Linked by Thom Holwerda on Thu 1st Aug 2013 09:36 UTC
Legal Recently, the ITC ruled in favour of Samsung, issuing an exclusion order against certain Apple products, barring them from being sold in the US. Several people have called upon president Obama to step in and overrule the decision (e.g. this guy) - however, not only would this set a very bad precedent for non-US companies, it would also simply be incredibly unfair if you actually look at the ITC ruling itself. Because of this, it is quite unlikely that Obama will step in.
Order by: Score:
v Comment by Nelson
by Nelson on Thu 1st Aug 2013 11:06 UTC
RE: Comment by Nelson
by Thom_Holwerda on Thu 1st Aug 2013 11:38 UTC in reply to "Comment by Nelson"
Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

It's not a defense at all. I never once said I agree with the exclusion order - in fact, I think it's ridiculous.

However, and I tried to explain this to you before, if Apple abuses the patent system with crappy software patents as an aggressor, then sure as hell the attacked get to defend themselves.

If I punch you, I sure shouldn't be crying if I get one in return.

Reply Score: 4

RE[2]: Comment by Nelson
by JAlexoid on Thu 1st Aug 2013 11:52 UTC in reply to "RE: Comment by Nelson"
JAlexoid Member since:
2009-05-19

It's not a software patent.

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Comment by Nelson
by Nelson on Thu 1st Aug 2013 11:59 UTC in reply to "RE: Comment by Nelson"
Nelson Member since:
2005-11-29

Oh come on. Apple gets an exclusion order there's melodrama and sarcastic sniping about "free market at work".

Samsung gets one and there's rationalizations a page long. Give me a break.

As usual you play your semantic game and hide from the spirit of your post.

Reply Score: 0

RE[3]: Comment by Nelson
by Thom_Holwerda on Thu 1st Aug 2013 12:03 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Comment by Nelson"
Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

If you're the only one among many claiming grass is purple, you might consider the possibility you are wrong.

Reply Score: 2

RE[4]: Comment by Nelson
by Nelson on Thu 1st Aug 2013 12:05 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Comment by Nelson"
Nelson Member since:
2005-11-29

Logical fallacy. I'm not saying your reasoning is wrong, it may very well be right. I'm noting your difference in tone and wording when it comes to Samsung and Apple.

Samsung gets a legal justification from you, Apple gets snide remarks.

Reply Score: 3

RE[5]: Comment by Nelson
by Thom_Holwerda on Thu 1st Aug 2013 12:25 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Comment by Nelson"
Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

Of course Samsung gets that. It's called siding with the victim of a broken system.

Apple is the aggressor. Samsung the victim. People tend to side with ones who have been treated unjustly.

Reply Score: 3

RE[6]: Comment by Nelson
by majipoor on Thu 1st Aug 2013 13:28 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Comment by Nelson"
majipoor Member since:
2009-01-22

"Apple is the aggressor. Samsung the victim."

You are obviously assuming here that Apple claims are all baseless, otherwise Apple would be the victim and Samsung the aggressor fighting back at the victim.

But in this case, you are encouraging using a gun (SEP patent which is unavoidable) to fight back an aggressor which attack you with a stick (Apple's patent have simple workaround). Too bad you are not an US citizen: you would have done a nice republican from Texas).

Reply Score: 2

RE[7]: Comment by Nelson
by Thom_Holwerda on Thu 1st Aug 2013 13:36 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: Comment by Nelson"
Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

SEP patent which is unavoidable


Sigh. The frothing at your mouth makes you unable to read, apparently.

This is not, I repeat, this is not about a SEP patent. Did you even open the article at all?

Reply Score: 3

v RE[6]: Comment by Nelson
by Liza on Thu 1st Aug 2013 13:43 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Comment by Nelson"
RE[7]: Comment by Nelson
by Soulbender on Thu 1st Aug 2013 14:17 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: Comment by Nelson"
Soulbender Member since:
2005-08-18

Apple is the innovator who created the smartphone market.


Is it Apple apologist day?

Reply Score: 8

RE[7]: Comment by Nelson
by tupp on Thu 1st Aug 2013 22:08 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: Comment by Nelson"
tupp Member since:
2006-11-12

Apple is the innovator who created the smartphone market.

That might be true if time moved backwards, with the Iphone appearing before the smartphone market that actually preceded it (along with all of the touchphone prior art). Unfortunately, such a scenario only exists in the reality distortion field.

If you think that Apple invented any new things, please specifically list them for review.



Apple even offered to license the patents to samsung when they were caught copying. Samsung refused and they went to court.

Do you refer to Apple's numerous patents for things obvious and already entrenched, such as rounded rectangles and "pinch-to-zoom" (a patent which was just recently rejected: http://www.pcworld.com/article/2045461/us-patent-office-rejects-cla... )?

Reply Score: 4

RE[7]: Comment by Nelson
by Beta on Fri 2nd Aug 2013 09:20 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: Comment by Nelson"
Beta Member since:
2005-07-06

Apple is the innovator who created the smartphone market.

Sony’s p800 says hi from 2002.

Reply Score: 3

v RE[6]: Comment by Nelson
by Tony Swash on Thu 1st Aug 2013 17:17 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Comment by Nelson"
RE[7]: Comment by Nelson
by Thom_Holwerda on Thu 1st Aug 2013 17:50 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: Comment by Nelson"
Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

Do you think that Samsung copies the designs of other successful companies as an important part of it's core business strategy?


No. Samsung copies, just as every other company - including Apple - does. To say that it's a "core part" of their strategy is idiotic.

Do you think that Samsung's copying has been highly focussed on Apple in recent years because of the latter's product successes?


See above. No.

If you do think Samsung copies do you then think that degree of copying by Samsung has sometimes gone too far?


No.

Do you think the use of Standard Essential Patents (SEPs ) as a weapon in legal actions is ever justified?


This specific case is not about a SEP.

Even if it was - yes, it can be justified, as I've explained. In cases where FRAND terms are offered, but the company seeking licensing does not accept them - as Apple has done here, according to the ITC - then yes, this is most certainly justified.

Counterquestion.

If proper FRAND terms are offered for a SEP, but they are not accepted, should the patent holder just bend over and take it? Because THAT would mean the end of the FRAND system. Why pay when you can just use the technology for free, without fear of legal repercussions?

Reply Score: 4

RE[7]: Comment by Nelson
by tupp on Thu 1st Aug 2013 22:11 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: Comment by Nelson"
tupp Member since:
2006-11-12

If you think that Samsung copied Apple, please list for review the specific things that Samsung allegedly copied.

Reply Score: 2

v RE[2]: Comment by Nelson
by Liza on Thu 1st Aug 2013 13:37 UTC in reply to "RE: Comment by Nelson"
RE[3]: Comment by Nelson
by Beta on Fri 2nd Aug 2013 09:26 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Comment by Nelson"
Beta Member since:
2005-07-06

You're confused about who the aggressor is.

When Apple announced the iPhone, both Google(aka Motorola) and Nokia started to see dollar signs and both companies sued Apple. They sued Apple patents that are "crappy software patents" that were also given as part of basic cellular standards that they promised to licensed under FRAND terms.

Even in Samsung's case, Apple offered to settle with Samsung, rather than go to court, but Samsung was not interested.

I guess some people just hate innovative companies. That's fine, don't buy Apple products.

But when you start committing fraud by lying about the situation, that's not fine.

The history here is no in dispute. So, why lie?


I know you’re a new account as of yesterday… so I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt. For people that have been using smartphones for the last decade, and watching the technology sphere for longer, your history is absolutely incorrect.

You haven’t read the article above because you’re still insisting Apples narrative of the events is gospel truth, it is not.

And please, keep it pleasant in the comments section.

Reply Score: 4

RE: Comment by Nelson
by WereCatf on Thu 1st Aug 2013 11:38 UTC in reply to "Comment by Nelson"
WereCatf Member since:
2006-02-15

Why is it that quite often when you open your mouth the air is filled with the stench of bullshit?

Reply Score: 6

RE[2]: Comment by Nelson
by Nelson on Thu 1st Aug 2013 12:00 UTC in reply to "RE: Comment by Nelson"
Nelson Member since:
2005-11-29

Are you asking me to explain your own opinion to you? What's the point of your comment?

Reply Score: 2

RE: Comment by Nelson
by dvhh on Thu 1st Aug 2013 11:39 UTC in reply to "Comment by Nelson"
dvhh Member since:
2006-03-20

The why should Samsung product get banned when Apple product should not.
I've think that Apple already gained ban on multiple Samsung product in Europe (probably Germany). And has requested ban of multiple Samsung product in the US as well.
While I agree that most patents are nonsense, nobody seem to move away from it.
I see no defense the patent system, it is implied that if Apple wanted to play the patent game, it also had to solve its licencing . Samsung is only playing by the same rules as Apple here (speaking of copycat), and using the same weapons.
I feel no sympathy for either of the companies (disclosure : neither of them have gifted me with anything of value superior to 5$, and I don't own share nor interest in any of those), although I am more annoyed by Apple fans than Samsung fans.

Reply Score: 5

RE: Comment by Nelson
by gilboa on Thu 1st Aug 2013 11:45 UTC in reply to "Comment by Nelson"
gilboa Member since:
2005-07-06

A full throated defense of the patent system when Samsung is the one granted exclusion orders. Why am I not surprised.


No, the patent system is completely broken and there not much anyone can do to fix it.
I doubt that many here disagrees with this statement.

However, given the fact that Apple more-or-less tried to bully Samsung out of the mobile market by using stupid design and utility patents - throwing the first punch (or 1,000 of them), I can't say that I'll shed a single tear if/when Samsung (somehow) manages to pummel Apple into the ground.

As the saying goes, does who live by the sword, die by the sword.

- Gilboa

Edited 2013-08-01 11:46 UTC

Reply Score: 6

v RE[2]: Comment by Nelson
by Liza on Thu 1st Aug 2013 13:39 UTC in reply to "RE: Comment by Nelson"
RE[3]: Comment by Nelson
by gilboa on Thu 1st Aug 2013 15:09 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Comment by Nelson"
gilboa Member since:
2005-07-06

The thing that's broken about the patent system is that it doesn't effectively protect innovators.


No, the system is completely broken because:
(Long breath)
1. It lacks any method to truly validate patents.
2. It has zero standards on what can be considered trivial patent.
3. Patent offices are either completely incompetent or severely under-budget (usually both).
4. The system favors huge cooperation over small players.
5. There's no requirement on having a *working* implementation.
... and I can continue.

And then there's this document [1].

The discussion of patents, however is completely broken because people represent gunuine innovation as if it were trivial.


Sure, because "bounce notification" and "home button" design patents are as complex and as innovative as micro-processors and LTE wave modulation.


Just because Google copied it, doesn't make the original innovation obvious.


See above.

- Gilboa
[1] http://lwn.net/Articles/467249/

Edited 2013-08-01 15:14 UTC

Reply Score: 8

what goes around...
by nicolasgoddone on Thu 1st Aug 2013 12:18 UTC
nicolasgoddone
Member since:
2009-04-20

What goes around comes around. Apples time to bite the dust, the thing is that they will not be able to make changes to address them, they will have to settle by opening the war chest. I think all of this sales blocks enforced by more than questionable software patents are statements of a necessary USTPO revamp.

I think that stock holders should somehow express their saying regarding these companies legal splurge campaigns that do not necessarily correlate to people buying more of their products each time they score some ban here or there. Price wars benefit the consumer not legal ones

Reply Score: 2

RE: what goes around...
by majipoor on Thu 1st Aug 2013 13:13 UTC in reply to "what goes around..."
majipoor Member since:
2009-01-22

"they will have to settle by opening the war chest."

No.

If granted, the ban only concern some (and not all) iPhone 4 and iPad 2 which will be soon replaced by new products.

Funny to notice that more recent products are not concerned: could someone explain me, if Apple is so willingly stealing Samsung technology, why did they accept to pay Samsung when they use a recent 3G chip model and not when they use an older model?

"Apple's newest generations of the iPhone 5, iPhone 4S and specific iPhone 4 models are not affected by the ban because they use Qualcomm baseband chips (as part of a third-party licensing agreement with Samsung)."

http://www.dailytech.com/ITC+Favors+Samsung+in+3G+Patent+Suit+Bans+...

So why did Samsung choose to apply a special licensing agreement for Apple for older 3G chips? Why didn't they do the same for newer Qualcomm chips?

I think some here prefer not to understand what is really involved in this lawsuit and in all SEP patent lawsuits in order to be able to see Apple as the bad guy.

Edited 2013-08-01 13:18 UTC

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: what goes around...
by dragos.pop on Thu 1st Aug 2013 14:58 UTC in reply to "RE: what goes around..."
dragos.pop Member since:
2010-01-08


So why did Samsung choose to apply a special licensing agreement for Apple for older 3G chips? Why didn't they do the same for newer Qualcomm chips?


It is simple, Qualcomm is the one licensing the technology from Samsung for all its clients.
The chip maker for iPhone 4 had not done this, and also apple refused to license it.

Reply Score: 2

v RE: what goes around...
by Liza on Thu 1st Aug 2013 13:50 UTC in reply to "what goes around..."
RE[2]: what goes around...
by pandronic on Thu 1st Aug 2013 17:11 UTC in reply to "RE: what goes around..."
pandronic Member since:
2006-05-18

I don't know what you're smoking, but I want some.

Reply Score: 4

Thought the real issue
by vitae on Thu 1st Aug 2013 22:48 UTC
vitae
Member since:
2006-02-20

Was whether or not Obama should veto the ban, not patents again. Which he should not because he should be too busy reining in the NSA to get involved in trivial corporate nonsense like this. This is just part of the seemingly endless legal war between Samsung and Apple, and should not be the President's problem. Especially when he has infinitely more important things to worry about.

Oh yeah, and Jim Dalrymple, get a clue.

Reply Score: 3

wrong as usual
by kristoph on Fri 2nd Aug 2013 04:13 UTC
kristoph
Member since:
2006-01-01

Honestly I struggle to understan how you can not see the obvious lack of logic in your arguments.

Consider that this case is about, never mind the players. Company A has used an international organization to ban the devices of Company B from sale in the United States using, arguably, a standards essential patent.

Now the devices are old and Company A has a crapload of money (and you don't like Company A) so you somehow think this should be considered 'ok'. Or wait, you don't think it's 'ok' but you don't think anyone should stop it because it's a bad precedent and because of the nature of the negotiations between company A and B.

Consider what this will do to ANY smaller company if it is not stopped. Samsung, Apple, or for that matter ANY company will be able to stop the import of devices into the US using a SEP. That's a fucking nightmarish scenario for the industry as a whole, which is why every major software and hardware company in the US (except Google, never mind that hypocrisy) is urging the US government to do something to prevent this.

If Company A did all the things the ITC says it did wrong Company B should sue, get it's argument in front of a 'jury of it's peers' and get whatever money it is owed. Banning a company from a market based on some backroom analysis is absurd. To argue that to intervene to stop this is wrong is the height of idiocy. But you already know this, you just can't get beyond your 'waa Apple started this their a bully fuck them even if it means you fuck the world' just shows you can't see beyond your own bias.

Frankly I am going to be pretty shocked if the US Trade Commissioner does not veto this (or likely, 'put the decision on hold, pending further review' or some other gov speak).

Reply Score: 1

RE: wrong as usual
by Beta on Fri 2nd Aug 2013 09:34 UTC in reply to "wrong as usual"
Beta Member since:
2005-07-06

Company A has used an international organization to ban the devices of Company B from sale in the United States using, arguably, a standards essential patent.


ITC isn’t international, its a US organisation. This is also not a standards essential patent. Maybe this is why you struggle.

If you fear international/global trade bans, you should be campaigning to prevent ACTA/related agreements.

Reply Score: 4