SAN JOSE, Calif. A former Samsung licensing director said disclosing a patent before a standard is frozen is a stupid thing, according a deposition introduced Friday (Aug. 17) by Apple in its patent infringement case against Samsung.
Apple replayed the comment here in court from a video deposition taken earlier this year, intending to throw mud on the image of the Korean giant. It's unclear whether the comment, like so many others made in testimony here, was presented in its full context. In separate testimony, an expert for Samsung suggested many companies wait until patents are granted before disclosing them.
In the video, Jun Won Lee, speaking through a translator, said he led a 200-person IP group at Samsung from 2005-2010. It included 20 to 30 people responsible for telecoms standards such as 3G from the European Telecommunications Standards Institute (ETSI)/3GPP.
The small team sat in on 3G and other standards meetings, and was responsible for directing work on patents that related to the standards, he said. Asked if Samsung ever disclosed a patent before a standard was frozen, he replied, I am not sure if that ever happened, but if it happened I believe that was a stupid thing.
Apple previously established ETSI requires companies who make a proposal to disclose any patents on their proposal in a timely way. It showed two 3G patents Samsung claims Apple infringed were not disclosed until a year or more after the standard was frozen, violating ETSI policy, said Michael Walker, a Kings College administrator and Apple expert witness.
The testimony raises a broader question of what are industry practices in disclosures for standards-essential patents, something neither side raised in questioning witnesses here today.
Considering Samsung has the Patent for The "Retina" display used in the ipads and the fact they manufacture most of Apple's hardware can backfire for Apple. If Apple wins, say goodbye to the Ipad 2,ipod,mac,etc. Also Apple is suing samsung because their tablet is too "square", Apple actually has patented the square with rounded edges. That is the worst judicial allowment ever.Come sue me too Apple, my table is a square. Also Apple's slide to unlock feature is a metaphor. And in Apples 1988-1994 court battle, it was decided illegal to patent a metaphor. Yet another judicial error/ law breaking streak in apple. Die Crapple die!!!
Love ya Samsung
Refer to Wang vs Mitsubishi*. The original DRAM SIMM patent, JEDEC standardization and Wang's attempt to claim royalties. 1983.
Wang lost both the jury trial and on appeals.
The obligations of Standards Developing Organizations (SDOs) are becoming more and more clear with every court case. If you participate in an SDO, disclose your patent applications, or don't expect royalties.
More recently, a well-known DRAM IP firm spent hundreds of millions in an effort to defend itself. But it finally lost its latest case against an Idaho memory company re: key synchronous DRAM patents. The IP firm failed to disclose key patent applications to standards committees, while it was a member of an SDO in the mid-1990's.
* Wang Laboratories, Inc. v. Mitsubishi Electronics America, Inc. and Mitsubishi Electric Corporation, 103 F.3d 1571; 41 U.S.P.Q.2D (BNA) 1263 (Fed. Cir. 1997).
standards rules do not trump law patent or otherwise.
What is a "timely manner".
If this were to be upheld in court it could only allow for the untimly time for relief. All other times would require a royalty payment. Or swapping royalty payments.
It's being tried in the US because the issue is US issued patents. Take the tin foil hats off folks. Or suspend the fan-boi attitudes. What Rick has reported has irked me both ways, that means he's doing his job.
The trail is going on. What will happen after the judgement? Suppose Apple wins will Samsung will bring another new model to sell in USA? or if Samsung wins will Apple going to pay royalty to Samusung? or if both win in their respective patents Apple and Samsung will continue to sell their same products world wide?
Greg.Dee and SiliconAsia, can it. Rick is doing a great job covering this trial. Geez...lighten up. Apple's attorneys are obviously well coached in the "marketing message" and in the end Apple wants to make sure their "message" is communicated even through this trial. Mr. Merritt is just reporting the facts clearly and I for one appreciate his work. It is fascinating to read. BTW - I am not an Apple "fan boy" - I work for Fujitsu. I do, however, have an iPad and I love it. I use a BlackBerry for my phone - just in case anybody is interested :)
David Patterson, known for his pioneering research that led to RAID, clusters and more, is part of a team at UC Berkeley that recently made its RISC-V processor architecture an open source hardware offering. We talk with Patterson and one of his colleagues behind the effort about the opportunities they see, what new kinds of designs they hope to enable and what it means for todays commercial processor giants such as Intel, ARM and Imagination Technologies.