intellectual property expert Florian Mueller of FOSS Patents

      the favorable court ruling is a "consolation prize" that only amounts to a "symbolic" victory for the company. (the above is quoted in an Appleinsider article on the same topic.)

      Florian Mueller goes on to state, "Tiny amounts of money won't get Apple to settle," he said. "Samsung was trying hard to win an injunction, but failed. From a strategic point of view, it had already lost 99.9% of these cases even before today's liability ruling came down. This really is nothing more than symbolic."

      This was a case about a FRAND patent. I guess Apple thought Samsung wished too much money for the rights to this technology. Now, I guess, the courts will decide how much this FRAND patent is worth.
      kenosha77a
      • Florian Mueller

        That guy is a shill and a joke. I think he still thinks Oracle is going to burn Google for $4 Billion.
        hoaxoner
      • Oracle, Google and Mueller.

        Your probably right about that 4 billion sum. Grin. But his opinions have been quoted by many reputable sources during these litigation proceedings.
        kenosha77a
      • WHY does ZDNet insist on quoting Florian Muller?

        Has the man EVER been right about anything? Based on his words thus far I'd venture to say he has to have his shoes labeled "left" and "right" so he doesn't put them on the wrong feet...

        Since this is a FRAND patent I'd be interested to see how much Samsung was asking Apple to pay vs how much they've asked others to pay vs how much the courts will decide Apple should pay.
        NonFanboy
  • Can't they...

    just get a room. This is getting incredibly tedious.

    Samsung loses, Apple loses and the consumer loses, the only ones really laughing are the sodding lawyers!
    wright_is
  • FRAND will limit the damages Samsung can seek

    as well as what their licensing fees will be.
    baggins_z
  • Amen

    ... when you start aggrevating nearly everyone, then people will start fighting back (just as they did against Microsoft in the 1990s and early 2000s). Death by a 1000 litigations is fine with me if Apple wants to continue to act aggressively.
    jkohut