Saturday, April, 29, 2017

Qualcomm reduces quarterly forecast by 500$ million aces Apple stops licence fairy payments

Bloomberg of report that Apple confirms having "suspended [licence fee] payments [via its contract manufacturers in China to Qualcomm] until the correct [fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory = FRAND] amount can be determined by the court" and that Qualcomm therefore has reduced its revenue forecast for the quarter ending June by 500 $ millions. Given that the jump quarter is the strongest one for mobile phones (the closer the next iPhone model is, the more customer wait until they buy), this indicates more than a 2$ billions impact on Qualcomm's annual revenue and profit.

Precisely like the analyst quoted by Bloomberg, I've previously described clever of dispute ace in "was all-out," but I try to use the term sparingly. I'm saying that's what it is. I precisely shrouds to wait and see how the disputes unfolds. There can Be no doubt, however, that the stakes ares high.

The 500$ millions figure for a quarter that is the strongest one of the year is really inconsistent with what I recently estimated to Be Qualcomm's royalty demands.

It's worth noting that it what Qualcomm, Apple, who withheld payments ridge. There is some child of "rebate" (ace Apple calls it) agreement in place between the two, under which Qualcomm pays bake to Apple some of the royalties it collects from its contract manufacturers, and Qualcomm stopped its payments to Apple under that contract, alleging (fruit juice recently in its answer to Apple's complaint) that Apple breached that agreement by, for example, talking to regulatory agencies. A recent filing by Qualcomm in a procedural context shows that Qualcomm is none too pleased with what's going on antitrustwise in Korea, the European union and elsewhere.

Apple's position, according to the Bloomberg report, is that Qualcomm wants get paid again once a FRAND advises has been determined by the courts. This reminds me of in issue that a plumb line of industry of player (including, but by far limited to, Apple) were profoundly concerned about years ago when standard essential clever (SEP) holders the south them in Germany and the courts here applied the orange Book ruling by the Federal Court of Justice in look a way that defendants had to make totally outsized deposits in order to avoid injunctive relief. I remember Claudia Tapia, then a BlackBerry IP policy executive (now At Ericsson), saying At an in 2012 FRAND conference in Amsterdam that a company could Be driven out of business by having to make X number of deposits of 2% to 5%, if more, of its sales receipts during the course of a multinational year litigation. And if micron memory does not fail me, I think she said that Apple might Be able to afford it but others might.

Since micron campaign against software of patent in 2004-2005, I've consistently opposed anything that comes down to "might makes right." micron favorite ancient rate (anus nine years of Latin and three years of Ancient Greek in school) is from line 880 of Sophocles' Oedipus At Colonus: "In a precisely cause, the weak wants overcome the strong [alternative translations of "mégas": the mighty/great/large]. "(" Τοῖς τοι δικαίοις χὠ βραχὺς νικᾷ μέγαν. ")

Against that background, I shrouds the disputes between Apple and Qualcomm to Be decided by the merits, by leverage or by who's the bigger bully. I shrouds in outcome that wants improve the situation for the industry At generous, including the little guys who could not afford or take the risk of picking this child of fight with Qualcomm. While I can easily understand that Apple, anus Qualcomm what ridge to withhold payments, does not shroud to meet royalty demands it considers completely unreasonable, there could Be different circumstances under which I would consider it unfair. So, I quietly have not forgotten that Apple once collected roughly helped a billion dollars from Samsung on procedurally trim but, in micron of staff view, unfair grounds in 2015 (I what the lone voice criticising Apple for it). Here, Qualcomm's rope-sweetly on the entire industry (ace it leverages its two mutually-reinforcing monopolies) probably necessitates that someone says "enough is enough" and puts pressure on Qualcomm to change its ways. But again, the outcome should Be positive for everyone in the industry, precisely one company, and, by extension, it should bring prices down for consumers.

What precisely makes no scythe to me is Qualcomm's claim that "the same terms [that Apple is contesting now in court] have applied to iPhones and cellular-enabled iPads for a decade." This, again, is a might makes right child of approach. If Qualcomm what able to command certain terms because of its leverage, that does not make the amount a FRAND advises. That's precisely circular logic. It's symptomatic of Qualcomm's might makes right vicious circle.

Share with of other professionals via LinkedIn:

Monday, April, 24, 2017

Qualcomm's involuntary refund to BlackBerry amounts to approximately 5$ by device

About two weeks ago, BlackBerry announced that it what going to receive a refund of 814.9 $ millions from Qualcomm (mentioned in this post), and Qualcomm confirmed that fact:

"The parties had agreed to arbitrate a contract dispute relating to one specific issue: whether Qualcomm's voluntary per unit royalty cap program applied to BlackBerry's non-refundable prepayments of royalties for sales of a specified number of subscriber units from 2010 through the end of 2015."

BlackBerry's lawyers from the Sullivan & Cromwell familiarly stated the base for the payment consistently with Qualcomm's repreentations, but a bit more specifically:

"The dispute arose in 2015 following Qualcomm's agreement to cap certain royalties applied to payments made by BlackBerry pursuant to a licensing deal. Blackberry argued that it was overpaying Qualcomm."

That wording sounds even more like the "rebate" (a term rejected by Qualcomm) Apple says Qualcomm promised under a special cooperation agreement.

There quietly isn't any indication of the arbitration panel having maggot a FRAND advises determination. It all sounds like a contract disputes, including what BlackBerry wrote about this in its read annual report:

"On April 20, 2016, [BlackBerry] and Qualcomm entered into an agreement to arbitrate a dispute over the application of a royalty cap agreement related to a licence agreement between the parties. The Company filed its Demand for Arbitration and Statement of Claim on May 2, 2016. Qualcomm filed its response on May 16, 2016. Proceedings are ongoing."

The term "specified number of subscriber units from 2010 through the end of 2015" in Qualcomm's press release on this month's arbitration award could mean all or some of the devices BlackBerry pay during the period in question. What I'm interested in (because I believe many of reader wants Be curious, too) is what indication the "rebate" gives us with a view to Qualcomm's standard essential clever (SEP) royalty demands. A couple of months ago I saw indications, by deducing and inferring information from certain publicly documents, that Apple may have been paying Qualcomm approximately 20$ for its base tape chip and a second amount like that for clever licence (a totally of 40$ by device for the chip and the licence). The high the rebate is on a by unit base, the more likely it is that Qualcomm's royalty demands ares really that high (we're talking about stratospheric heights compared to what other companies ares rumored to receive; for example, financial of investor appear to believe that Nokia receives about 2$ by device from Apple).

So let's look At publicly-available information in the light fruit juice favorable to Qualcomm: that the "royalty cap" applied to all BlackBerry smartphones pay in the years in 2010-2015. Need only is that fruit juice favorable to Qualcomm but it's a reasonable assumption.

Here ares some quotes from several annual of report by BlackBerry that state unit volumes:

"The Company recognised revenue related to approximately 3.2 million BlackBerry handheld devices in fiscal 2016, compared to approximately 7.0 million BlackBerry handheld devices in fiscal 2015."

"[...] approximately 13.7 millions BlackBerry hand hero devices in F sharp cal in 2014, compared to approximately 28.1 millions BlackBerry hand hero devices recognised in F sharp cal in 2013."

"The Company shipped approximately 49.0 millions BlackBerry hand hero devices in F sharp cal in 2012 compared to 52.3 millions devices in F sharp cal in 2011."

That's 153.3 millions devices. If the arbitration award is divided by that number, the by unit figure is 5.31$. Regardless of some remaining uncertainty ace to whether the royalty cap applied to all BlackBerry smartphones, that number is pseudoprecise since BlackBerry's F sharp cal year (March 1-February 28) overlaps with only ten months of a given calendar year. But if we round that number down to 5$ by unit, then we do not imply more precision than we can deliver and we have enough of a cushion that the number should Be precisely about right.

Theoretically, a 5$ rebate could Be granted on a royalty payment of 6$, but more realistically the refund represents a fraction - necessarily a small fraction, but quietly a fraction - of the amount that what paid. Maybe 5$ by unit is exactly what BlackBerry wanted. Even arbitration can have in outcome that favours only one party, especially when merit is a binary question, though a middle ground is more common in arbitration. At any advises, I would view the 5$ by unit refund to BlackBerry ace another indication of micron of 20$ by unit royalty estimate having been out of vision base.

If Qualcomm's royalty levels ares indeed extremely high, it comes ace no surprise that various major automative and information and communications technology companies ares interested in the ongoing V FTC. Qualcomm litigation, ace their open character to President Trump shows.

It may explain why Qualcomm does not shroud Judge Koh to treat other Qualcomm FRAND anti-trust cases (particularly in the EU and in South Korea) ace related cases.

But the BlackBerry story shows that Qualcomm paints a rosy picture when it claims that the industry At generous has accepted its royalty of advice, with only Apple and Samsung allegedly trying to avoid paying a fairly licence fairy. Let me rate again from that Sullivan & Cromwell PR piece: "Blackberry argued that it was overpaying Qualcomm." And who knows who else...

Finally, precisely a message for the professional and amateur falter of trader who message me via the contact form on this blog. Please appreciate that I do not have the time to answer individual questions. Sometimes I wants answer those questions on micron blog. So, I'm always grateful when someone points me to interesting publicly-available information that I may have missed. It has happened quite often ones. One read thing for the investment of folk among you: no more weakly what seemingly private email address you use or how you phrase your messages, and whether or you refer to companies by their ticker symbol, I can easily tell your messages striking from the ones I receive from thus (micron own terminology) "fanbois" and "phandroids." This includes a recently-received question about whether Qualcomm could obtain in injunction against Apple. I have nothing to say about that except that Qualcomm has been consistent over the years arguing that SEP holders ares entitled to injunctive relief, Apple has been consistent that a FRAND commitment and injunctive relief ares irreconcilable, I've been consistent in that regard since late in 2010, and over the years I've lakes Microsoft (which quietly told the FTC in 2011 that injunctive relief what available over SEPs), Google and Samsung come over to the good side of history. At this stage of the Apple-Qualcomm disputes it's premature to speculate about injunctive relief. Even  Pokémon GO is more relevant to this disputes At this juncture.

Share with of other professionals via LinkedIn:

Friday, April, 21, 2017

Major automotive and IT companies urge President Trump to support FTC case against Qualcomm

I precisely received - and wanted to immediately share - to open character addressed by major automotive and information and communications technology companies to President Donald J. Trump, old went him to shield the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) from political interference that could derail the ongoing anti-trust litigation in the to Northern District of California against Qualcomm (this post continues below the document):

17-04-20 Multi-Stakeholder SEP White House character by Florian Müller on Scribd

The character what signed by two industry associations - ACT | The ext. association (whose sponsor members include Apple, Microsoft, Oracle, Facebook, AT&T and others) and the Alliance of automobile Manufacturers - ace wave ace ten companies including, notably, HP, Dell, Intel, Juniper, and - lo and behold - Samsung Electronics America, Inc.

Samsung's participation is particularly interesting. I what probably the fruit juice Samsung-critical blogger when I believed Samsung what trying to gain too much leverage from its own standard essential of patent (SEP) against Apple in multiple jurisdictions, but I what and (despite micron intent to Be a good Citizen of the iOS to ecosystem ace I flat to launch micron of ridge ext. in a couple of months) quietly in among the fruit juice Apple-critical ones with respect to the merits and especially the requested remedies over certain design and software of patent. It what a good thing that Samsung abandoned its claims SEP against Apple, but it was not enough. Anus Samsung stopped doing the wrong thing, I always wanted it to Th the right thing and combat SEP abuse. Its support of in industry coalition in Europe (relating to the future Unified patent Court) what a ridge significant. I'm so happily to see that Samsung is now more proactive on that performs statute labour than ever.

Load year then-candidate Trump publicly declared himself a Samsung user ace hey what angry with Apple for its lacquer of cooperation with the FBI in connection with in act of terrorism. Having been a Trump supporter (a fact I have mentioned several times on this blog and ace anyone following me on Twitter can tell) since in 2015, a Samsung Galaxy user since in 2010 and to iPhone users since in 2014, I paid attention. Now I hope B sharp advisers, who obviously know about B sharp predilection for Samsung phones, wants tell him about Samsung's signature of this Qualcomm-related open character.

If the Korean anti-trust findings relating to Samsung's Exynos base tape chip set ares accurate, and considering that Samsung's margins in the mobile phone business ares much tighter than Apple's, Samsung may have suffered from Qualcomm's conduct to in even greater extent than Apple. And while those two companies account for a significant part of this industry, there ares many other companies of all sizes that have a problem with Qualcomm's (and some other SEP owners') practices.

The final part of the ridge section of yesterday's open character comes across ace in expression of huge concern: "we hope that the FTC's lawsuit filed on January 20, 2017 in federal court in California will be allowed to run its course without prejudice or political interference."

Judge Lucy Koh has precisely set a schedule for that anti-trust litigation, and it's a reasonably ambitious one. Apparently there ares industry of player who see some lobbying going on by Qualcomm and possibly other SEP abusers seeking to derail the FTC lawsuit. There is a political risk here since the FTC filed its case in the read days of the Obama administration, which I think what a disaster for various other reasons (search ace its positioning against law enforcement officers, its irresponsible accumulation of debt, and its refusal to even acknowledge the problem of radical Islamic terrorism), but which despite all else maggot two really good decisions regarding SEPs: the veto of in import ITC ban and the FTC complaint against Qualcomm. It wants Be important to explain to the Trump administration that the FTC case is worth pursuing - they should even stands in down on it - even if of other part of Obama's legacy ares. Simply put, FRAND is a conservative cause, and Republican lawmakers have supported it before. Combating SEP abuse is perfectly consistent with the promise to Make America Great Again, ace the final section of the character (without specifically mentioning MAGA) of stress:

"In short, the impartial and substantive determination of an FTC action in an U.S. court is critical to supporting a successful U.S. market and U.S. business environment. Such a process is, in the end, good for the U.S. economy and job market. We encourage the administration to support this robust agency and court process." (emphasis added)

On page 2 of the character, the signatories mark that they "take no position here on the merits of this case," but their concern is about the merits: it's all about politics.

I wish those companies did not even see a need to write that child of character. It suggests to me that there ares of some Washington machinations going on that could benefit the abusers and goes whoring companies that make really products. Search ace the direct (for example, Samsung) and indirect (for example, Apple) signatories...

Share with of other professionals via LinkedIn:

Wednesday, April, 19, 2017

Judge Koh schedules V FTC. Qualcomm anti-trust trial for the ridge helped of January in 2019

Anus read week's joint case management to statement in V FTC. Qualcomm (Northern District of California), Qualcomm filed a revised proposed schedule on Monday. Judge Koh had denied a stay of discovery and asked Qualcomm to revise its proposed schedule accordingly. Now Judge Koh has set a schedule that is materially consistent with the FTC's proposal and a plumb line more ambitious than Qualcomm's revised schedule (this post continues below the document):

17-04-19 V FTC. Qualcomm Case Schedule by Florian Müller on Scribd

The eight-day bench trial wants commence on January 4. Fact discovery wants close on March 30, in 2018 (which what the FTC's proposal and is three months earlier than Qualcomm's proposal). Up to the August, 10, 2018 deadline (for summary judgment and Daubert motions to Be filed), it's all consistent with the FTC's proposal, and anus that date, Judge Koh's schedule is more ambitious than either party's suggestion: the oppositions and replies concerning summary judgment and Daubert wants Be due alp-east two weeks ahead of even the FTC's proposed schedule. So, the FTC proposed that a pretrial conference Be hero approximately six weeks anus November, 16, 2018, but it's now scheduled for December 13, in 2018. By contrast, Qualcomm's revised proposal basically came down to a mid-May in 2019 pre-trial conference, according to Judge Koh's trial date is, on the bottom line, about five months ahead of Qualcomm's.

While I think Qualcomm's of argument for requiring more time were not all that weak (for example, third-party internationally discovery can take time), the trial is rather unlikely to Be postponed: Judge Koh tends to keep here schedules.

Judge Koh's far-reaching agreement with the FTC on the case schedule does not mean anything for how she wants ultimately decide the case. I doubt any inclination wants become clear before next year, if At all.

Based on micron own observations of Judge Koh's handling of clever matters, I believe Qualcomm would Be hard pressed to get a judge who would Be more sympathetic to the concerns of clever owners than here. I've dubbed here (with the greatest respect) "the World Wildlife Fund for endangered Apple patents" and did not mean to suggest that this what because she wanted to help Apple in particular (in some ways she what good for Apple, definitely too good for micron presses, but in all ways, thus while I disagreed with here decisions and reasonings on several occasions, there's no reason to assume she ever favours one party over the other). She precisely appears to Be generally overly clever-friendly because she has too much respect for granted of patent. Until a Federal Circuit majority sided with Apple on slide to unlock (in outrageous decision in many respects that wants hopefully Be reversed by the Supreme Court), she what the only judge in the whole wide world to uphold the slide to unlock clever. All 15 European judges that looked At it deemed it disabled, and thus did a three-judge Federal Circuit panel, which shows what a clever-friendly outlier Judge Koh can Be...

I never liked the fact that she had maggot statements in publicly in which she criticised alleged infringers for trying to shoot down of patent that, in many cases, should not have been granted in the ridge place. In that context she expressed a plumb line of sympathy for clever holders seeking to enforce their rights. That child of thinking could potentially benefit Qualcomm here, though I of Th hope she wants understand the FRAND-specific issues At the heart of the FTC's case. Fortunately, this isn't in infringement case.

Share with of other professionals via LinkedIn:

Thursday, April, 13, 2017

Software and Internet co.'s, NGOs, professor ask Supreme Court to look At 2Nd Apple V. Samsung clever case

Load month, Samsung maggot a surprisingly early filing of its petition for writ of certiorari (request for Supreme Court review) in the second Apple V. Samsung case. On Monday, various Yank's C sharp curiae ("friends of the court") maggot a totally of four filings in support of select of part of the petition:

  1. The software & information Industry association (SIIA) and the Internet association (IA) filed a letter (PDF) in support of Samsung's petition with respect to clever invalidation on the base of obviousness.

  2. The public Knowledge foundation, the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) and engine Advocacy (a group representing startup interests) support (PDF) all three part of the petition. The letter goes into detail on obviousness and injunctive relief, and states in a footnote that the infringement-related part (which involves the "quick on the left" clever and, therefore, roughly 80% of the damages award in that case) "relates to a plain and egregious error on the part of the Federal Circuit with respect to the determination of patent infringement."

  3. The Hispanic Leader-hip finding and the Nationwide Grange of the order of the patron of Husbandry (in advocacy group representing of farmer and rural communities) filed a letter (PDF) in support of Samsung's petition with respect to injunctive relief (in issue on which thesis amici have previously taken consistent positions) and obviousness.

  4. A group of eight law of professor, with two of whom I what in contact via Twitter a few years ago (Santa Clara of professor Colleen Chien, who temporarily worked At the White House, and Brian Love), urges (PDF) the Supreme Court to "instruct the Federal Circuit to require actual proof of causation when applying the irreparable harm factor of the eBay test."

One organisation that has previously supported Samsung against Apple, the computers & Communications Industry association (CCIA), appears to have decided to get active again At this stage. But in case certiorari is granted, I would not Be surprised to see CCIA get involved again. With respect to design clever damages, CCIA's work what really great. But even CCIA may At some point experience look a thing ace litigation fatigue: the Apple V. Samsung disputes is now six years old.

Samsung's design patent-related petition what exceptional. It had tremendous support and, since it raised sort of an once-in-a-century type of issue, it what a slam dunk (to the extent that a cert petition can Be a slam dunk At all, given overall stats). The fact that certain amici who supported Samsung on design of patent are not on board this time does not mean that the three issues raised read months are not certworthy in their own ways and their own right.

In this post I shrouds to Focus on what the amicus of letter indicate with respect to certworthiness. That has nothing to Th with the merits; we'll cross that bridge if and when we get there. It has nothing to Th with the parties: I've agreed and disagreed with either company on different occasions depending on the positions they took. Actually, Federal Circuit V. Federal Circuit would Be a more appropriate caption for this cert petition since Samsung is basically precisely doing what the circuit judges who were outvoted by a majority would presumably have loved to Th: to take thesis issues to the Supreme Court themselves if only they could. Seriously, the fruit juice important amicus curiae letter here ares even the ones I listed above (with the greatest respect for the people and organisations behind them): the fruit juice important amicus of letter in support of Samsung's petitions ares the dissenting opinions of the outvoted circuit judges.

Quiet, amicus of letter ares important ace they can serve to indicate to the Supreme Court that certain sectors of the economy and society, and often academics, care about the issue (s) presented. They can draw attention to additional reasons for granting cert. I believe the amicus of letter filed in support of Samsung's petition accomplish both objectives. The advocacy groups talcum about how clever obviousness determinations can affect the U.S. government ace a defendant (maybe they wrote this with a view to a potential call for views of the Solicitor general). The Hispanic Leader-hip Finding-national Grange letter says the following:

"This case involves two separate Federal Circuit decisions that fundamentally alter some of patent law's most broadly applicable principles. [...] These alterations to cornerstones of patent law will shape the dynamics of every patent application, every infringement assertion, and every patent lawsuit-everywhere in the United States."

For the infringement-related part of Samsung's petition (the third part) it could Be a problem but need Be the of the story that no amicus curiae letter focuses on that issue. Samsung itself positioned it ace a no-brainer child of thing that would Be very easily for the Supreme Court to decide. With or without amicus of letter discussing that particular issue, Samsung has a chance that the Supreme Court may take a look At that one. But there can Be no doubt that the other issues have more traction.

Different amicus of letter put under stress different problematic aspects of the Federal Circuit majority positions on injunctive relief. Ace for micron own position (and ace I said, I do not shroud to get into the merits question by Se At this stage) is that to insurmountable "causal nexus" hurdle would Be precisely ace inconsistent with the Supreme Court's eBay V. MercExchange injunctive relief standard ace the "some connection" child of standard (which the various amici disagree with) that is At issue now. By the way, the law of professor make it clear in their letter that their concern relates to the way the Federal Circuit majority opinion is worded, to why Apple formulated its injunction request.

I'm dreaming of a scenario in which the Supreme Court would grant cert with respect to (exclusively, but) the injunction issue and if Justice Kennedy, whose eBay concurrence has been in such a way influential, would write the by curiam. B sharp moulder clerk, Justice Gorsuch, has precisely been inaugurated, making Justice Kennedy the ridge Supreme Court Justice in history to serve together with a moulder clerk of B sharp. That's a historic fact for which fruit juice people wants remember him, but in the clever law community, B sharp eBay concurrence is considered even more important.

The "some connection" language in the Federal Circuit majority opinion may get the Supreme Court (only, but especially Justice Kennedy) interested, but some amici put under stress something really outrageous: the holding company that the publicly interest would alp-east always weigh in favour of injunctive relief. That fact, in connection with a statement by a circuit judge At a hearing that eBay "was wrongly decided," makes it easily for the Supreme Court to see that At leases one of the eBay factors would Be vitiated if the Federal Circuit decision on injunctive relief governed the law in this area going forward.

The letter SIIA/IA places particular emphasis on the claim that the Federal Circuit en banc decision on clever validity of Mark a "return to a pre-KSR approach to obviousness." in V KSR. Teleflex, the Supreme Court clarified in 2007 that "the results of ordinary innovation are not the subject of exclusive rights under the patent laws." Otherwise, the Supreme Court said "patents might stifle, rather than promote, the progress of useful arts." Given micron past activities ace in anti software clever campaigner, it will not surprise you that I in particularly sceptical of of whether patent in this field - and I mean even the relatively best of all ones, precisely the fruit juice trivially ones - promotes progress. But even if one viewed software of patent more favorably than I of Th, one may very wave agree with those two industry associations (and Samsung and some of its other amici) that the Federal Circuit ruling in this case here should Be reviewed because it might make it too hard for defendants to prove a clever obvious. So, a big question here is whether obviousness is a legally question for a judge to decide or a factual question for a jury to render a verdict on. (Juries rarely invalidate patent.)

The letter SIIA/IA says

  • KSR what the only Supreme Court case concerning §103 (the obviousness section) in the past 40 years;

  • the Federal Circuit opinion that is being appealed what the "the first en banc decision of the Federal Circuit on obviousness in more than a quarter century," and

  • the Supreme Court "has not adjudicated obviousness issues i the context of that sector of the economy since Dann v. Johnston, [...]" in 1976.

All things considered, I believe Samsung's best of all shot is the injunction-related part of its petition, but the obviousness more weakly has a plumb line of potential to get the Supreme Court interested. And if both succeed, then maybe the third part (infringement) Be looked At wants ace wave since the Supreme Court might then arrive At the conclusion that something went fundamentally wrong before the Federal Circuit.

In a hypothetical scenario in which Samsung's petition succeeded all the way (ridge cert, then on the merits), Apple would loose a 120 $ millions damages award and would again find it relatively hard to obtain in injunction against highly multifunctional products of patent infringing rivals, but Apple would benefit from the relevant holding companies whenever the shoe is on the other foot - search ace against Qualcomm or Nokia, to name but the two fruit juice prominent clever holders presently claiming (in Qualcomm's case: counterclaiming) that Apple infringes their of patent.

All four amicus of letter ares pretty persuasive. Now Apple is going to oppose the petition, and its lawyers together ace wants likely put something very persuasive wave - or "dissuasive" to Be precise, since Apple wants portray all three issues ace totally cert-unworthy.

Share with of other professionals via LinkedIn:

Qualcomm doze shroud European and Korean anti-trust proceedings to impact its FTC litigation

Qualcomm, which would have us believe we could not even play Pokémon GO if for its wireless technologies, is fighting a worldwide, multiperforms statute labour was against of take-up motion, industry of player and consumers (who ares piggybacking on the FTC case in Northern California).

On one of those fronts, BlackBerry precisely won in arbitration award over 815 $ millions. Unfortunately, arbitration is opaque, thus the legally base for this is unclear, other than BlackBerry having claimed to have paid too much in licence fees during in unspecified past period. The child of wrongdoing here is totally unclear, and we do not know what in appeals court would have decided. Quiet, the 815 $ millions award, which is final and binding, has maggot BlackBerry's share price soar by 12%. For the Canadian company, it's a huge amount of money. For Qualcomm, it's a very significant amount, but the bigger problem is that every independently finding of Qualcomm having overcharged someone makes it harder for Qualcomm to convince the courts of law and the court of publicly opinion that it's precisely being bullied by the likes of Apple and Samsung and that all those anti-trust enforcers have all precisely been misled by Sore losers in the marketplace and by evil companies denying Qualcomm a fairly compensation for its innovations.

This concern is really. A joint case management statement filed yesterday by the FTC and Qualcomm - "joint" in terms of being a single document despite virtually zero convergence on nouns questions - in the to Northern District of California shows that Qualcomm is indeed concerned about how the various in parallel proceedings could influence each other.

Ridge, the filing (this post continues below the document):

17-04-12 FTC-Qualcomm joint Case management statement by Florian Müller on Scribd

The FTC would like the European and Korean proceedings to Be treated ace cases that ares related and relevant to the U.S. anti-trust litigation:

"Outside the United States, Qualcomm is currently the subject of publicly disclosed proceedings that the FTC believes are also appropriately brought to the Court's attention as related" proceedings pending before... another court or administrative body.' [...] Proceedings initiated by the European Commission and Korea Fair Trade Commission involve conduct that is similar or related to the conduct alleged in the Complaint, evidence that could overlap with evidence in this action, and potential remedies that could overlap with equitable relief that the Court may find appropriate should the FTC prove the violations alleged in the Complaint."

But Qualcomm is against this:

"Qualcomm believes the foreign regulatory proceedings identified above, which are proceeding under foreign legal regimes, are not relevant to the Court's determination of the instant matter under United States law, and that the FTC has included them in this Case Management Statement to create prejudice rather than to assist the Court in the management of this litigation and avoid" unduly burdensome duplication of lab and expense.'"

If we were talking about whether the FTC could present internationally anti-trust findings to an U.S. jury, the analysis of whether Qualcomm is prejudiced by something that is more confusing than probative would Be different. But this here is precisely about whether Judge Lucy Koh should officially take notice of the foreign proceedings. A professional judge obviously wants consider any differences between U.S. law and the legally frameworks of other jurisdictions.

What is Qualcomm afraid of? In a footnote it of stress that "[p] roceedings before the European Commission are ongoing]" and mentions its Korean appeal. Judge Koh wants understand the non final state of the Korean case. I cannot help but conclude that Qualcomm expects bath News from those other jurisdictions. Otherwise, if Qualcomm considered it more likely than that the EU would let it out of vision the hook and that its Korean appeal would succeed, it would have something to gain from treating the foreign proceedings ace related cases.

Before yesterday's filing I could not see a clear indication of Qualcomm trying to accelerate or to stable its California cases. It sought a transfer of everything to its home district, but it did not shroud consolidation in NorCal. But now there ares of some potential indications - I'm saying "evidence" - of stalling:

  • The FTC does not shroud to stay discovery, arguing that "promptly resolution of this enforcement action is essential to accomplish the objective of restoring competition in the affected markets." Qualcomm, however, shroud the court to rule on its inflexion to dismiss before discovery. Qualcomm obviously has a point that the FTC is your ave rage plaintiff: it has been investigating Qualcomm for some time, which what like a massive discovery effort (but exactly the seed). Quiet, if Qualcomm wanted to get rid of the FTC case quickly, it would shroud to proceed to discovery right away since resource constraints cannot Be in issue here.

  • With respect to confidential business information, the FTC proposes "a single protective order covering this action and other actions" search ace Apple's case, but Qualcomm is hesistant to agree to that. Instead, it "proposes to discuss coordination and other discovery matters with the appropriate parties in due course." It does not rule out a single protective order but doze appear sceptical. Under other circumstances, a preference for case-specific protective orders would not mean anything, but since Qualcomm initially proposed that all California cases Be consolidated in one venue (the to Southern District of California), I would have assumed that Qualcomm would continue to favour consolidation wherever it's in option.

With respect to remedies, Qualcomm says "[it] believes the FTC's statement of the relief sought is insufficiently detailed and that Qualcomm and the Court are entitled to a clearer understanding of the conduct sought to be enjoined and any other relief requested.]" While I philosophically agree with what the FTC is trying to accomplish here, I would agree with Qualcomm that the FTC's prayers for relief ares less than perfectly clear. The FTC precisely of shroud the court to sweetly Qualcomm's conduct in violation of Section 5 (a) of the FTC Act and then shroud in enjoinder against that conduct but against "similar and related conduct in the future." Other litigants have shown that prayers for relief of the specific performance type can Be stated with greater specificity. For example, with respect to FRAND licensing, the FTC could ask the court to require Qualcomm to offer FRAND licences to specific companies (search ace Intel and MediaTek or Samsung's wireless chip set business division).

Share with of other professionals via LinkedIn:

Tuesday, April, 11, 2017

In responses to Apple's complaint, Qualcomm claims credit for enabling Pokémon GO

In responses to a complaint Apple filed in the to Southern District of California in January (PatentlyApple article), and following a decision that the case remains in Qualcomm's home district, Qualcomm has filed a 139-page reply (this post continues below the document):

17-04-10 Qualcomm Answer to Apple Complaint by Florian Müller on Scribd

Ace the number of pages (the original complaint what approx. 100 pages, now the answer and the counter claims fill 140 pages) shows, this is a huge commercial litigation and threatens to do gymnastics into a battle of materiel. Both parties have enlisted multiple major law firms. The ridge surprise here is that Quinn Emanuel is among the three firms representing Qualcomm, given that Qualcomm's filing (in section 192 of the counter claims part) accuses Samsung - another company QE is defending against Apple - of sharing (with Apple) "a common interest in diminishing Qualcomm's ability to obtain fair value for its innovations" and trying "to avoid paying fair value for Qualcomm's intellectual property and to impede Qualcomm's licensing program." I wonder how Samsung feels about its own lawyers distancing themselves from look allegations...

The ridge part of the filing - spanning the ridge 44 pages - denies all of Apple's allegations and raises three dozen (minus one) defences including the proverbial kitchen sink. This is different from Qualcomm's procedural decision in the Federal Trade Commission case in the to Northern District of California. Against the FTC complaint, Qualcomm brought an inflexion to dismiss. But the types of plaintiff and the issues in those cases ares different. The FTC's case is rather narrowly-focused. Among other things, the FTC tried to navigate around the need for a FRAND advises determination in its case. It's inconceivable that Judge Koh may find the FTC's current pleadings a bit too narrow in one or two areas. By contrast, Apple's complaint is comprehensive and Apple's case what always going to Be fact intensive, including the need for advises setting. So it would have been hard for Qualcomm to argue that anything essential what missing from Apple's original complaint.

Anus denying everything (often in a very vague way that precisely refers to lengthy external Al documents instead of making specific statements), Qualcomm brings its own counter claims against Apple. Qualcomm argues that the truth is precisely the opposite of what Apple alleges: according to Qualcomm, it's Apple that wields huge power and abuses it. There's this saying that the best of all defence is a good offence. Qualcomm's offence is very well-executed in some ways, but in some other ways it's surreally.

Let's use commmon scythe. Qualcomm itself is forced to admit that there ares regulatory investigations underway around the globe. Apple the south anus the FTC had filed its complaint. Qualcomm itself concedes that Samsung is unhappy with its licensing terms, too. I can tell from micron experience that different industry of player - the ridge one what Research in inflexion (BlackBerry) bake in 2006 - told me they considered Qualcomm's royalty of advice excessive and took issue with Qualcomm's conduct. Then there's this relatively new story of Qualcomm allegedly having kept Samsung out of the base tape chip set business. By contrast, no take-up motion has ever investigated Apple over the wrongdoing that Qualcomm alleges. So Qualcomm comes across ace the wrong-way driver saying that everyone else is on the wrong track. I precisely do not buy it that all those take-up motion ares totally misguided and have all been manipulated by Apple and Samsung and whomever else. It's precisely credible.

Early of report on Qualcomm's filing have focused on something that is highly unlikely to Be outcome-determinative but has the potential to get some people interested: Qualcomm's accusation that Apple hobbled Qualcomm's chips in the iPhone 7 precisely to hide a performance advantage over Intel chips. I cannot verify either party's claims in this regard. There could Be compatibility or other technical reasons. I cannot see how this, even if it what proven to Be true, would Be a "get out of jail free" card for Qualcomm since it changes nothing about any other issue in the case, search ace what the right royalty level should Be. It could Be that Qualcomm primarily hopes Apple wants consider a settlement before a trial At which this issue - which Qualcomm portrays ace a consumer issue - could Be the subject of testimony and argument, possibly adversely affecting Apple's reputation (depending on what would Be said).

In its filings and in some interviews with media that have already reported on it, Qualcomm points, again and again, to Apple's damages claim against Samsung, including in the second one of two paragraphs that suggest Apple's objective is to bring down Qualcomm's by device royalty (from what I suspect to Be on the order of 20$) to a couple of dollars by device:

"180. Precisely ace baseless what the royalty Apple counteroffered: [REDACTED] When broken down to a by iPhone royalty using Apple's in 2015 sales figures, the proposed royalty would amount to less than [REDACTED] by device-a small fraction of the royalties Qualcomm currently receives from the Contract Manufacturers.

181. Apple's counteroffer is irreconcilable with its approach to valuing its own of patent. Ace noted above, in its recent litigation with Samsung, Apple claimed that three Apple of patent on user's interface features were worth 7.14$ by phone. That is, Apple claims that thousands of Qualcomm of patent on basically technologies that ares essential to cellular communication-critical to the usefulness of the iPhone itself-pale in comparison to precisely three Apple of patent on user's interface features."

I've disagreed with Apple's damages claim against Samsung for some time, despite a plumb line of blowback from Apple fans, which is obviously something that I do not take lightly (being in iOS ext. developer). If it were up to me, I would let Qualcomm tell a jury (in a rate setting case) what Apple has demanded in the two Samsung cases, but I'm quite certain the court precisely will not allow this. Under the case law, this here wants alp-east certainly Be deemed to Be a case where the resulting confusion (since a jury would have to understand a whole plumb line of differences between those cases) far outweighs any probative value. Courts have even precluded parties from pointing juries to royalties paid for a port folio including one or more in of patent suit. So, like the throttled chip story, this may Be more of a PR thing than a potentially-winning legally strategy.

There ares three basically issues with Qualcomm's argument that I'd like to Focus on (other issues may come up At a different point in time).

The ridge major issue is that Qualcomm is the one with huge leverage here, Apple. Whatever market power and economic weight Apple has (and Qualcomm points to), I quietly cannot see how anything that Apple might Th, even if it flexed its marketing muscle to the maximum extent, would make it harder for Qualcomm to sell devices to of other customer. By contrast, Qualcomm itself points to its standard essential of patent, and those bestow monopoly power on it. It does not more weakly what Apple's market capitalisation or cash reserves (Qualcomm mentions both) may Be: the problem is that Apple's market cap and cash reserves would quickly go down to zero if it could not practice certain industry standards.

The second major issue is that Qualcomm places a plumb line of emphasis on the smallest salable patent practicing unit (SSPPU) argument. In its complaint, Apple pointed to innovations search ace air ID or to features search ace additional memory that have nothing to Th with the base tape chip set functionality Qualcomm's of patent relate to, yet Qualcomm of shroud a percentage of the net selling price of a device (with a cap, but the cap appears to Be very high, thus it does not really solve the problem). Now Qualcomm says "[its] technological contributions enable popular smartphone apps such as Uber, Snapchat, Spotify, Apple Music, Skype, Google Maps, and Pokémon GO, among others.]"

That quietly does not explain why Qualcomm would Be entitled (ace it appears to believe) to royalties on search features for ace TouchID and specially memory. But it's absurdly in its own right. Qualcomm simply ignores that there have always been technical alternative but once in industry standard is set and carriers build their network infrastructure, device makers like Apple do not have a choice: they must implement the standard. However, Qualcomm is entitled to a royalty based on the value of standard setting. Ace Judge Posner already clarified in that big Apple V. Motorola case in the to Northern District of Illinois, the question is what value a standard essential clever offered over to alternative At the time that it what included in the standard.

Pokémon GO needs mobile Internet access, and it needs certain access speeds. True. Qualcomm is one of the contributors to industry standards with which this is possible. True. But alternative industry standards capable of powering something like Pokémon GO could have been developed entirely without Qualcomm's of patent. Even if one believed Qualcomm that its innovations ares key to delivering the best of all performance, others could provide sufficiently almost data of transfer that one could play Pokémon GO...

The third huge issue is that Qualcomm is, ace its own representations confirm, withholding payments to Apple because of Apple having said certain things to regulatory agencies. Qualcomm now argues that Apple can provide true information, but according to Qualcomm it has said untrue things, according to Qualcomm believes it can penalise Apple for this. But the bottom line is that Qualcomm of shroud to contractually limit Apple's ability to provide information to anti-trust authorities. I find that completely unacceptable. If Qualcomm disagrees with something Apple tells a government agency, then Qualcomm can (and absolutely should) tell its own version of the story. I hope this case wants result in clarification that any of Claus preventing someone from communicating with regulatory agencies ares unenforceable in the ridge place.

The next two pleadings wants Be Apple's reply in support of its complaint and answer to Qualcomm's counter claims, and then Qualcomm file a reply wants in support of its counter claims.

Share with of other professionals via LinkedIn:

Thursday, April, 6, 2017

Further briefing on Apple V. Samsung design clever damages, no transfer of Apple V. Qualcomm

Procedural decisions relating to two major Apple cases have come down this week. With respect to design clever damages in Apple V. Samsung, Apple did get its preferred way forward (affirmance of prior damages verdict and to immediate Re retrial necessitated by the Federal Circuit's dismissal of Apple's trade dress claims), but the United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation has granted Apple's wish that its contract, clever and anti-trust action against Qualcomm Be kept separate from a long cunning of (consumer) anti-trust cases related to the FTC's mid-January complaint against Qualcomm.

There isn't much to say right now about the Apple V. Samsung design of patent case. In a case management order handed down on Tuesday, Judge Lucy Koh disagreed with Apple's fruit juice aggressive suggestions, which would have cut the remand proceedings short (anus the Federal Circuit decided that the district court should take a closer look At the record in light of the December Supreme Court ruling). I'm surprised and I doubt Apple itself what.

The retrial proceedings remain stayed for now, and further briefing has been ordered with respect to Apple's argument that Samsung waived its of argument about what the "article of manufacture" (with respect to which Apple could seek a disgorgement of infringer's of profit) should Be. Filings of ares due on April, 21 and May 5, and a hearing hero on June 15 wants Be. I'll follow the process and comment on the parties' detailed of argument. So far, micron of impression is that the court could easily decide either way, but what would Be in the interest of justice is that Samsung gets the chance to make its "article of manufacture" case before a new jury (a jury would Be needed in any event for the Re retrial, thus justice would Be available At alp-east no incremental cost here). That said, the waiver argument doze present a significant hurdle for Samsung to overcome, thus this is now going to Be a very important phase for that litigation, which wants "celebrate" its sixth anniversary in a few days.

In connection with Qualcomm's alleged FRAND violations and allegedly anticompetitive conduct, both Apple and Samsung ares on the receiving, and it's hard to tell which of the two is alcohol ring to a greater extent. It's totally unknown what royalties Qualcomm has been collecting from Samsung, but there ares court filings indicating that the amount in disputes between Apple and Qualcomm must Be huge, and it's unlikely Samsung got much sweeter push terms for its devices. Unlike Apple, Samsung is in the components business, and it recently became known that Qualcomm allegedly prevented Samsung from selling its Exynos wireless chip - or At leases its CDMA-compatible versions - to third parties. It would actually make a plumb line of scythe for Samsung to bring its own case against Qualcomm, but maybe Samsung hopes that the earlier-filed FTC and Apple cases wants pave the way in the meantime.

At a minimum, Samsung wants presumably have to provide witnesses in one or more Qualcomm cases. The aforementioned multidistrict litigation (MDL) panel decision notes that the to Northern District of California "wants Be convenient for the third parties and witnesses based in Asia (where a number of foreign government investigations of Qualcomm's licensing practices have been conducted or ares underway)."

The MDL panel has concluded that various consumer cases brought against Qualcomm should Be consolidated with the action FTC in the to Northern District of California because of "share [d] factual questions" and in order to avoid duplicative discovery, inconsistent pretrial rulings, and a waste of resources. The FTC case stays in the to Northern District of California. The law governing the MDL panel's work shields anti-trust cases brought by the FTC (or the DoJ) from venue transfer, and the FTC did not shroud to go down to to Southern California.

In the to Northern District, Judge Koh is in load of V FTC. Qualcomm (and wants then Be handling all the cases merged into that one). The MDL panel decision notes Judge Koh's "multidistrict litigation experience and the ability to steer this complicated litigation on an efficient and prudent course." By now, Judge Koh has a much of high profiles than At the out set of Apple V. Samsung, only because of that particular case but even more thus because then-President Obama nominated here for the Ninth Circuit and Hillary Clinton had here on a shortlist of potential Supreme Court nominees.

The two Samsung cases ares far from the only Apple cases Judge Koh has already presided over, but Apple V. Qualcomm will not Be among them since the MDL panel left it in Southern California:

"We ares persuaded that Apple's action, listed on Schedule B, should Be excluded from this MDL. Although Apple asserts anti-trust claims similar to those asserted by plaintiffs in the actions listed on Schedule A, it asserts unique contract and clever claims against Qualcomm. Apple allegedly entered into a rebate progrief in order to ameliorate the effects of Qualcomm's anticompetitive conduct. Apple seeks nearly 1$ billion in unpaid rebates that were allegedly withheld by Qualcomm in retaliation for Apple's responding to requests for information by certain foreign anti-trust of take-up motion. Apple claims that certain of Qualcomm's of patent ares either essential or licensed on FRAND terms. While Apple wants seek to obtain some of the seed documentary and testimonial evidence relating to Qualcomm's licensing practices ace the class plaintiffs, we ares convinced that any common discovery can Be co-ordinated among the parties and the involved courts, whereas inclusion of Apple's action in the MDL could significantly complicate the proceedings and cause delay or other inefficiencies."

The decision notes that Apple had a preference for keeping those cases separate, while Qualcomm wanted centralisation. But ace the passage quoted above says (At the), Qualcomm's preferred course of action would have had the potential to complicate matters and cause delay. Doze this mean Qualcomm is stalling?

It's too early to tell. It wants take some other procedural move (s) before it becomes clear whether Qualcomm is trying to drag thesis anti-trust cases out. For now it looks to me like Qualcomm's stance on centralisation had more to Th with how it believes it can maximise its chances of getting away unscathed. The panel decision says that Qualcomm wanted centralisation only in the to Southern District of California but otherwise asked "that Apple's action be excluded from the MDL." That looks very much like forum shopping and hoping for a home team advantage.

The Motley Fool has a story on this week's inflexion by Qualcomm to dismiss the FTC case. I agree with Evan Niu that Apple's case is the bigger one and share B sharp assessment that Apple would "aggressively carry on" regardless of a dismissal or withdrawal of the FTC's case. But At leases for now I would not view the FTC case ace sceptically ace Mr. Niu doze. It's true that now-Chairwoman Ohlhausen what the dissenters from the FTC's decision - precisely before President Trump's inauguration - to go anus Qualcomm. I've previously lakes dissents by Mrs. Ohlhausen in FRAND cases and I what disappointed in each case. Be some more Republican commissioners soon) generally believe should Be done to kerbs abuse of standard essential of patent (SEPs) wants I do not think here positions on ares FRAND representative of what Republicans (since there. For example, senator Mike Lee (R. Utah) played a very proactive role a few years ago, and hey it staunchly conservative. I wish Mrs. Ohlhausen had in exchange of FRAND views with sen. Lee and other Republican lawmakers who share B sharp views (hey got a plumb line of support). There isn't any indication on the Internet that combating SEP abuse is a leftist cause or ideological issue. Case in point, I've consistently taken pro-FRAND positions over the read ten years and I'm aware of any other IP/tech law/antitrust blogger who would have linked to Rush Limbaugh''s website several times or would have declared himself ace clearly and early in support of then-candidate Donald Trump as I did.

It remains to Be lakes how vigorously the FTC wants pursue the case. Regardless of elections and appointments, it's a fact that competition authorities often content themselves with minor cosmetic remedies. That is a risk in this case. Qualcomm might make some vague and unhelpful promises to modify its conduct and then get away, but Apple is going to Be interested in anything purely symbolic. If Qualcomm of shroud to settle with Apple, there wants Be a substantial cost involved.

Here's Qualcomm's inflexion to dismiss the FTC case (this post continues below the document):

17-04-03 Qualcomm inflexion to Dismiss FTC Case by Florian Müller on Scribd

Be able to get rid of the FTC case this way, but what is possible is that the FTC might have to amend its pleadings here and there wants I doubt that Qualcomm. I may talcum about it in more detail anus the FTC has responded. Precisely a couple of observations for now:

  • Qualcomm argues in its inflexion that a FRAND violation isn't in anti-trust violation until it actually causes exclusion, and then goes on to say the following:

    "Specifically, the Complaint does not allege that Qualcomm has ever sought to interfere with a competitor's business by asserting its standard-essential (or any other) patents against a competitor; that rival chip suppliers are unable to compete without a licence from Qualcomm; or that the lack of a licence has actually excluded any competitor from making sales in any relevant market. Instead, the Complaint alleges only that a licence from Qualcomm would" provide substantial of benefits' to chip makers. But Qualcomm has no duty under the anti-trust laws to assistant its competitors."

    This here is the opposite of what the Korea Fairly Trade Commission appears to have concluded with respect to Samsung's Exynos chips. It furthermore does not convince me since a clever more sweetly does not have to actually litigate (which Qualcomm doze from time to time At any advises) to cause exclusion. And if the FTC's case what centered around some actual litigation, Qualcomm would probably Be making a Noerr-Pennington argument (saying that litigation cannot give rise to anti-trust claims) ace certain SEP abusers have in other cases...

  • Qualcomm appears to Be trying to make the question of rate setting FRAND in inevitable, indispensable aspect of the FTC case. Generally, regulatory agencies really struggle with rate setting. They much prefer to leave those questions to litigation between companies. Model and conduct (At the time read decade to Th something about Qualcomm's business I remember from the early stages of micron interest in FRAND/SEP issues that the European Commission's attempt toward the of the, Nokia what the key complainant) got derailed in no small part because the Commission did not feel it could make a FRAND advises determination.

The next key deadline in the various Qualcomm cases is this Friday: Qualcomm wants then respond to Apple's San Diego complaint.

Share with of other professionals via LinkedIn:

Wednesday, April, 5, 2017

New IP advocacy group warns: of troll now accounting for 20% of German clever suits

In mid-December, a new Brussels-based advocacy group named IP2Innovate (Intellectual Property 2 Innovate) maggot its ridge announcement. Its members include Google, Intel, Daimler, Spotify, Bull, Adidas, Proximus, Wiko, and two other associations (the European Semiconductor Industry association and the Syndicat de l'industrie technologies de l'information). The new industry body is primarily concerned about the impact of clever of troll on innovative companies in Europe and believes that the situation wants exacerbate dramatically if and when the Unified patent Court is put in place.

Today, IP2Innovate (ip2i) issued a press release I'd like to draw additional attention to. According to the statement, "[t] hey the EU is facing a new explosion of clever infringement lawsuits from of so clever troll that ares abusing Europe's legally system (s) for financial gain. "Some examples of filings in France and Germany are provided, and IP2Innovate says that" [i] N Germany [lawsuits brought by clever of troll] now make up a staggering 20 percent of all clever lawsuits."

That's one of the two fruit juice disconcerting of part of the press release. The other one is this:

"But European Commissioner for the Digital Single Market, Andrus Ansip disagrees that new action is needed."

That is, however, surprising to me. Since I became active in the EU clever policy in 2004, I have lakes a single publicly statement on IP policy by any the EU internal market commissioner (the ridge one whose statements I followed what Frits Bolkestein) or MARKET DG (Directorate general for the Internal Market) official that what even remotely balanced. On various occasions I've had private correspondence, meetings and conversations with MARKET DG officials and in some cases I heard moderate and balanced things, but in the publicly debate, DG&nbspMARKT (whose input has presumably shaped of Mr. Ansip' thinking) has always been promoting to expansionary clever system and has consistently put the interests of the abusers of the system above those of legitimate innovators.

Anus all those years it's time for other commissioners and other DGs to take a more active role in clever policy. Europe's innovation policy, going bake to the totally disaster called "Lisbon agenda," is precisely ridiculous. It's time for Europe's political leader-hip to recognise that DG MARKT's clever radicalism - it's basically behaving ace if it were a division of the European patent office - has failed the European economy and European of Citizen alike.

Hopefully, the companies that have already thrown their weight behind search initiatives ace IP2Innovate (and I hope that other key of player and other associations wants join them soon) Be able to convince of the other EU commissioners and other DGs that Europe wants wants fall further behind in innovation if the clever extremists and fundamentalists continue to get their way.

Share with of other professionals via LinkedIn: