Dutch courts reject Samsung's request to ban 3G Apple products

Samsung Logo

Samsung's request to ban 3G Apple products was turned down by Dutch courts on Friday. We pretty much figured this would be the outcome considering 3G technology is covered by FRAND as an essential standards technology. Samsung can't refuse a license to Apple.

This will also make it harder for Samsung to win bans on Apple devices in the EU as well according to intellectual property expert, Florian Mueller -

"A win for Apple but also relief for the industry because the judge upheld widespread understanding of fair, reasonable, and non-discriminatory (FRAND) terms in the use of patents,..."Apple will be taking French and Italian translations of the Dutch ruling with it. This makes it a long shot for Samsung that it could win an injunction in the EU based on its 3G patents,"

The judge simply ruled that the two companies should negotiate an agreement on the license and be done. Anyone surprised by this ruling? I know I'm not.

Reuters

Have something to say about this story? Share your comments below! Need help with something else? Submit your question!

Allyson Kazmucha

Senior editor for iMore. I can take apart an iPhone in less than 6 minutes. I also like coffee and Harry Potter more than anyone really should.

More Posts

 

0
loading...
0
loading...
0
loading...
0
loading...

← Previously

TiPb Picks of the Week for October 15, 2011

Next up →

iPhone 4S 1080p video camera hands on

Reader comments

Dutch courts reject Samsung's request to ban 3G Apple products

25 Comments

Apple doesn't want royalties, they don't want others to use their patents, which are already broad, cover everything patents

Correct, Apple will have to pay Samsung but Samsung are requesting a higher amount from Apple than other phone Manufacturers which is unreasonable. Apple are, quite rightly, requesting fair treatment under FRAND.
This, in my opinion, was Samsung changing the rules to fit their own needs. They needed Apple to be unhappy by the discriminatory higher so that they would not agree to pay the royalties. This would, in the Samsung world, give Samsung an opening to try a tit-for-tat court case.
This is why it was tried in a smaller market like the Netherlands. If it fails then not a big deal and if they win it gives them a basis on which to try and ban the Apple devices in the larger markets. A little bit like dipping your toe in the bath to make sure that you are not going to burn your ass when you jump in!
I would worry, if I was a rival Android phone manufacturer, each time these patents that Samsung hold come up for renewal that the same unfair increase in royalty's per unit were to take place against them.

Unless you know what Samsung charged Nokia, HTC, etc and what they attempted to charge Apple, you have no idea what you are talking about. All we know is that Samsung is attempting to charge more than Apple thinks they should pay. Given the legal issues between the companies, I think it safe to assume that Samsung wants to include an element of patent cross-licensing in the payment, and, if true, that Apple would be reluctant to do so. That's it.
Cross-licensing as a form of payment is not uncommon in these cases, but there is nothing publicly available to indicate Samsung has asked for more on that front than they asked from any other licensor.

I am sorry, you don't need to know, you just know that it was more because APPLE stated it was more and unreasonable.
Oh and you definitely do not know what you are talking about, I just didn't go all out before and tell you but now I have. Check your facts carefully!

Umm...no. When two sides are in dispute, you cannot say "side A is right because side A says they are right."

I am surprised. I thought it would be yay or nay but instead Apple will have to pay. Could be far more lucrative that microsoft gets from Samsung.

Apple was always going to have to pay - they are using Samsung's tech. The only question was how the judge would react to these two companies being unable to come to terms for 3 years. Samsung apparently wanted a heavier element of cross licensing (not uncommon) while Apple apparently preferred a heavier mix of cash. Apple has been aware some form of payment has been coming, and I am sure they have planned accordingly.
What I find puzzling is the duration - the judge basically said "you havent struck a deal yet - get out of the courts and go make one." Apple has apparently been selling this tech without a license for 3 years, possibly 4 if it goes back to the original iPhone. At what point can a judge intervene and compel a settlement?

It is a lucrative deal for the lawyers really. Both companies have cash. Lawyers are making off like bandits in these cases.

when apple sued ,that was a bitch move. They knew for the next year all they were going to have was a updated iphone 4 with siri. Regardless of how many of you sheep went out and bought it.

Can't we just slap you and call you a monkey's uncle for the sheer hell of doing it, more fun than trying to find logic in his statement!

I gave my only phone to my Girflfriend cuz her broke. now i'm without phone or soetmimes i just lend one from friend. i need really new one ;( and iPhone was always my dream. but i can't afford to buy it So please choose me ;( and help me !

This was a good legal decision. If Samsung had won this case, they would've gone after every handset maker. There is nothing positive in that and anyone who would support Samsung suing everyone in the industry due to being bitter over losing to Apple in court is just an idiot.