Apple and HTC are putting their differences behind them, with a deal that lets them license each other's patents for the next 10 years. But any hopes of Apple and Samsung calling a similar truce have been thoroughly quashed, as the Korean company is trying to use the deal to stop its own products being banned, The Verge reports.
According to a court document, Samsung wants a copy of the Apple-HTC settlement agreement so it can see which patents it covers. If Apple has licensed any of those Samsung was found to have infringed in its $1bn lawsuit -- such as bounce-back and pinch-to-zoom -- the latter will argue the former can't try to ban its own products.
In the words of the court filing, Apple will have been happy to "forego exclusivity in exchange for money". And hence it shouldn't be allowed to ban Samsung's products, in Samsung's eyes, as Apple has already won more than $1bn from it, along with potentially another $700m.
During the trial with Samsung, Apple said it did license its standards-essential and computing patents, but "we strongly desire not to license" those covering user experience, such as slide to unlock, and the others you actually see the benefit of when you use the device. According to Boris Teksler, Apple's director of patent licensing and strategy, anyone licensing the user experience patents would be making an exact clone of an Apple device.
Apple has already said it'll let Samsung see the agreement, but it needs to give HTC 10 days' notice, apparently. Apple and Samsung are set for a major pow-wow about the potential sales ban on 6 December, so the court should let Samsung see the agreement well before then.
This could change everything. Do you think Apple should be allowed to license its patents, then impose a sale ban on other companies that use them? Or has Samsung come up with a watertight get-out? Let me know what you think below in the comments, or on our Facebook page.

Comments 21
Add your comment
anonymous 19 November, 2012 12:10
Of course a company should have rights on their own patents? What a weird question. Any company who's patent has been infringed should get compensation of some variety as decided in court. But as consumers it's a shame it's getting a bit too much. I think most people are just fed up of the constant bickering that in 90% of cases is just willy waving.
anonymous 19 November, 2012 12:26
Okay I agree with anon above that you should be able to have rights on your own patents but if you license them to one company and then sue another then that isn't fair.
anonymous 19 November, 2012 12:33
You can't patent sliding your finger to the right or pinch to zoom. Why not just go for gold and patent pushing a button to turn it on. Money hungry idiots.
anonymous 19 November, 2012 13:03
^^^ ever1's money hungry.. u fckn hypocrite - n don't get started with ma punctuation asshole :\
anonymous 19 November, 2012 13:08
The difference is that HTC are now paying (via the deal) to use certain Apple Patents (and vice versa), where as Samsung expects to use other company's patents and IP without paying for it.
Patent licensing is common practice in the mobile phone and tech world. It happens as a result of business deals and sometimes tough negotiations. Rogue companies shouldn't be allowed to simply copy or infringe patents and IP without obtaining a license to do so.
anonymous 19 November, 2012 13:11
why are these sad fandriods always so angry, are they jealous or something...
anonymous 19 November, 2012 13:35
Its not right, so if we did we all only drive ford cars, have name brand phillips , or RCA MAYTAG would be the only washer and dry u could use .. Its to close to dictatorship we aright to pick cheaper or different name products we choose that's America was built on freedom of choose not one business choosing for u what to buy.
anonymous 19 November, 2012 16:10
@anonymong very mature idiot this site don't won't fool's like you
anonymous 19 November, 2012 16:31
Korean companies disgust me. License what you use or GTFO.
anonymous 19 November, 2012 16:59
What do you expect from such a company (Samsung), headed by a corrupt clan.
It goes hand in hand with their unhealthy "influence" over the Korean government and stifling of the press there. They are not nice people.
anonymous 19 November, 2012 19:32
@anonymong 16:59 what and apple are nice people? if you think they are then you are as stupid as you thought.
ElDiabloJuanCarl 19 November, 2012 20:29
Oh great, anonymous trolls, the lifeblood of intelligent discussion!
anonymous 19 November, 2012 21:15
I know nothing but I THINK
1) I think it is reasonable for the owner of the Patent to licence the patent out to and for the use of others for a fee,
2) If you cant buy or prepared to buy the use of a licence in a bid to make money then you should not have the right to infringe the rights of that licence.
3) The patent holder/owner should have the right to decide who has the right to the licence, I think we are talking about something different----and that is to re write the patent/licencing book.. Frank
Frank Thornton 19 November, 2012 21:21
My comment above was not to be anonymous LOL
JUST HAD NOT LOGGED IN
Frank
anonymous 19 November, 2012 21:47
@anonymous 19 November, 2012 19:32
"@anonymong 16:59 what and apple are nice people? if you think they are then you are as stupid as you thought."
I never said Apple were nice people or anything about them at all. I didn't think I was stupid either.
Maybe when you learn to read and can construct a properly worded post, you might have something worthwhile to say?
anonymous 19 November, 2012 22:48
@anonymous 21:47 and I never said that you Said apple were nice people but you clearly dislike Samsunga and cannot for any reason see how they are worse than apple. and you don't explain why or how they are corrupt. yes I can read and yes I can write, misfit
anonymous 19 November, 2012 22:54
@ELDiabloJuanCarl so because someone is anonymous they are not intelligent and are a troll because you said so lol shut it
anonymous 20 November, 2012 01:22
@anonymous 19 November, 2012 22:48
I have no intention of picking a fight with you, but I do urge you to do some reading on the matter.
I think you will find it rather illuminating.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/26/technology/26samsung.html?_r=0
http://www.theverge.com/policy/2012/8/7/3226651/samsung-legal-history-scandals
http://www.kernelmag.com/features/report/3028/samsung-power-corruption-and-lies/
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/07/business/worldbusiness/06cnd-samsung.html
http://blogs.ft.com/beyond-brics/2011/06/09/the-pot-calling-the-kettle-black-samsung-chief-calls-time-on-corruption/#axzz2CiVPFmoe
http://www.rjkoehler.com/2007/11/01/samsung-slush-fund-scandal/
http://stopsamsung.wordpress.com/
http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2012/sep/05/samsung-accused-exploiting-workers-china
http://articles.software.informer.com/samsung_accused_of_exploiting_children.html
http://www.news.com.au/technology/samsung-abuses-chinese-workers-labour-group-says/story-e6frfro0-1226466023813
http://philmuncaster.com/2012/08/08/samsung-latest-to-be-hit-by-supplier-labour-abuse-scandal/
There’s much more out there if you look.
anonymous 20 November, 2012 11:30
Beyond the strange argument brewing over which giant corporation is 'nicer' ....
Parents are made to protect invention, innovation and reward such under paid for/ agreed for licensing. If I stole an invention without asking I'd expect some kind of penalty.
(I invented the banana- still waiting for compensation)
Frank Thornton 20 November, 2012 18:20
Sorry about you not getting any loot for your Banana LOL, your comment on stealing an invention is on the lines of whet I said, If you cant obtain the rights to use that which is under licence, Tough,
that's business. All this rubbish re good or bad was not about what the thread was about, so get back in the groove, what is legal in law is correct,WE OR ANYONE no matter how much we like it will not change that.
Frank,
anonymous 20 November, 2012 22:24
I agree with Frank. Samsung should obtain the right to use other companies patents and not expect to get away with it.
I read some of those articles linked to by another poster and I can see why Samsung might behave like that.