If Samsung's IP was really that strong - if they really have patents "essential" to wireless communications - then my first question is why they allow any competitors.
Florian Mueller makes a reasonable case that Samsung is trying to assert a very different kind of patent in a highly unusual way - http://fosspatents.blogspot.com/2011/10/samsungs-attempt-to-.... TLDR: these kind of patents fall under the FRAND (fair reasonable non-discriminatory framework) and Samsung is obligated to grant them to anyone ("non-discriminatory") that wants them for a "reasonable" fee. To press an injunction without any arbitration violates the basic spirit of FRAND. Agree with their case or not, Apple's patents in question do not have these restrictions.
This is just another example of Apple suffering from its own actions. It was all excited about how H.264 was a FRAND standard, ignoring it's own previous statements about how such standards could lead to dominant players abusing other parties. But it had a market lead and a business model that fitted with the status quo so it was full speed ahead. And now the shoe is on the other foot.
From Apple's previous statement on this matter:
"While the current draft patent policy does state a “preference” for royalty-free standards, the ready availability of a RAND option presents too easy an alternative for owners of intellectual property who may seek to use the standardization process to control access to fundamental Web standards. A mandatory royalty-free requirement for all adopted standards will avoid this result."
>This is just another example of Apple suffering from it's own actions. It was all excited about how H.264 was a FRAND standard, ignoring it's own previous statements about how such standards could lead to dominant players abusing other parties.
If Samsung has granted a license(either with royalties or royalty-free) to everyone else besides Apple, they aren't following the FRAND standard. If they have, and this is a result of negotiations falling apart(which is highly unlikely, considering that these are "essential to the reliable functioning of telecom networks and devices", and the iPhone 1 presumably infringes on these), then Samsung has a case.
Otherwise, Samsung may be violating agreements that they have with the standards agencies. This will be pretty interesting how it plays out.
The iPhone 1 won't, it's to do with CDMA which is only the iPhone 4 had as I understand it. The iPhone 4 with CDMA was also only available in the US though and that area is already under litigation.
Because basically everyone has patents "essential" to something their competitors do. So there's been a broad detente in the industry, where no one sues indiscriminately on patents as a way to block their competitors. Except that Apple broke the truce, so now out come the guns. Yawn. I find it hard to believe that either side is really going to impede the other's sales much; this is a play for better negotiating position by Samsung.
The parents post was specifically pointing out that Samsung's patents don't enable them to block their competitors period end of story. It comes down to Samsung saying it's reasonable for us to get the right to use your patents as compensation for using ours. And Apple saying, as long as we are willing to pay you money we get to use your patents and you don't have the option do say no as long as the amount of money is reasonable.
Way, way out of scope. I was talking specifically about Apple and Samsung. That they got sued earlier by Nokia doesn't make it OK to go after other vendors, sorry. And yes, Nokia was wrong too.
Indeed. It looks pretty bad when you selectively quote and drop the stuff I said about Samsung. Please. This site should be better than that. Frankly I don't even see where you disagree with anything I said. Apple sued Samsung in a high stakes bit of asshattery, and Samsung did the same. You think either of those is a good thing?
Your stuff is right there, I parsed the quote I originally responded to that made it clear you were very clearly not originally talking about a specific case -- a "broad detente in the industry" that Apple was the first to violate. Saying after the fact that you were only talking about Samsung is moving the goalposts. Maybe we don't disagree there but I'm hardly wrong for pointing out what I did when I did.
"You think either of those is a good thing?"
I think Nokia had many innovations that Apple infringed on and Apple probably deserved to be sued by Nokia and they paid up. I certainly don't remember anyone crying about how Nokia started "high stakes asshattery" in that case. Apparently it's only when Android vendors are the target of lawsuits that people get up in arms.
I think Samsung comes very close to if not crossing the line of infringement and Apple has the right to test that in court. You call this "high stakes asshattery" but you can just as easily make the case that Samsung is the asshat for blatant copying.
I think Samsung (like Nokia) has many technologies that Apple may infringe on. Based on limited evidence we've seen it's not as compelling as Nokia's but they have the right to test this in court or leverage it for a settlement or whatever.
Florian Mueller makes a reasonable case that Samsung is trying to assert a very different kind of patent in a highly unusual way - http://fosspatents.blogspot.com/2011/10/samsungs-attempt-to-.... TLDR: these kind of patents fall under the FRAND (fair reasonable non-discriminatory framework) and Samsung is obligated to grant them to anyone ("non-discriminatory") that wants them for a "reasonable" fee. To press an injunction without any arbitration violates the basic spirit of FRAND. Agree with their case or not, Apple's patents in question do not have these restrictions.