Linked by Thom Holwerda on Wed 5th Jun 2013 12:49 UTC
Legal "The ITC has banned Company X from importing some models of Phone A and Tablet B because they infringe on a Company Y patent. In a cease and desist order issued today, the International Trade Commission ordered Company X to stop importing AT&T models of the Phone A, the Phone B and C, the Tablet A, and the Tablet B into the US." Commentary if you're cheering for Company X: it's entirely unfair to ban entire products just because of infringement on a single patent. The patent system sucks! Commentary if you're cheering for Company Y: Company X are a bunch of thieves who never invent anything on their own. The patent system is a great thing that protects American companies. Up next week: role reversal, regurgitation of the same 'arguments', just the other way around! Ugh.
Order by: Score:
It's a sad state of affairs
by jgagnon on Wed 5th Jun 2013 13:36 UTC
jgagnon
Member since:
2008-06-24

If left to themselves, most companies would use every dirty trick they could to get ahead and stay ahead. So governments step in to help keep the companies in check. The more power a government has the more corrupt it becomes, just like any corporation. So who keeps the governments in check? People... that work for the companies... and so it continues.

"I say we take off and nuke the entire site (planet) from orbit. It's the only way to be sure."

Reply Score: 2

So true!
by kiz01 on Wed 5th Jun 2013 14:22 UTC
kiz01
Member since:
2005-07-06

Great overview of how we're going to be hearing the same arguments (just with different company names) over and over and over again! It's becoming like the proverbial haystack that you have to wade through to find the needle of interesting/useful news.

Reply Score: 4

v It's Apple... hurry be vague
by themwagency on Wed 5th Jun 2013 15:30 UTC
Apple started this
by Deviate_X on Wed 5th Jun 2013 15:53 UTC
Deviate_X
Member since:
2005-07-11

.

Edited 2013-06-05 15:53 UTC

Reply Score: 3

RE: Apple started this
by TM99 on Wed 5th Jun 2013 16:09 UTC in reply to "Apple started this"
TM99 Member since:
2012-08-26

Yes, they did.

And bluntly the reason why Obama did this executive order is because of American Exceptionalism. Apple can sue the shit out of other corporations from other countries like Samsung for such frivolous shit as rounded corners, however, the moment Samsung fights back & wins, well, we can't have that can we.

Idealistically, it would be wonderful if we could stop the patent wars. It is a pipe dream to believe that we can. It isn't going to happen. Not now, and not ever. It will remain a war until an industry or two devastates the US economy, causes a market crash, or causes a scandal. This is how it really works in business in America.

Reply Score: 5

RE: Apple started this
by haakin on Wed 5th Jun 2013 16:17 UTC in reply to "Apple started this"
haakin Member since:
2008-12-18

According http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smartphone_wars it was Nokia who started the smartphone wars.

Reply Score: 3

RE: Apple started this
by darknexus on Wed 5th Jun 2013 17:36 UTC in reply to "Apple started this"
darknexus Member since:
2008-07-15

Bullshit. Patents started this, with the help of lawyers. This is what happens when any sort of government protectionism enters the picture. Apple couldn't have abused a system that wasn't so open to be abused, and neither could Nokia nor anyone else. Ditch the broken patent system, drop the corrupt legal practitioners that make it work, and we'll see an end to this mess.

Reply Score: 2

RE: Apple started this
by themwagency on Wed 5th Jun 2013 19:23 UTC in reply to "Apple started this"
themwagency Member since:
2013-03-06

Apple may have 'started it' but when you have executive level emails between Google and Samsung execs asking that Samsung change their design because it mimics Apple's, and those go ignored, you realize that Samsung may have been asking for it.

Reply Score: 0

Welcome to Sanity Thom!
by Bill Shooter of Bul on Wed 5th Jun 2013 17:10 UTC
Bill Shooter of Bul
Member since:
2006-07-14

I've pretty much felt the same way for the past 6-7 years of this nonsense. While you've expressed the same sentiments before, you've finally come around to the whole cyclical/cynical phase. Although there are possible technical implications for the outcomes of these patent trials, its rare for it to make much of a difference in our day to day lives. Same old BS.

Reply Score: 2

Comment by majipoor
by majipoor on Wed 5th Jun 2013 17:18 UTC
majipoor
Member since:
2009-01-22

Too bad the most important point of this story is not even mentioned. To bad you cannot see the specific issue with injunction based on FRAND patents.

Reply Score: 3

RE: Comment by majipoor
by Thom_Holwerda on Wed 5th Jun 2013 17:41 UTC in reply to "Comment by majipoor"
Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

Software patent abuse is worse than FRAND abuse. FRAND patents generally represent actual investment and research into hardware.

Software patents represent nothing. Absolutely nothing.

Reply Score: 3

RE[2]: Comment by majipoor
by Nelson on Wed 5th Jun 2013 18:40 UTC in reply to "RE: Comment by majipoor"
Nelson Member since:
2005-11-29

Software patent abuse is worse than FRAND abuse. FRAND patents generally represent actual investment and research into hardware.


This particular patent is a software patent which was pledged to be offered at FRAND rates to all implementors as a condition of it being accepted into the 3G standard.

What this means is that Samsung can extract obscene amounts of money from people who implemented the 3G standard on the promise that Samsung (and other IP holders) would guarantee the FRAND rates.

Anyhow, there's not really a reason for Apple to worry. Google has already been defanged by regulators for the same thing, so it will only earn Samsung the ire of Government agencies at little to no financial impact to Apple.

Reply Score: 3

RE[3]: Comment by majipoor
by TechGeek on Wed 5th Jun 2013 19:34 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Comment by majipoor"
TechGeek Member since:
2006-01-14

The government isnt going to do anything of the sort. The ITC investigation clealy shows that Apple acted in bad faith and that Samsung has a right to get paid. Just like with Nokia, Apple holds back paying for as long as possible. But sooner or later they always have to pay.

Reply Score: 6

RE[4]: Comment by majipoor
by Nelson on Wed 5th Jun 2013 22:10 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Comment by majipoor"
Nelson Member since:
2005-11-29

I disagree, and having read the ITC report I struggle to find where it clearly shows that Apple negotiated in bad faith.

I really don't think this ruling will stand up to scrutiny, but we'll have to see.

Reply Score: 4

Presidential Veto
by robojerk on Fri 7th Jun 2013 04:51 UTC
robojerk
Member since:
2006-01-10

Obama might veto the ruling. I don't think he will (at least I hope he won't), but Tim Cook was Michelle Obama's guest at the "State of the Union Address" so I won't say it's not impossible..

Hypothetically, what would happen if Obama veto'd the ITC ruling? Samsung can't really decide to pick up their ball and go home (exit the US market).

Edited 2013-06-07 04:52 UTC

Reply Score: 3