Whether Amazon instigates or draws antitrust scrutiny, it's always about avoiding price competition: abstract parallel between cloud software licensing and most-favored nation clauses

This is the promised follow-up to yesterday's post, New Microsoft software licensing terms to take effect on October 1: revisions designed to strengthen smaller cloud solution providers--and to address Amazon-orchestrated EU antitrust complaint.

There has been a steady trend in recent years for this blog to look at more and more tech industry antitrust issues. In the end, they always involve intellectual property in one form or another. At some point I stumbled upon Professor Frédéric Jenny's "analysis of potentially anti-competitive practices" with respect to cloud infrastructure services, a study commissioned by CISPE. In the previous post I commented on CISPE: it's striking that an organization seeking to promote European cloud sovereignty is primarily backed by Amazon.

Without a doubt, Professor Jenny--an economist--is a prominent figure in the French antitrust community. However, that report he authored for CISPE last year is just a piece of rather unscientific advocacy. What one would normally expect from a competition economist is a clear causal chain and, especially, numbers. Instead, the "evidence" adduced in that paper is just anecdotal. It's like "one customer said" and "oh wait, another customer also said."

That reminded me of a passage from Qualcomm's reply brief in support of its Ninth Circuit appeal of the district court's FTC decision:

"See United States v. AT&T Inc., 310 F. Supp. 3d 161, 211 (D.D.C. 2018) (in weighing evidence of competitive harm, 'competition authorities and courts . . . refus[e] to take the views expressed by customers at face value and insist[] that customer testimony be combined with economic evidence providing objective support for those views'), aff’d, 916 F.3d 1029 (D.C. Cir. 2019)."

In other words, it's old news that customers prefer to get more and pay less. For the avoidance of doubt, the relevant passage is found in a court ruling, but is a quote from a treatise: Ken Heyer, Predicting the Competitive Effects of Mergers by Listening to Customers.

Professor Jenny did the very opposite of what that passage proposes: he took--presumably selective--customer quotes at face value and did not provide any objective support.

The objective of that study isn't totally clear. In no small part it's actually legislative advocacy, suggesting that the EU's Digital Markets Act should also treat software companies like Microsoft, Oracle, and SAP as "gatekeepers." The DMA is huge, but it can't be all things to all people. The reason why some companies must be subjected to special gatekeper rules is their control over platforms, not their ownership of software copyrights. An open letter that CISPE--together with other organizations--addressed to EU competition chief Magrethe Vestager in February urged at a late stage of the legislative process (as the letter even concedes) a "clarification" that would result in the designation of Microsoft, Oracle, and SAP as "monopoly software gatekeepers":

"We cannot wait for a revision of the DMA in five years, nor for a pyrrhic victory in antitrust litigations in 10 years or more when the competitiveness of the market will not be recoverable.

That's what they wrote in February, but by now what they want is a formal antitrust investigation of those companies, initially Microsoft. After yesterday's announcement of new licensing terms that pay heed to the valid ones of the concerns raised by European cloud service providers, regulatory intervention doesn't appear necessary, much less does it seem urgent.

There are major issues to be addressed with respect to mobile app ecosystems: the app tax; the app review tyranny; App Tracking Transparency; access to NFC functionality (for payment systems and other important applications). There's Google's search monopoly and (apart from iOS) superdominant market position in browsers. And Amazon's own conduct.

Amazon would benefit in two ways if CISPE's antitrust initiative resulted in full-blown investigations: by harming a competitor and by defocusing the Commission from other issues that include what Amazon itself has been doing.

The most well-known issue surrounding Amazon's business is a most-favored nation clause: third-party sellers using Amazon's platform are prohibited from "[s]etting a price on a product or service that is significantly higher than recent prices offered on or off Amazon." This is called a "most-favored nation" (MFN) clause and means that vendors cannot offer lower prices elsewhere, be it through direct distribution or on other platforms. The District of Columbia filed an antitrust lawsuit (PDF) over this in May 2021. In 2017, the European Commission accepted commmitments from Amazon on e-books that also involved the MFN topic. As the Commission noted, "[t]he clauses may have led to less choice, less innovation and higher prices for consumers due to less overall competition [...] in e-book distribution" (emphasis added).

Interestingly, Professor Jenny's study discusses the potential competitive effect of cloud service providers who also make software, such as Microsoft, offering customers particularly attractive terms if they buy cloud services as well as software licenses. As I wrote further above, there aren't really hard facts and numbers in that study. But let's assume--just for the sake of the argument--that this is right. It means a company like Amazon with its AWS cloud service could compete, but it would have to charge less for its own services so the total cost of ownership (TCO) for the customer won't be too high.

If a competition authority actually barred Microsoft and others from offering attractive prices for the combination of cloud services and software licenses, the net effect would be that AWS gets to charge customers more than otherwise.

With Microsoft having fleshed out the implementation of its European cloud principles, all of CISPE's members but one--Amazon--have nothing left to complain about that could reasonably give rise to antitrust investigations. The customers of small European cloud service providers will be just fine with the licenses they already have secured from Microsoft (or with new ones that they can optionally obtain through those CSPs). Amazon is obviously free to file an EU antitrust complaint of its own. But to do that, Amazon would have to argue that it can't compete, which is simply not credible based on market share.

As things stand, regulatory intervention doesn't appear imminent. But presumably Amazon won't give up anytime soon. It has the resources to keep on trying.

Share|

New Microsoft software licensing terms to take effect on October 1: revisions designed to strengthen smaller cloud solution providers--and to address Amazon-orchestrated EU antitrust complaint

This is only the second time in more than ten years for this blog to comment on enterprise software licensing. The first instance was about two years ago when I expressed skepticism regarding EU antitrust complaints by certain SAP customers. Now I have seen an announcement by Microsoft that deserves a closer look. Microsoft's policy team (Microsoft On the Issues, @MSFTIssues, a Twitter account that I follow and vice versa) retweeted the following:

Today, we’re sharing changes to our licensing terms that will benefit cloud providers and their customers. To learn more about the changes, why we’re making them, and what hosters and customers can expect, check out our partner blog https://t.co/MCG4Rsv6Y9

— Judson Althoff (@judsonalthoff) August 29, 2022

Today's announcement by Microsoft's Chief Partner Officer Nicole Dezen is a follow-up to a May 18, 2022 blog post by Microsoft President Brad Smith, Microsoft responds to European Cloud Provider feedback with new programs and principles. I will look at the specific licensing changes in more detail and comment on them tomorrow. For now, I'd just like share a few thoughts and observations:

• The backdrop is that a group named Cloud Infrastructure Services Providers in Europe (CISPE) has been alleging for a while that Microsoft engages in an "anti-competitive tying of productivity suites with cloud infrastructure services." What they essentially claim is that smaller European cloud service providers can't compete on a level playing field with Microsoft's Azure cloud because many enterprise customers rely on Microsoft software (such as Windows, Office, and SQL Server) and can't bring their existing Microsoft licenses to third-party cloud services as easily as CISPE believes should be the case.

• CISPE is largely funded by Amazon, whose AWS is the world's largest cloud service (I used it for the backend of two mobile games). The other members are smaller European cloud hosters. It is undoubtedly a challenge for anyone to compete with the behemoths in a business characterized by major economies of scale, but some of CISPE's members--and various significant European cloud service providers who are not CISPE members--prove that there are opportunities for innovative, creative, and flexible players. The part that I struggle to understand is that those smaller European companies view Amazon--the biggest bully on the block--as a political ally. Let's face it: if you're in the cloud business, particularly in the Infrastructure as a Service (IaaS) and Platform as a Service (PaaS) segments, your top three competitive challenges are

  1. AWS,

  2. AWS, and don't forget:

  3. AWS.

• CISPE is complaining not only about Microsoft, but also about Oracle and SAP. And in at least one of the papers they also voice concerns over Google. In other words, they're against everyone except themselves and... AWS.

• Microsoft hasn't acknowledged an antitrust violation per se. The message in May was that there is enough substance to some of the concerns that Microsoft deems it appropriate to amend its software licensing terms with a view to outsourcing and hosting.

• The European Commission hasn't launched full-blown investigations of a formal complaint filed by OVHcloud, a French company, in March. And it may never have to if Microsoft's new licensing terms satisfactorily address the issues. The measure of a competition authority's effectiveness is not how many investigations it launches or the fines it levies: it's all about safeguarding the competitive process. In some other antitrust contexts, particularly those involving Apple and Google, voluntary changes fell far short of what was needed, so DG COMP had no choice but to launch formal investigations. But Microsoft has a fundamentally different attitude than the two companies I just mentioned. After the antitrust cases they dealt with 20 years ago, they've been careful to avoid regulatory scrutiny.

• Here's a quick first look at the "three primary goals" Microsoft (re)stated today:

  1. "Make it easier for customers to bring their software to the partner’s cloud."

     An example of what was criticized is that license fees in a multitenant environment (one server, multiple customers) were based on physical CPU cores, while cloud services are all about virtual machines. Microsoft says "[e]xpanded use rights [now] allow customers to run their software, including Windows 11, on hosters’ multitenant servers and more easily license virtual machines for Windows Server."

  2. "Ensure partners have access to the products necessary to sell cost-effective solutions that customers want"

     The blog post describes this as creating "more opportunities for partners to work with more customers, to sell the solutions they need, and to run them where they prefer."

  3. "Empower partners to build hosted solutions with speed and scale"

     Microsoft's partners will be better enabled to "build hosted desktop and server solutions to help directly fulfill customers’ hosting needs." The new program, is called "Cloud Solution Provider -- Hoster" (CSP-Hoster) and enables both license-included hosting (the CSP sells a service to its customer along with the prerequisite software licenses) and BYOL ("bring your own license") solutions.

• While it appears that Europe is the only jurisdiction in which a formal complaint had been brought, today's blog post says "[t]hese changes will be applicable worldwide." The timing of the announcement (after European business hours) underscored that this is not just about Europe--and globally consistent terms are another notable difference between Microsoft and the likes of Apple and Google, who favor piecemeal resolution and make commitments only jurisdiction by jurisdiction.

• The new licensing options are available to all cloud service providers except a set of Listed Providers. That is no surprise as it is consistent with what Microsoft said in May. A footnote again clarifies today that "Listed Providers include Alibaba, Amazon Web Services, Google, and Microsoft, and any outsourcer using a Listed Provider as part of the applicable outsourcing service. Customers that want to use a Listed Provider for outsourcing can acquire licenses directly from the Listed Provider."

  In other words, all of CISPE's members except for the driving force behind those complaints--Amazon--get the benefit of the terms announced today. This ups the ante for CISPE to credibly claim that the organization is all about better enabling small European cloud service providers to compete...

  I also interpret this as a denial of there being any anticompetitive harm when it comes to AWS, Google, and Alibaba: there is no indication that those major players can't compete with Microsoft.

Tomorrow I'll do a follow-up to this post and comment in more detail on the licensing terms Microsoft unveiled today, and on CISPE's grievances, such as a "study" by a French competition law professor.

Share|

Don't blame EU competition chief Margrethe Vestager if SAP customers' antitrust complaints are fundamentally flawed, get copyright law wrong

You'd be hard-pressed to find anyone less SAP-friendly than me, given that I harshly criticized the German enterprise software maker (just the week before last) for botching--together with Google and Daimler--the German patent injunction reform and even called Microsoft, BMW, and Deutsche Telekom "lemmings" for following SAP's lead. The last occasion on which I collaborated with SAP was over a decade ago when we were co-complainants against Oracle's acquisition of Sun Microsystems--and the individuals I worked with at the time have meanwhile retired. Also, SAP is absolutely irrelevant to my business as a game app maker (I finally submitted a beta version to Apple on Thursday for TestFlight approval, and we'll submit our Android version to Google this week).

But I am interested in reasonable and balanced competition enforcement. While I

• dislike the notion of EU Commission vice president Margrethe Vestager being in charge of both the EU's antitrust watchdog and digital industry policy (a result of precisely the kind of backroom horse trading the EU is notorious for),

• believe some recent EU competition decisions against U.S. respondents lack merit (in one of those cases, the EU General Court recently agreed with me), and

• have been criticizing the Commission's reluctance to take action against Nokia,

it's overly simplistic and sometimes just propagandistic to cry wolf over protectionism each and every time Mrs. Vestager and the Directorate-General for Competition (DG COMP) investigate a U.S. company or fail to take action against a European industry player. It depends. Sometimes it's actually true, such as in the Nokia case, though the politician to blame for inaction in that context is EU fake news commissioner Thierry Breton. But there are cases in which it's not the real issue, and I see some initial indications of a strong case against the case against my non-friends at SAP.

Politico--to be clear, I'm not attacking that publication--reported on allegations (also found elsewhere) that Mrs. Vestager had a conflict of interest with respect to SAP. This is different from the situation in October 2019, when I actually disagreed with the focus and message of a Politico article on the automotive component-level standard-essential patent (SEP) licensing issues involving Nokia and, by short extension, Ericsson. A few weeks later I met Politico's Thibault Larger in Brussels and we understood each other's positions quite well; I also apologized should my post have appeared to insinuate anything improper or unreasonable on Politico's side.

At the heart of those complaints against SAP--one was lodged with the Bundeskartellamt (Federal Cartel Office) in 2018, and another with DG COMP--is some customers' disagreement with SAP's policy that it charges for how its software is used, which often involves third-party applications. The complainants--a group named VOICE including the likes of Siemens and Volkswagen--argue that the 2009 EU directive on the legal protection of computer programs (summary) protects interoperability to the extent that SAP couldn't do that. With my combined IP and antitrust background, I can't help but find that argument not only spurious but downright nonsensical.

What the directive in question actually refers to is the decompilation (a step that is typically at the beginning of a reverse-engineering effort) of program code. If a certain set of conditions are met, the right holder's ability to enforce copyright may be limited for interoperability's sake.

There's no such theory in Europe as copyright misuse, which is a very American concept. SAP is free to define the terms of its copyright licenses, even if those terms make whatever reference to third-party products--unless there's an antitrust violation, and the aforementioned directive explicitly says that it's not meant to restrict competition enforcement. At the same time, I can't find anything in that directive that would lower the hurdle for establishing an antitrust violation, contrary to what the complainants say.

They acknowledge that there are alternative Enterprise Resource Planning (ERP) offerings by world-class vendors such as Microsoft (way bigger than SAP, not in the ERP market, but genrally speaking) and Oracle (whose relational database management system powers most SAP installations). But they argue there's a lock-in (it's too costly to switch), and that the others are just as bad. So what do they want to make? A collective-dominance case? It's not clear from what they say publicly.

About ten years ago, I raised concerns over many customers' lock-in into IBM's mainframe technology. But here, it does appear that there are successful migration case studies. All that the VOICE group alleges is that switching costs are so high "that no [chief information officer] would survive" such a decision. What's different from the IBM mainframe case (in which the EU, by the way, ultimately did nothing) is that SAP isn't really doing anything that would make it harder for Oracle or Microsoft to compete in the ERP market--at least I can't find any such allegations on VOICE's part.

Pollitico quotes anti-SAP blogger Shaun Snapp as saying that the general counsel of a typical SAP customer has "no clue" about the exact meaning of the terms of a software license agreement. I don't think antitrust law is meant to make up for the shortcomings of in-house legal departments.

Another argument from the same source comes down to making the exploitation of a lack of sophistication a violation of competition law: SAP offers combination discounts, and according to Mr. Snapp, the average SAP customer's "procurement team [which chooses the vendor] only cares about getting the price down."

I'd have to find out more about the complaints to be able to comment on market definition and the allegations of abusive conduct in more detail. But what they've made public so far is pathetic.

I do wish to stress that copyright is far narrower in scope than patents, so it's simply not like the way SAP factors the use of third-party products in when determining a license fee could in any way be compared to, say, SEP abuse by Nokia and its partners in crime. What Nokia does has very negative implications for automotive suppliers and their direct and indirect customers all the way down to consumers--and those who will likely suffer the most, though they're far smaller and therefore in a weaker position, are all those Internet of Things startups that face shakedown after shakedown from SEP holders. But that's because patents are broad, and a SEP doesn't even have to be broad: just by virtue of being essential to a standard, it can keep someone out of a market (if an injunction gets enforced).

I'm not saying that no one could ever violate the antitrust laws through copyright assertions, but it's like 1,000 or 10,000 times harder to do on that basis than with patents, especially with standard-essential patents, and the allegations those SAP customers make in public fall far short of persuading me that SAP needs to be investigated by the European Commission or the Federal Cartel Office of Germany. I may comment on this again on some other occasion.

In the automotive SEP licensing context, Mrs. Vestager need not feel any conflict of interests: on the bottom line, the digitization of Europe's economy would benefit from component-level licensing, not only with a view to the automotive sector but also considering IoT, so even if it had to happen over Mr. Breton's objection, the Commission should take action, which is overdue now that the fourth SEP injunction has come down against Daimler since mid-August. In the SAP (by coincidence, a difference of just one letter vs. "SEP") context, it appears to me that there simply may not be a case to begin with. Rejecting those complaints is probably just a reasonable application of competition law, as opposed to an inhibition to go after a "European champion."

Follow @FOSSpatents

Share with other professionals via LinkedIn:

Share|

The lemmings of patent injunction reform: Microsoft, BMW, Deutsche Telekom joined ip2innovate during German reform process

Political decision-making processes tend to be so complex that it's often very difficult to identify a clear causation between what went wrong and why. In connection with Germany's patent reform, which has been carefully crafted by the country's government to change almost nothing at all (see my initial reaction to yesterday's official legislative proposal), one can infer from publicly-accessible documents that the Brussels-based ip2innovate lobby group (Google, Daimler, SAP etc.) committed the colossal blunder that most likely condemns the reform effort to fail. "Be careful what you wish for." IP2I advocated the term "Einzelfall" that is now the central term that will render the reform ineffectual because the government's official legislative rationale clearly defines it as "hardly ever happens." Now the losers are trapped in a no-through one-way street as they can't lobby against their own proposal. They dug their own reform's grave.

Germany's leading information & communications technology news site, Heise online, quotes my analysis in an article on yesterday's legislative proposal, including my criticism of IP2I's lack of strategic sophistication. For what I know, however, chip makers Nvidia and Intel, while they're longstanding IP2I members, can't be blamed for the "Einzelfall" crap.

Were IP2I only a fringe group of the patent reform movement, the others could still combat that "Einzelfall" term effectively. But birds of a feather flock together, and lemmings famously follow other lemmings. With the sole exception of Volkswagen (the whole group including subsidiaries like Audi and Porsche), IP2I's membership directory lists practically every large German organization that demands injunction reform.

Over the course of this year, the misguided IP policy groups of three large organizations--two of them among Germany's largest corporations--joined IP2I:

• Microsoft,

• BMW, and

• Deutsche Telekom.

Deutsche Telekom's IP department habitually hurts the company's interests. They even contributed their cellular standard-essential patents (SEPs) to the abusive Avanci pool. They might have found it convenient, and maybe they thought it was "cool" to join some large patent holders in a pool, but Avanci is all about driving up licensing costs, which runs counter to Deutsche Telekom's interests. Also, Deutsche Telekom is still the only company known to have made a huge royalty payment to patent troll IPCom. They could have avoided it by simply insulating their then-outgoing CEO from the potential fallout from IPCom's patent assertions against him. Instead, they paid hundreds of millions of dollars at a time when Nokia and HTC were actually defending themselves very successfully against that same patent portfolio. Deutsche Telekom also has a reputation for having caved to other patent holders in situations in which many others wouldn't have done so.

As I already noted yesterday, Deutsche Telekom might benefit to some degree from the fact that the reform bill makes harm to third parties a factor. In Dusseldorf that might help; in Munich and even in Mannheim, it most likely won't. Those courts will tell them to take a license. If patent holders seek injunctions that threaten to shut down Deutsche Telekom's network, it's just a means to an end. The end is a costly license deal; leverage from an injunction is the means. So those patent holders will make a licensing offer, and the courts will then tell Deutsche Telekom that the harm they suffer isn't irreparable: they don't have to switch off their network infrastructure as they can take a license. I already explained based on the January draft bill how this would work.

The world's top three smartphone makers--Apple, Samsung, and Huawei--are notably absent from IP2I's membership directory. They have to defend themselves against German patent infringement complaints all the time. In order for them to be in a better position, the hurdle for a useful injunction reform statute would be considerably higher than for Deutsche Telekom (which can at least argue that third parties depend on access to its network) and German car makers, which have substantial manufacturing operations that would be susceptible to a German injunction. Again, I believe even Deutsche Telekom and those automotive companies will ultimately just be coerced into taking licenses on unreasonable terms. But at least they have far more of a hardship argument than foreign companies that export their smartphones and similar devices to Germany.

As foreign companies with limited head counts in Germany, those three would have found it difficult to make much of an impact. If Huawei had joined, it could even have been counterproductive, considering that those opposing reform (such as Nokia) would presumably have tried to politicize the debate.

Whether Apple and Samsung should have done more, in quantitative as well as qualitative terms, is a question those companies will answer for themselves when this reform process is over. Where the process stands today, the most likely outcome is that they'll just spend more money on proportionality arguments (lawyers, experts) but those suing them will have basically the same leverage in negotiations as today. There's an asymmetry here: patent trolls, or companies that practically behave like trolls by suing companies they're not competing with, only stand something to gain, and nothing to lose. They typically wield portfolios, not individual patents, and they can sue in three or more different German venues as they need leverage in only one of them.

This is frustrating to watch. It must be far more frustrating for companies to find themselves on the receiving end of those lawsuits. I warned many of them a year ago, and earlier this year. I told them what was going wrong, and how they'd have had to fix it. There was some hope last month because the previous draft looked like the government had made concessions on the statute and simply hadn't updated the legislative rationale yet. Now that the legislative rationale suggests it's easier to spot a pink elephant in your garden than a German patent case in which an injunction would be denied over proportionality considerations, and with most reform advocates being bound to IP2I's misguided March 2020 submission proposing "Einzelfall," it's extremely hard to imagine a turnaround.

Besides IP2I, there's only one other major industry group pushing for reform, and that's the VDA (German automotive industry association). They have members such as Bosch that prevent them from taking really strong positions, and they lack IP policy expertise at the staff level. So it would be a surprise if they could solve the problem IP2I has created.

I'm quite sure I'll point to yesterday's posts as well as this one many times in the coming years whenever some high-profile German patent injunctions come down or the possibility of such injunctions forces companies into license agreements. I'll be looking out for that pink elephant, and maybe I'll spot one once every while, but I won't blame the judges for what is the only reasonable interpretation of this statute in light of the official commentary: you normally don't even have to conduct a full-blown proportionality analysis because defendants will fail to distinguish their situation from that of any other defendant who has the choice of simply taking a license.

Before the Bundestag (Federal Parliament) formally receives the bill, the Bundesrat (Federal Council) will analyze the proposal and make an official statement that is going to influence the parliamentary process. Chances are that the Federal Council will either say that even this reform proposal goes too far or that it's acceptable but will warn against seriously restricting access to patent injunctions. Some conservative politicians in the Federal Parliament will almost certainly prevent any impactful reform from being passed into law, and time is on their side as the end of the legislative term is approaching (and COVID complicates everything).

Follow @FOSSpatents

Share with other professionals via LinkedIn:

Share|

Google, SAP, Daimler (ip2innovate) botched patent injunction statute: "Singularity Killed the Reform"

If you noticed the allusion to a band name in the headline, you might have grown up in the 80s, in which case you may also remember the famous line "I pity the fool." Otherwise you might know the proverb "curiosity killed the cat". Whatever, those opposing German patent injunction reform are now on the winning track as I explained in my previous post, and in the losing camp, three companies are particularly responsible for a monumental f..kup:

Google, SAP, and Daimler.

Volkswagen deserves credit for having started the push for patent injunction reform in Germany. The three companies listed above will go down in history as the main culprits unless there's a second reversal of fortune. I'd like things to work out, but I increasingly doubt it. The anti-reform movement is just too sophisticated for a pathetic bunch of amateurs.

The documents that prove what went wrong and who's to blame are all public. So let me explain, but again, I'd like nothing more than to be proven to have been too pessimistic. Until the last moment I'll hope that the broken German patent litigation system will be fixed.

So, here's the chronology of events:

In January, the Federal Ministry of Justice and Consumer Protection published a first draft reform bill that Germany's leading patent litigators said was going to change nothing, or at least wasn't going to have significant impact. It then gave stakeholders until mid March to submit comments.

A lobby group named ip2innovate, which is based in Brussels and mostly focuses on EU patent policy, made a submission (PDF, in German) that I largely agreed with, though I expressed concerns about their statutory proposal. Back then I commented on dozens of statements, so I didn't go into detail.

Here's a screenshot of the worst blunder in this whole reform debate (click on the image to enlarge; this post continues below the image):

The first sentence of their proposed amendment to the patent injunction statute is this (in German):

"1Der Anspruch nach Absatz 1 ist ausgeschlossen, soweit die Inanspruchnahme im Einzelfall unverhältnismäßig ist." (emphasis added)

This means that injunctive relief shall be unavailable to the extent that its enforcement would be disproportionate "im Einzelfall." What does "im Einzelfall" mean? That's the problem. The term can be understood in two ways, neither of which reflects favorably on those who proposed it:

• non-judgmental interpretation: "in the individual case to be decided"

• with a quantitative connotation: "only in rare/outlier cases"

It was an utter stupidity at any rate to use a term that simply isn't a well-defined legal term. I can't remember ever having seen a German statute that contained the word. Therefore, the first thing courts will turn to when trying to make sense of the term is, besides the context, what the legislative rationale (the official commentary provided along with the law) says. I'll get to those two determinants--context and legislative rationale--in a moment.

Anyway, if the plan is to inject a new term into the law that wasn't there before, a lobby group (unless someone inside the group seeks to sabotage the effort or people don't know what they're talking about) would at least pick a term that has framing value. You'd want to use a term that has a connotation that suits your agenda. The last thing you'd want to do is shoot yourself in the foot like ip2innovate did.

Even in a neutral context and without the risk of a legislative rationale ascribing a particular meaning to the term, "Einzelfall" was the equivalent of an own goal in certain sports, or unforced error in others. That's because the non-judgmental interpretation would not be as persuasive a proposal as the quantitative one. Let's face it: the law is always used to decide individual cases. It's the single most fundamental principle of statutory interpretation (which some of the people working for ip2i's members may have learned about a loooong time ago, maybe too long) that if a term can be given one meaning that makes sense and one that doesn't, you pick the former, not the latter. Interpretation 101. With "individual case" being nonsensical, no judge could be blamed for interpreting "Einzelfall" in the sense of "rare outlier, or singularity." One could debate just how rare. But there could be no reasonable argument over whether at least some degree of rarity is implied.

To be clear, I'm not "Monday-morning-quarterbacking" here. I actually made a hands-down superior statutory proposal that I sent to a variety of companies (some of which were and are ip2i members) and select academics in January. When the German reform process is over, I'll publish it. Or maybe before. We'll see. Dozens of witnesses can confirm I shared it with numerous industry players in January 2020. So I don't just pretend to know better with the benefit of 2020 hindsight. I already did back then. And among the proposals that were officially submitted, I supported the one by the Max Planck Institute, which didn't contain any crap like "Einzelfall" either.

Now, fast forward to early September, when the ministry finally published its second draft. It already incorporated the term "Einzelfall"--and did so in connection with a reference to "besonderen Umständen." That term, just like "Einzelfall", can be interpreted in two ways:

• non-judgmental interpretation: "specific" = "under the given circumstances"

• with a qualitative connotation: "special" = "only under extraordinary circumstances"

Here, again, the non-judgmental interpretation would be devoid of any meaning as any case is decided based on its facts. And then, when you have in the very same, narrow context the combination of two terms (grammatically related to each other in the statute) that can be interpreted judgmentally or non-judgmentally, with the judgmental interpretation making sense while the other doesn't, you'd really need the legislative rationale to support a non-judgmental interpretation--or a mildly judgmental one, meaning that it would suffice for the circumstances to be somewhat special and that injunctive relief wouldn't be abolished entirely, or in a vast majority of cases.

When ip2i submitted its feedback to last month's draft (PDF, in German), it complained that "besondere" (special/specific) was "redundant" in the context of "Einzelfall". They started to realize they had botched this by proposing a term that renders the whole reform statute pointless--even without "besondere Umstände" (though even more so in that context, which basically doubles the problem).

Too late. When you're trapped, you're trapped. The proposal that the executive government adopted today (which still doesn't pass it into law, but that's what the executive officially submits to the legislature) contains the same problematic passage, has made two other terms in the statute less favorable to the interests of defendants, and the draft legislative rationale has deteriorated sharply.

On page 64 of the early September draft ("Referentenentwurf"), the ministry wrote:

"Eine dauerhafte Versagung des Unterlassungsanspruchs wegen unverhältnismäßiger Belastung des Schuldners wird hingegen nur in sehr wenigen Fallkonstellationen in Betracht kommen."

This means:

"A permanent denial of an injunction due to a disproportionate burden on the infringer will, however, only be part of the consideration in a very few case patterns."

At the time, I was being optimistic and assumed that the rationale had not been updated yet. But today's version leaves no more room for such wishful thinking:

"Eine dauerhafte Versagung des Unterlassungsanspruchs wegen unverhältnismäßiger Belastung des Schuldners wird hingegen nur in sehr wenigen besonders gelagerten extremen Fallkonstellationen in Betracht kommen. Sie setzt voraus, dass unbilligen Härten für den Unterlassungsschuldner nicht durch eine Umstellungs- und Aufbrauchfrist hinreichend Rechnung getragen werden kann." (emphasis added to highlight what was inserted in October)

Here's my translation:

"A permanent denial of an injunction due to disproportionate hardship on the infringer will, however, be part of the consideration only in a very few, specially-structured, extreme case patterns. It would be a requirement that inequitable hardship on the infringer could not be sufficiently addressed through a workaround and use-up period." (emphasis added to highlight what was inserted in October)

This is like the postmortem of an abysmal failure. With this official commentary, the bill would provide a dictionary to the courts:

• "Einzelfall" = "very rare, extreme case" ("singularity")

• "besonderen Umständen" = "there must be something out of the ordinary about the circumstances, the circumstances must stand out in a structural sense"

This means the courts will rarely even have to take a closer look at proportionality arguments--unless, as I'll say now for the last time, the pro-reform camp manages to turn this around.

The more realistic assumption is that there won't be any truly helpful developments. If any of the people representing their companies had to report to me, I'd want to know who proposed or supported "Einzelfall" and who opposed it, as that would tell me whether or not I could trust those people to vigorously defend their companies' interests.

The largest U.S. company among ip2i's longstanding members (Microsoft just joined recently) is Google. The search and Android company's European in-house patent litigator, Ralf Uhrich, may actually even benefit from this mess. While he manages Google's patent cases in other European jurisdictions as well, he is admitted to practice in Germany, and may very well return to private practice, such as to Quinn Emanuel, where he left as an associate. In Germany, becoming in-house counsel is typically a one-way street and not considered an upgrade. But Google is an American company, and the relationship between Google and QE is special. As a future QE attorney, Mr. Uhrich would be much less busy if Germany actually reformed its patent injunction regime. Near-automatic patent injunctions are a boon for German patent litigators.

Ip2i's largest European member is SAP. SAP actually hasn't been sued over patents in Germany in a long time (at least that was the case last time I checked). If SAP really had a problem with German patent injunctions, they'd presumably have entrusted someone more senior than Ina Kock, an in-house patent prosecution counsel, with this reform project. While SAP is a great employer in some other fields, it's a rather unpopular one among German patent attorneys. The company is HQ'd in the middle of nowhere, and patent attorneys at other major tech companies working in Munich (Europe's patent capital) make at least 50% more because they have more opportunities. Her background is patent prosecution, not litigation, and unlike in-house patent counsel of companies that regularly get sued, she hasn't even had the opportunity to really figure out how things actually work in German courts. Then, participating in ip2i conf calls may spice up her professional life, as she'd otherwise just be spending eight hours a day to get software patents granted in contravention of a subject-matter exclusion under the European Patent Convention. I guess that's far more important than achieving a positive outcome.

This was just come color that may explain why ip2i has performed so poorly. But I still hope they're going to get this reform effort on track, alongside some other organizations such as the German automotive association (VDA).

Follow @FOSSpatents

Share with other professionals via LinkedIn:

Share|

Distorted picture of stakeholder positions on German patent injunction reform: submissions to Federal Ministry of Justice

Leading litigators agree that the first draft of a German patent reform bill put forward by the Federal Ministry of Justice and Consumer Protection (BMJV) would change either nothing at all or, at best, extremely little about access to patent injunctions. This blog already said within a couple of hours of the dissemination of the document.

Stakeholders had until March 10 (last Tuesday) to provide feedback to the ministry. Throughout the course of the week, the ministry uploaded those documents whose submitters had not requested confidential treatment.

To my dismay, the proponents of meaningful injunction reform have lost the second round in a row. They had originally achieved a breakthrough in the sense that the ministry, which at the outside envisioned a low-key reform package along the lines of a "service update" for computer programs, has dared to touch the holy cow of German patent law--§ 139 PatG (Art. 139 German Patent Act, the injunction paragraph)--at all. But what has otherwise happened is a disaster for the pro-reform movement:

1. The actual proposal is lopsided in patentees' favor and designed to eliminate or at least minimize any potential impact.

2. And now, due to utter political incompetence in some places, outdated internal rules in others, and obsolete conventions on the part of key local pro-reform forces, the ministry has received more than enough backing to either turn its first draft into the federal government's formal proposal or make merely cosmetic changes to it.

   There's obviously nothing that pro-reform forces could have done about their rivals' actions. Their failure lies in the fact that they didn't (even though I told many of them a long time ago) restructure and broaden their alliance in an effort to overcome resistance to reform. Those who want a more balanced statutory framework are now on the losing track unless the dynamics of the parliamentary process result in a turnaround. An economic majority actually wants reform, and only a minority opposes it--but the majority doesn't know how to win, or the few individuals who do know just aren't allowed to do what needs to be done, while the patent-extremist minority plays it smart (those organizations have highly experienced, global IP policy teams, unlike the German automotive industry, for instance) and has the relevant ministry officials on its side.

While the actual legislature--the Bundestag (Federal Parliament)--has every right and every opportunity (and would have every reason) to fundamentally improve the bill, parliamentary experts will start their analysis of where the relevant stakeholders stand with the submissions to the ministry. And those submissions present a distorted picture, for the reasons stated above.

In this post I'll focus only on the proportionality of injunctions, not on other aspects of the reform bill that the submissions touch on, except where there is an inevitable overlap.

Submissions in favor of major improvement over the status quo (i.e., fewer injunctions)

Max Planck Institute for Innovation and Competition: That one is fantastic. They explain the issues with the present proposal and propose a straightforward proportionality requirement (which would bring German patent law into compliance with EU law). Among other things, they also argue for taking third-party interests into account, and they explain why proportionality considerations are also critical with respect to standard-essential patents (SEPs). Unfortunately, they don't represent an industry, but I will propose a solution: why don't a number of major companies (either German corporations or international ones with substantial operations in Germany)--regardless of whether they've already supported the submissions of one or more industry associations--throw their full weight behind the Max Planck Institute document and say that they support it 100% even though they might have settled for less before in order to build consensus within industry groups? The Max Planck Institute is a world-class academic institution, not a campaign HQ. They wouldn't seek endorsements, but I am going to contact some key pro-reform players the next few days and urge them to publicly (such as through this blog, where I could publish the names of organizations who confirm their agreement with the Max Planck paper to me just like their PR departments would confirm the existence of a pending litigation) declare themselves 100% (no ifs, no buts, no nothing) in agreement with the Max Planck submission. Let's make the Max Planck Institute's submission the economic majority's lodestar and tell it to the Bundestag.

Germany's leading SME organization (Bundesverband mittelständische Wirtschaft, BVMW): This submission makes strong policy arguments from the perspective of small and medium-sized companies and blend them with reasonably profound legal criticism of the proposal, expressing serious doubts about whether we would see much (if any) improvement. What the BVMW does not provide is a statutory counterproposal, but what the Max Planck Institute suggests would undoubtedly meet the BVMW's criteria.

Patentverein (medium-sized companies advocating balanced patent policy) and BITMi (IT-specialized SME organization): One could interpret these two submissions as an endorsement of the ministry's statutory proposal. However, those are very small organizations and simply don't have the resources to assess the actual legal impact of a statutory proposal. Their papers make it very clear they want proportionality (and above all else, they'd like to close the injunction gap). Both are, however, members of the Mittelstandsallianz (SME Alliance) led by BVMW, and BVMW gets it right that the present proposal falls short of what's needed. For that reason, I count those two organizations, despite the shortcomings of their submissions, in the pro-reform column: their policy positions are clearly pro reform, and if they didn't back the BVMW's criticism, the BVMW surely would have mentioned it, as the BVMW's submission explicitly mentions the Mittelstandsallianz and an aggregate membership of 900,000 organizations.

Verband der Automobilindustrie (VDA, Automotive Industry Association): This submission explains the issues in great detail and proposes various improvements to the statute. It's good--but not very forceful in the end. I therefore call on those automotive industy players who are in favor of meaningful reform (which applies to the vast majority of them) to back the structurally superior Max Planck Institute's submission, especially since there is no philosophical conflict here. The best is the enemy of the good.

ip2innovate: That group has mostly non-German members such as Google, Microsoft, and Intel. Its German members are SAP, Daimler, and Adidas (a company that is also affected by the threat of patent injunctions). Daimler is also a member of the VDA, but it's a reasonable assumption that Daimler actually supports the further-reaching proposal--the ip2innovate submission. ip2innovate's paper is OK for the most part, though there is a huge issue with its statutory proposal: it does spell out some criteria to consider, but in doing so risks discounting the importance of criteria not mentioned, such as the relative importance of a patented invention to an accused product. The Max Planck Institute, with its far greater sophistication, avoided falling into that trap. As for the backing of German companies, Daimler and Adidas are undoubtedly suffering under the current situation. SAP, while it's the most valuable German company, actually never gets sued over patents in Germany. At least one can't find any recent cases on Darts IP. Even if they were enjoined, software patents can usually be worked around very easily and seamlessly. So they're lobbying for reform without actually being affected (so far). That is a limiting factor in the further debate. It doesn't make their position meaningless, but does diminish its weight--though the weight that remains is still significant.

Vodafone: Not a German company, but operator of the second-largest cellular network in the country and a provider of critical infrastructure to many German companies, including many SMEs (as the submission mentions). Their one-pager simply points out that the initial proposal doesn't go far enough. It would have been great if they could have made a joint submission with Deutsche Telekom (and possibly others). But Deutsche Telekom's position was voiced very clearly in 2018 on the corporate website, where they complained about the extent to which Germany's patent law impedes innovation.

ACT | The App Association: A low-quality submission by an organization that claims to represent 5000 SMEs "in Germany, the EU, and worldwide" (my translation), but then mentions only one German member company in its submission. Not worth discussing, and certainly won't impress anyone in German politics.

Nvidia: The strength of this particular submission is its analysis--clearly provided by a law firm--of proportionality as prescribed by the Intellectual Property Rights Enforcement Directive (IPRED) of the European Union. That part of the filing is world-class. When it comes to political clout, however, Nvidia is, at best, of secondary relevance in Germany. That said, whatever law firm authored the analysis of EU proportionality law for them did a great job.

Neutral on proportionality

BITKOM (German information and communications technology industry association): Due to dissent within their membership, they couldn't take a position. Most ICT companies clearly want reform, but the likes of Siemens, Nokia and Ericsson also have significant weight within that organization. In connection with the EU software patent directive, BITKOM was one of my numerous opponents and we defeated them (both with respect to a non-legislative resolution by the Bundestag and a legislative decision by the European Parliament). It looks like I may never agree with them on patent policy, but at least they're neutral this time.

progenerika (generic drug industry association): Their submission focused only on the injunction gap. In the field of pharmaceutics, proportionality--provided that a patent is reasonably certain to be valid--is typically a non-issue given that there is almost a 1:1 relationship between a patent and a product, so one can hardly argue that only a minor feature of a complex multifunctional product was affected.

Submissions in favor of the status quo (and the ministry's first draft)

BDI (German industry association): The BDI is an umbrella association of associations. Two of its members, VDA (which wants reform) and BITKOM (which is internally divided), officially distanced themselves from the BDI's submission. The biggest issue with the BDI's submission is that they seek to limit the impact of any statutory change to enforcement stays (as opposed to a denial of injunctive relief in a given case). As for third-party interests, they may see a point with respect to telecommunications networks, but are afraid of further-reaching effects. They do speak out clearly against non-practicing entities (NPEs), and they mention the problem of complex products. So the BDI submission isn't all bad, but on the bottom line it's more of an anti-proportionality than pro-reform position. And the BDI's submission hurts the cause by appearing to isolate the automotive industry, though in reality there's a strong interest in reform in multiple industries (such as telecommunications, semiconductors, and further above I even mentioned Adidas as a member of ip2innovate). [Update on 03/17] The BDI paper had to be withdrawn, validating what I wrote about a strong interest in patent injunction reform across multiple industries. [/Update]

ZVEI (electronics industry association): They make it clear they seek to preserve the status quo and they'd like the ministry to make it even clearer that nothing should change. This one may have been influenced very strongly by Siemens.

Siemens: Whether this submission by Siemens's patent department serves the company's long-term interests is another question. In the IoT era they will increasingly find themselves on the receiving end of patent assertions. But for now, they are radical proponents of strong patent enforcement. While I disagree with them, they did the right thing by making a submission in their own name as opposed to just relying on associations.

vfa (pharmaceutical industry association) and VCI (chemical industry association): Those two organizations' joint submission promotes superstrong patent enforcement. They'd like to further weaken the ministry's first draft.

Ericsson: A foreign company, though still far more relevant to German policy makers than, say, Nvidia's local sales office. Unsurprisingly, they take a radical position in favor of strong patent enforcement. Just like Nokia, Ericsson is a company that failed in the mobile handset business and has fallen behind technologically in the field of network infrastructure, so they're ever more interested in patent monetization.

VPP (organization of 2,500 German IP professionals): This submission, unsurprisingly, favors strong enforcement. VPP's president is simply Siemens's chief patent counsel. So this doesn't really add anything.

German patent attorneys' association: Obviously in favor of the status quo. The more patent litigation in Germany, the merrier--from their vantage point.

German Bar Association: What I just said obviously applies to German attorneys at law involved with patent litigation: they wouldn't want anything to happen that would have more than a non-negligible impact on the attractiveness of their jurisdiction to plaintiffs. Policy makers are well-advised to just ignore that submission.

Berlin-based patent attorney: A patent attorney filed a submission on her own, claiming to mostly represent SMEs, which is ridiculous when you have the country's largest SME organization (BVMW) actually advocating reform. There obviously are SMEs who want strong patent enforcement--some but not all of whom are simply patent trolls. But patent attorneys aren't legitimate SME representatives, simple as that.

German inventors' association: Their membership base is just a few hundred individuals.

DABEI (another inventors' association): This submission is slightly more moderate than the one by the German inventors' association. It proposes an enforcement stay for up to six months in cases of extreme hardships, contingent upon various requirements.

Sanofi-Aventis: They caution against any further-reaching restrictions of access to injunctive relief, but would like the ministry to provide greater clarity. And in case they get sued, they'd like the interests of patients who need access to their medications to be taken into account.

Japan Business Machine and Information Systems Industries Association (JBMIA): They hate patent trolls, but they want their members (such as Sharp, Sony, Panasonic, Fuji, and Toshiba) to have just the same access to injunctive relief as now. They're apprehensive of anything that would look even remotely like eBay v. MercExchange (though the ministry's first draft is lightyears away from it).

Conclusion

One can see that those seeking to preserve the status quo are better-organized and more outspoken, as opposed to just focusing on association-level consensus building.

Some of those advocating reform mean well, but on average aren't as sophisticated as their rivals.

The pro-reform camp needs a much better statute than the one the ministry proposed, but the ministry officials can (legitimately!) portray the balance of the submissions as validating their approach. That is due to a distortion: in reality, the economic majority wants reform, but it failed to make this clear.

It's too late to orchestrate more (and better) pro-reform submissions, but it would make a huge difference now if some major players could officially subscribe to the Max Planck Institute's stellar submission. Rallying behind that paper is the best shot the pro-reform camp has at this stage. But there is a risk of most if not all of the key players being unable to do so just due to internal rules that are unfit for a patent policy debate in the 21st century.

Follow @FOSSpatents

Share with other professionals via LinkedIn:

Share|

Google-SAP cross-license agreement announced: is SAP once again critical of software patents?

Google has previously announced various patent cross-license agreements, with partners including (but not limited to) Samsung and Cisco. Not with Apple and Microsoft, though: those announcements merely related to the withdrawal of lawsuits, not to actual license agreements.

Today, Google and SAP have announced "a long-term patent cross licensing agreement that covers a broad range of products and technologies."

It's not unprecedented for SAP to agree with Google in the context of patents. SAP has previously joined Google in supporting Samsung against Apple's pursuit of injunctive relief over patents covering (certain aspects of) minor features. But today's announcement contains a rather interesting quote from SAP's chief IP counsel:

"We are proud to announce this important agreement with Google, a global leader in technology," said Tony DiBartolomeo, Chief IP Counsel, SAP. "Giving talented engineers and developers the freedom to build great products is key to promoting innovation. Patent cross-license agreements like this one increase freedom to operate and prevent distractions from unnecessary patent litigation. And, like Google, SAP welcomes similar discussions with like-minded companies."

The second sentence ("Giving ...") appears to imply that software patents restrict the freedom of talented engineers and developers to build great products, and are, therefore, an impediment to innovation. The third sentence proposes cross-license agreements as means of increasing "freedom to operate" and calls patent litigation unnecessary and a distraction from innovative activity.

That's clearly a much more critical view of (software) patents than merely supporting the philosophy of Justice Kennedy in the eBay case that injunctions over minor features would give patent holders undue leverage.

SAP is living (in an abstract sense) proof that innovation in software, contrary to what many patent professionals claim all the time, is not dependent on patent protection. When SAP came out of nothing and became the most significant non-American software company, software patents weren't available--neither in the U.S. nor in Europe. For a long time SAP had no software patents, and even a while after it started filing for some, it had less than a handful.

Based on what I once heard from credible sources, Hasso Plattner, SAP's former CEO, was philosophically opposed to the notion of patenting software. But SAP may have felt forced to play the game everyone else was playing, and at some point, SAP's management believed its in-house patent attorneys that software patents were strategic assets for the company. I saw SAP patent attorneys at government roundtables and in the European Parliament, lobbying aggressively for software patents.

In 2005, the European Parliament rejected a proposed directive on computer-implemented inventions (more accurately and commonly referred to as the "EU software patent directive," though it's a fact that software patents already existed in Europe and continue to exist, because the exclusion of software patents defined in the European Patent Convention had already been vitiated beyond recognition by the European Patent Office and, to a lesser extent, national courts). Before the decisive vote, SAP placed an ad in the European Voice, a Brussels-based weekly on EU affairs published by the Economist Group, calling on Members of the European Parliament to vote in favor of the proposal. That ad came in handy for the movement opposing the bill: the liars supporting software patents (including the European Commission) had said all the time that the legislative measure was not at all about software, just "technical inventions," and had pointed to computer-controlled refrigerators and car braking systems, but SAP doesn't make any products of that kind: SAP is purely a software company, so its ad exposed the CII lie.

Now, more than ten years later, SAP appears to be part of the Google-led movement that is rather critical of software patents and those seeking to extort true innovators (ab)using patents of usually very questionable quality.

I hope SAP has now come full circle.

If you'd like to be updated on the smartphone patent disputes and other intellectual property matters I cover, please subscribe to my RSS feed (in the right-hand column) and/or follow me on Twitter @FOSSpatents and Google+.

Follow @FOSSpatents

Share with other professionals via LinkedIn:

Share|

Industry body says Apple advocates rules that would give patent trolls access to injunctions

Recently the Federal Circuit scheduled the hearing on Apple's appeal of the denial of a permanent injunction against Samsung after last year's trial. The hearing will be held on March 4. From the outside it looks like one of the last steps before this dispute will be history.

Three weeks ago I wrote about Apple's opposition to an amicus curiae brief submitted by Google, SAP, Red Hat, Rackspace, and -- notably -- Samsung competitors LG and HTC. The brief was accepted by the Federal Circuit over Apple's objections. Apple may have opposed the filing just because this was an opportunity to highlight Google's special involvement with the case in an effort to diminish the brief's credibility, but even if one viewed Google (like Apple suggested) as a de facto party to the case, the other filers have quite some credibility.

Cases should be decided on the merits, not on amicus brief campaigns. That said, it says something that Apple has support only from Nokia and Ericsson -- the company with which Apple now has a dispute over potentially much more money than what the remaining parts of the Samsung case are about, especially since the Apple-Ericsson situation is very unbalanced (Apple has much less offer to Ericsson in terms of a patent license, so it won't be able to offset the inbound licensing cost with much of an outbound licensing revenue stream).

Besides the aforementioned group of companies, the Computer & Communications Industry Association (CCIA), whose members are listed here, also submitted a brief. It already did so back in mid-December, but it appeared on the Federal Circuit docket only yesterday. I've also found it (PDF document) in the Briefings & Filings section of CCIA's website.

It focuses on two issues. The first one is about whether a feature-specific injunction should be easier for Apple to obtain. CCIA argues that the scope of the injunction was already considered.

There's a second, shorter part that raises an issue I wish to highlight. CCIA says "the special treatment Apple requests would open the door to patent assertion entities [i.e., patent trolls] to demand injunctions."

CCIA takes issue with the notion that a patent holder shouldn't have to prove a causal nexus between the infringement of a small feature of a multifunctional device and the alleged irreparable harm because it's so easy to work around.

In light of strict page limits, it would be unfair to both Apple and CCIA not to consider an important nuance: while this particular part of Apple's pro-injunction argument could indeed open the floodgates to injunctions obtained by patent trolls (which could also hurt Apple in the future), I understand Apple's position as being about the combination of the availability of workarounds and the patent holder having a "reputation for innovation." The second part would be much harder (though not impossible) for a patent troll to satisfy.

CCIA nevertheless has a point. In order to obtain an injunction against Samsung (over patent claims that are too narrow to give Apple strategic leverage), Apple must try different things to lower the hurdle. Apple wants to have its cake and eat it (get an injunction against Samsung but preserve much of its ability to fend off injunction demands by trolls), and that's always risky. Presumably the perfect outcome from Apple's point of view wouldn't be that the court reverses Judge Koh's injunction denial just based on the availability-of-workarounds basis. Apple almost certainly hopes for the aforementioned combination of that one with the "reputation for innovation" criterion. However, this here could go wrong in two ways:

1. An appellate decision that emphasizes the "small feature" part (or is based entirely on it) would have exactly the effect CCIA warns against, whether or not this would have been Apple's intention. Apple can make its case but it can't write the decision even if it prevails.

2. I've previously criticized the "reputation for innovation" criterion as a very vague and soft one, and I think it runs counter to the traditional logic of the patent system, which is all about technological merits (what contribution was made to the state of the art relative to the prior art?). If this approach was adopted by the court, patent law would depart from its focus on rewarding inventiveness and start to reward PR and marketing. A patent troll (not a small one, obviously) could spend a lot of money promoting its inventions and its research and development efforts to maximize the leverage it gets from its patents. And if it has other licensees, those are arguably harmed by infringement, and by extension, the patent holder is then harmed as well.

Apple is doing so well. It doesn't really need an injunction (over patent claims of limited scope) other than for publicity and pride. In terms of natural allies for Apple when it comes to balanced patent policy, the likes of Google, Samsung and SAP -- companies that also have a strong reputation for innovation -- would clearly be a better fit (because their uncompromised priority is on making real products) than Nokia and Ericsson. It's possible that just the increased cost of licensing patents from Nokia and Ericsson in the future (those also have non-standard-essential patents, so FRAND alone can't solve the entire problem for Apple) will outweigh any positive effects that Apple could get, in the most optimistic scenario, from a successful appeal.

If you'd like to be updated on the smartphone patent disputes and other intellectual property matters I cover, please subscribe to my RSS feed (in the right-hand column) and/or follow me on Twitter @FOSSpatents and Google+.

Follow @FOSSpatents

Share with other professionals via LinkedIn:

Share|

Competing device makers HTC and LG join Google, SAP in backing Samsung against Apple

Apple, Samsung and Google are three of the most significant members of an industry coalition that is fighting the good fight for balanced rules of procedure for Europe's future Unified Patent Court, particularly with respect to access to injunctive relief. But as the industry coalition stated repeatedly, including at the November 2014 hearing, some of its members are actually embroiled in patent litigation--in which they have sought or are seeking injunctions--with each other. That fact only adds to the credibility of that industry group because it shows that some of its members, such as Apple, are more interested in obtaining sales bans over patents than others, such as Google and Samsung, yet they all agree that the current proposal would make Europe a patent trolls' paradise and hurt all innovative operating companies. Nothing could better demonstrate just how bad those proposed rules are.

The most notable case in which members of the UPC industry coalition stand on opposing sides is Apple's appeal of Judge Lucy Koh's August 2014 denial of a permanent injunction against Samsung over the patents on which Apple had prevailed at the spring 2014 trial. Apple says that a feature-specific injunction should be granted here and claims to have better evidence in place this time around (Apple filed a reply brief this week that reinforces the points made in its opening brief) but Samsung argues that Apple still can't tie patented features to lost sales. Google sides with Samsung on this and has, together with other significant companies (LG, HTC, SAP, Red Hat, Rackspace), asked the Federal Circuit for permission to file an amicus curiae brief.

Apple formally opposes the proposed filing, noting that Google accepted to indemnify Samsung with respect to certain patents. However, no liability was established with respect to those patents, and as a result, they are not at issue in this injunction appeal. Apple also points to various business relationships between Google and some of the other amici curiae, even including some small-scale business partnerships compared to which there's actually a much closer cooperation between Apple and Samsung in certain (component-related) areas. Notably, HTC and LG compete with Samsung, and since HTC has a ten-year license agreement in place with Apple, it has no reason to be concerned about the particular patents at issue here.

I've seen LG enforce some of its patents (such as patents on the Blu-ray standard) rather aggressively.

There have also been some other filings. Industry group CCIA and the National Black Chamber of Commerce filed other briefs in support of Samsung, while Apple's pursuit of an injunction is backed by Ericsson and Nokia, two companies that used to build smartphones but exited that business and increasingly focus on patent licensing (and that are obviously not members of the aforementioned UPC industry coalition). While it's certainly good for Apple to have at least some support from third parties, the fact that no current smartphone maker was prepared to back Apple here shows that Cupertino is somewhat isolated in its industry when it comes to this issue. They all face too many patent assertions all the time and have to think about their interests as a defendant, even if they engage in some enforcement (Microsoft, for example). And there could be a future situation in which Apple itself will fight an injunction bid against its products and someone else will use Apple's own pro-injunction arguments against it.

I'm not an expert in the admissibility of amicus curiae briefs, so I can't predict whether Google itself will be formally allowed to appear as a "friend of the court" here, but there cannot be the slightest doubt about the other filers.

It's an interesting brief that this blog is first to make available to the general public (access is still restricted on the Federal Circuit docket; this post continues below the document):

14-12-24 Google HTC LG Rackspace RedHat SAP Amicus Brief by Florian Mueller

The amicus brief focuses on the bearing of a certain Federal Circuit decision from 2013, Douglas Dynamics, on the present case. In that case, which involved two snowplow manufacturers, then-Chief Judge Randall Rader stressed that if a workaround is available, an infringer should choose the path of legality. At the time I thought this was going to be very helpful to Apple (at that time, in connection with its first California case against Samsung, while the current appeal relates to the second case). But it turned out that it didn't help Apple too much. Smartphones and snowplows are different markets with different characteristics, and there's obviously a much smaller number of features in a snowplow than in a smartphone. While Apple won a remand of the denial of a permanent injunction in that first Samsung case, Judge Koh again (while taking into account the additional guidance from the Federal Circuit) denied an injunction. Last summer Apple dropped its related cross-appeal and, thereby, forever accepted that denial.

The above amicus brief has two parts. Section A explains that Apple still has to establish a causal nexus between the infringements identified (Samsung is appealing those findings, by the way) and the alleged irreparable harm, regardless of the scope of the injunction it is seeking. In other words, the standard isn't lowered just because a proposed injunction wording is very specific to particular features. That makes sense and may be part of the reason why Apple tries to reduce the credibility of that amicus brief, but I'm now going to focus on Section B, which addresses Apple's argument that Douglas Dynamics supports its injunction push now (though it didn't help in the previous case).

The "causal nexus" question never came up in Douglas Dynamics. That's the primary reason for which it didn't help Apple before and may not help now. According to the amicus brief (and I'm obviously not able to verify this), "Douglas's patents were directed to an entire snowplow blade assembly, not a specific feature of that assembly." The brief goes on to discuss another key difference from the Apple-Samsung dispute:

"Second, the core innovation of Douglas's patented snowplow design allows a user to easily remove the assembly, reducing stress on the vehicle's suspension. [...] Douglas promoted this 'easy on, easy off' feature in advertising for its own snowplow assemblies by incorporating the concept into its trademark – Minute Mount – to ensure that snowplow customers associate the patented feature with Douglas. [...] Here, there is no evidence that the patented features are core innovations of Apple’s products or that Apple has advertised them as such. Apple certainly has not incorporated those features into its product brand names."

As for the last part, the iPhone is certainly not sold or advertised as the "slide-to-unlock phone" or the "quick-links phone."

The brief also says that "Douglas never licensed the patents-in-suit and intentionally chose not to, thus insuring that the innovative design would (absent infringement) be exclusively associated with Douglas in the minds of its customers," and contrasts this no-outbound-licensing-ever approach with the fact that "Apple has licensed the patents-in-suit to several competitors, including IBM, Nokia, HTC and Microsoft." I would agree with the amici that "there is simply no evidence that anyone exclusively associates the patented features with Apple," with the exception that Apple's particular implementation of slide-to-unlock, with the slider bar, is certainly a signature feature, but Apple didn't even accuse the more recent products at issue in this case (and those are already a couple years old) of infringement of its slide-to-unlock patent. In the prior art context it has been stated over and over that the iPhone was not the first phone to come with a slide-to-unlock mechanism, which is why the related patent family is so weak. With respect to "quick links," that's a feature that consumers typically can't distinguish from other links, such as the ones found on a webpage like this. And autocomplete is also something that you find in all products from all sorts of vendors.

A key concern of the amici is that the way Apple would like Douglas Dynamics to be applied to cases like this one "would unfairly create a lower standard for proving causal nexus for companies with a reputation for innovation." Apple argues that Douglas Dynamics made the patent holder's reputation as an innovator a key factor. The amici concede that there is direct competition between Apple and Samsung, and that Apple has a reputation as an innovator, but say that evidence is "scant, at best," with respect to claims that Samsung has a less prestigious reputation, that Apple makes efforts to maintain exclusive control over its patented features, and that an injunction was necessary to demonstrate to consumers that Apple does protect its intellectual property rights.

Against this background, the amicus brief says:

"So the proposed 'Douglas Dynamics test,' as Apple has framed it, is this: if a patentee has a reputation for innovation and its patent is infringed by a competitor, then the patentee's reputation will necessarily be harmed by that infringement – no matter how trivial the patented feature – because consumers might believe the patentee did not enforce its intellectual property rights. No further proof of causal nexus is needed. The logical leap is astounding."

The appellate hearing will take place in a matter of months, and I'll listen to the official recording as soon as it becomes available (usually on the day of the hearing). I understand Apple's desire for a sales ban and I said before that, while Samsung doesn't need to infringe the related patents (and the liability findings are subject to an appeal, with the autocomplete patent also being under reexamination pressure), an injunction would make Apple look and feel better. However, it wouldn't make sense to lower the standard for access to injunctive relief if an injunction bid comes from a company with a reputation for innovation. In Apple's case, that reputation is based on a definition of innovation that is inconsistent with the one applied in patent law. In patent law, it's about who's first to come up with something, not who's first to convince millions of consumers to buy and use technologies that, for the most part, others created before Apple.

If you'd like to be updated on the smartphone patent disputes and other intellectual property matters I cover, please subscribe to my RSS feed (in the right-hand column) and/or follow me on Twitter @FOSSpatents and Google+.

Follow @FOSSpatents

Share with other professionals via LinkedIn:

Share|