Progress on one of the many cases between Samsung and Apple managed to surprise Florian Mueller of Foss Patents, which is a rarity, seeing how he responded in his post. In the case, Apple and Nokia argued that Samsung had made use of "highly confidential patent license terms" between Apple and Nokia for their own license negotiation with Nokia (in July 2013). Samsung was cleared of the charge on the end of January, but their law firm Quinn Emanuel was ordered to pay for the cost of litigation for Apple and Nokia as it led to the disclosure of those confidential licensing terms.
However, it was found that Apple themselves had publicly filed the supposedly license terms with Nokia on a publicly-accessible court docket (summary of proceedings on court) since October, before taking it down four months later. What makes this a big deal is that Apple did not have to release exact details of the license terms publicly.
Personally, similar to what Mueller proposes, I think there should be a reduction in the cost Quinn Emanuel would need to pay. Although we can argue that these confidential information would not have been released had Samsung not presented licensing terms to Nokia which were almost identical to Apple's, the revelation was only to those present at court and would not have been publicly available, which Apple chose to disclose whether by carelessness or not. Samsung and their law firm should thus not be required to cover for all the cost of litigation since Apple made a mistake even if the public did not see the confidential licensing terms while it was still available to the public.
Sources:
http://www.fosspatents.com/2014/03/apple-publicly-disclosed-terms-of-its.html
http://www.fosspatents.com/2014/01/us-court-declines-to-sanction-samsung.html
http://www.scribd.com/doc/203331606/14-01-29-Apple-v-Samsung-Order-on-Sanctions-for-Disclosures
However, it was found that Apple themselves had publicly filed the supposedly license terms with Nokia on a publicly-accessible court docket (summary of proceedings on court) since October, before taking it down four months later. What makes this a big deal is that Apple did not have to release exact details of the license terms publicly.
Personally, similar to what Mueller proposes, I think there should be a reduction in the cost Quinn Emanuel would need to pay. Although we can argue that these confidential information would not have been released had Samsung not presented licensing terms to Nokia which were almost identical to Apple's, the revelation was only to those present at court and would not have been publicly available, which Apple chose to disclose whether by carelessness or not. Samsung and their law firm should thus not be required to cover for all the cost of litigation since Apple made a mistake even if the public did not see the confidential licensing terms while it was still available to the public.
Sources:
http://www.fosspatents.com/2014/03/apple-publicly-disclosed-terms-of-its.html
http://www.fosspatents.com/2014/01/us-court-declines-to-sanction-samsung.html
http://www.scribd.com/doc/203331606/14-01-29-Apple-v-Samsung-Order-on-Sanctions-for-Disclosures
Firstly, I truly feel bad for Samsung these days. They are going through so much scrutiny, especially from Apple, and Nokia's conjunction with them only adds salt to the wound. This may be my bias as a Samsung device owner, but I also agree when you mention that Quinn Emanuel should not have to pay so much.
ReplyDeleteTo me, the motives of Apple/Nokia seem simple. Since Samsung has been dominating the market, they decided to try their hands at bringing the company down. When the court decided that, indeed, Samsung had not made use of the licensing terms, they decided to at least recover the money they spent on this...at Samsung's expense.
Technology corporations have become accustomed to success and, hence, have become extremely greedy in their actions.
I don't think you really need to feel too bad for Samsung. They brought in over $250 billion in revenue last year according to Wikipedia. Don't forget that they sell other products in addition to smartphones so this isn't their only market. As for the case itself, while it may be unfair for Samsung and their lawyers to front most of the litigation costs, these companies still make far more than most of us will see in our life time. The fact that they even started this whole ordeal means that occasionally they will have to foot the bill. That's the risk you take with litigation, whether the outcome is fair or not. In the end, the people deciding the outcome are people, so they are entitled to their own opinions, regardless if the rest of the world considers if fair or unfair.
DeleteI am compelled to provide another analogy. Celebrities choose to sacrifice their privacy for the fame. Most of them make hella money just by broadcasting their real life through Television shows.
DeleteFair or unfair is a question of money, not the true fairness.
Nice blog dear. I like video that share in this blog. Sportlizenzen & Lizenzagentur
ReplyDelete