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.


Allyson Kazmucha

Editor for iMore, Potter pundit, and the ninja in your iOS

More Posts



← Previously

TiPb Picks of the Week for October 15, 2011

Next up →

iPhone 4S 1080p video camera hands on

There are 25 comments. Add yours.

Battle Geek says:

Maybe Samsung needs to start paying those loyalties to Apple at the end of the day people already know that they ( Samsung) do great hardware. Looks like they are loosing and it might cost them dearly in the long run.

TKFox007 says:

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

Diesel says:

No Apple has to pay samsung in this case, but samsung din't get a ban on apple's 3g products

Jim says:

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.

Dev says:

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.

Jim says:

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!

Dev says:

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

TKFox007 says:

Samsung just can't catch a break, everything they try to fight back against Apple just doesn't work.

johncblandii says:

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.

Dev says:

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?

johncblandii says:

I never thought about them having to pay but it will be a very lucrative deal for Samsung.

Anton Frost says:

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

Neo says:

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.

Johna says:

I think you give yourself too much credit hahaha.

Skier1960 says:

Because you buy a iPhone 4s your a sheep. And the logic of that statement is?

johncblandii says:

If you find logic in there slap me and call me your monkey's uncle.

Jim says:

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!

Michelle says:

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 !

Sonia Aslam says:

nice post... visit us at itechbee.wordpress.com

Anton Frost says:

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.