South Korean Court Declares Samsung and Apple Violated Each Other's Patents, Halts Product Sales of Older Devices

That fine will be devastating for Apple.

Anddddd the winner is......................


the lawyers!

Guess it's easier to play on the home court. "Apple, you can't sell your new stuff. Samsung, you can't sell the stuff that you're not selling any more anyway." Really fair.

Uh.. since when is iPhone 4 and iPad 2 new? iPhone 4 is 2 years old, iPad 2 is 1.5 years old. Or in other words just as old as Samsung's banned devices

In the U.S., Motorola is attempting to do the same for SEP that impacts both MS and Apple, and so far has met no success, and isn't expected to.

You sure you're reading the news about this and not just ignoring what goes against your argument ? Because I'm pretty sure Motorola met success back in April :

http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2403459,00.asp

But don't let reality get in the way of spreading some FUD about Apple's competitor, carry on!

This type of litigation is only legit/allowed in Korean courts, so this has little effect elsewhere (I.e. the current battle in the U.S. court).

Also, I find it humorous that the Galaxy Tabs are banned; this will probably cost Samsung literally HUNDREDS of dollars in sales. :D

No you are wrong about the FRAND you quoted. Korean court found apple guilty for "not" trying hard enough to license the FRAND. That's what the judge ruled. Apple didn't negotiate hard enough and undervalued of FRAND patents. Samsung provided the details regard licenses with other companies on same FRAND showing they are getting paid more than apple wanted. This gave the judge an impression that Apple didn't give enough efforts. If Apple matched the price with other companies then Samsung would've guilt of not provide FRAND.

I found that all of apple related sites don't give full details of how the ruling went. It gives an impression that Apple and Samsung were tied. No it didn't. It hurt Apple more than Samsung.

Here's the full details that macrumors skipped/didn't let us know.
1.Only bounce back patent found that Samsung breached. Patents such as rectangular shape with round corners have been denied; judge ruled people can't confuse between iphone and SG and therefore, Samsung did not copy the iphone.
2. Grid of icons found is free of guilty as well due to similar art has been found.
3. Icons such as phone and texts icons were also found not copying because Samsung showed an evidence that the same exact icons(telephone drawing) in their prior phones back in 2005.
4. Apple has breached 2 patents related to 3g and mobile data transfering. Although those 2 patents are FRAND, as I mentioned above, Apple didn't show enough effort to license it. The burden is on Apple to license it not on Samsung.

So the final verdict was Samsung breached 1 patent(bounceback) and Apple breached 2 patents. Samsung will need to pay 25k USD(just converting simple 1 to 1000) while Apple needs to pay 20k USD per patent a total of 40k. The banned devices macrumors told are the devices that have breached each others patents. Samsung may lift the ban after a software updates showing there are no more bounceback and apple may lift the ban after licensing the 2 patents from Samsung.

So I believe these 2 companies will settle with cross licensing it or some sort of.

FRAND does not mean free, something a lot of posters here have a hard time understanding. Apple's argument against Samsung's 3G patents are 2 fold :

- That they have a license to the patents from their buying hardware from a 3rd party with a license. The licensing agreements Samsung hold with Broadcom and Qualcomm show this isn't actually the case, that the license is not transferrable with a hardware purchase. This is how they've won these cases in the past

- That the terms offerred, 2.x% of the cost of the device, is neither fair nor reasonable. Basically, Apple wants to pay no more 1% per chip they use, not per device and they want a flat fee with no cross-licensing deal. Samsung rebutes this by saying all their other licenses are based on per device pricing and that they have cross-licensing setup.

It's not abusing your FRAND patents when suing a player that is refusing to pay the proper FRAND terms for them after negotiating. Before you accuse either Motorola or Samsung of abuse of FRAND patents, wait until there's an outcome in the FCC's investigation about it. They aren't guilty until they've been proven to not have had good faith licensing talks with Apple. And no matter what, this doesn't mean Apple gets to use the technology for free.

Now, as for the Bounce back patent, the reason this might not hurt Samsung much is simple, this is the same patent that was used against them in the Netherlands for which Apple won an injunction last year :

http://www.brightsideofnews.com/news/2011/8/25/dutch-court-grants-apple-preliminary-injunction-against-samsung.aspx

The thing is, Samsung removed the functionality before the injunction went into effect and got it lifted. They already have the software fix for it. Now they just need to update Korean devices too with it.