Separately, Lee tries to open a line of question about Samsung playing foul in standards. Apple alleged in opening statements Samsung pays its engineers to get patents on standards-in-progress and that it has not disclosed patents, such as the ones in question when asked to do so under rules of groups such as ETSI.
But Judge Lucy H. Koh draws a hard line. The arguments in the part of the case will have to wait untilo later and not be used to make Williams or Samsung look bad now. Nice call, judge.
Anyway, the can of worms is opened for the jury—and for EE Times. We will dig into the issue, starting here, starting now:
Have you been asked to write patents on standards-in-progress? Have you been compensated for doing so? Has your company failed to disclose standards according to the rules of standards groups you participated in?
Betcha there are a lot of stories out there I may never hear. Incendiary stuff, I know. Let’s air this subject.
Next up, one of Samsung’s top industrial designers Jin Su Kim. He did industrial design for Hyundai cars before Samsung hired him to do the same for its handsets. The two most prestigious jobs for an industrial designer in Korea.
“I am proud of what I do,” Kim said. “There are 300 million people globally using mobile phones I have designed and I am proud of that.”
Actually, Apple used Infineon in early versions of the iPhone. The reason this is being brought up is because unlike Qualcommm, to my knowledge Infineon does not have a cross-licensing agreement with Samsung, so Samsung cannot be accused of double-dipping here and is full within its rights to demand royalties for essential IP held by Samsung on these early iPhones sold by Apple (and there were a few of them).
Yes, it it common place to be compensated for patents filed and obviously the goal is always for essential IPR. Why are you surprised by this? Non-disclosure of such IPR is not so common, but I'm sure it happens.
Actually Intel does have a cross-license with Samsung, something Apple attorneys were quick to point out. Apple suggested Samsung can't charge Apple with being wrong when it was an Intel chip made under cross license.
I believe there is still some virgin legal territory about suing your infringer's customer (Quanta case?)
In addition, Apple noted its a $10 baseband chip and Samsung is seeing ~$430 million in damages for the infringement.
Isn't suing the upstream customer (Apple for using an Infineon chip) incompatible with the Exhaustion Doctrine
similar to the First Sale Doctrine for copyright? And don't parts makers generally indemnify parts users in the electronics biz? It seems like the au courant thing to do, ala Samsung v. Apple here, or Google/Motorola for other IP snuck into standards, is to ignore the exhaustion doctrine and just go after the deepest pockets...
Infineon only became Intel recently, you need to look back to 2007 and whether Infineon had cross-licensing or not.
Noting that the baseband is worth $10 is irrelevant. IP holders will go after phone manufacturers if they can, not competitors, because they get royalties on higher ASPs (ie. their IP + screen + battery + ...). Fair? No, but that is the way the industry has always worked.
Back to one of the points in the article; patents and standards aren't always as clear cut as one would like.
Lots of companies pay engineers for patents, but patents can take time to file and in the meantime the standards work progresses. So, do the standard body's rules require disclosure of applications or just awarded patents?
Once the paperwork is filed for the application the engineer likely won't know the status until he gets his payment, which could take a couple of years, or maybe not at all.
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 today’s commercial processor giants such as Intel, ARM and Imagination Technologies.