Linked by Thom Holwerda on Sat 3rd Aug 2013 20:34 UTC
Legal The Obama administration:

After extensive consultations with the agencies of the Trade Policy Staff Committee and the Trade Policy Review Group, as well as other interested agencies and persons, I have decided to disapprove the USITC's determination to issue an exclusion order and cease and desist order in this investigation.

Lots of talk about SEPs and FRAND in Obama's decree, which means that the Obama administration contradicts everything the ITC has said. To freshen your memory, the ITC ruled that not only was the patent in question not a standard essential patent, but Samsung's offer was actually proper FRAND:

Additionally, the Commission found that there were still disputed issues concerning the patent at issue was even actually essential to the standard (and therefore whether a FRAND or disclosure obligation applied at all).

[...]

The Commission analyzed the history of negotiations between Apple and Samsung (this portion is heavily redacted) to see if Apple showed that Samsung failed to negotiate “in good faith,” and found that Apple failed to do so. Notably, the Commission dismissed Apple’s arguments that (1) Samsung’s initial offer was so high as to show bad faith, and (2) Samsung’s attempts to get a cross-license to Apple’s non-SEPs violated its FRAND commitments.

In other words, the Obama administration threw out virtually everything the ITC has said in order to protect Apple. This effectively means that American companies can infringe on non-American companies' (standard essential) patents all they want, because the president will simply step in if they try to fight back.

So, I was wrong. I expected the Obama administration to be impartial and not give such a huge slap in the face of the ITC - as cynical as I usually am, I can still be naive. Protectionism is more important to the POTUS.

Order by: Score:
Democracy and altruism...
by Kochise on Sat 3rd Aug 2013 20:44 UTC
Kochise
Member since:
2006-03-03

And you believed the USA freed the World from obscurantism and brought justice with them for nothing ? Their rules...

Kochise

Reply Score: 3

RE: Democracy and altruism...
by Kochise on Sun 4th Aug 2013 11:47 UTC in reply to "Democracy and altruism..."
Kochise Member since:
2006-03-03

French news : http://www.leparisien.fr/high-tech/etats-unis-l-interdiction-de-ven...

"Nous applaudissons l'administration pour sa défense de l'innovation dans cette affaire symbolique", a réagi une porte-parole d'Apple. "Samsung avait tort d'abuser le système de brevets de cette manière."

"We applause the administration for its defense of innovation in this symbolic case", said an Apple spoke person. "Samsung was wrong to abuse the patent system this way."

Who's fooling who ? No honor, no shame, no glory... 2013's cold war has begun :/

Kochise

edit : typo

Edited 2013-08-04 11:48 UTC

Reply Score: 5

yea
by arb1 on Sat 3rd Aug 2013 21:04 UTC
arb1
Member since:
2011-08-19

Obama has said one thing and done another. Back when Bush was the president, Obama called Bush's spending unpatriotic yet Obama gets in charge he spends almost 3x more. This veto is a signed steal anything and get a pardon for apple. It as for Apple saying it promotes innovation, No it don't as any company looking to make next wireless standard is taking a 2nd look at doing so as company LIKE Apple can steal it and pay nothing.

Reply Score: 6

RE: yea
by UltraZelda64 on Sat 3rd Aug 2013 22:04 UTC in reply to "yea"
UltraZelda64 Member since:
2006-12-05

Obama has said one thing and done another.

Isn't it clear by now that if he says one thing, you should expect the complete opposite?

If he says he's going to do something good, expect him to do something bad. All he is is a liar sitting in the most sacred office of the U.S.

Edited 2013-08-03 22:06 UTC

Reply Score: 10

RE: yea
by charlieg on Sun 4th Aug 2013 11:48 UTC in reply to "yea"
charlieg Member since:
2005-07-25

Please don't troll by parroting Republican talking points.

Spending was all over the place. The Bush administration didn't include war spending in their numbers, the Obama administration did, and that accounts for the vast proportion of the so-called 3:1 ratio you allude to.

There's plenty of bad things to complain about Obama for (which saddens me immensely). So keep the fake stuff out of it.

Reply Score: 5

RE[2]: yea
by TemporalBeing on Mon 5th Aug 2013 17:58 UTC in reply to "RE: yea"
TemporalBeing Member since:
2007-08-22

Please don't troll by parroting Republican talking points.

Spending was all over the place. The Bush administration didn't include war spending in their numbers, the Obama administration did, and that accounts for the vast proportion of the so-called 3:1 ratio you allude to.


FYI - War Spending accounts for very very little of the budget. And the last time Obama signed a budget was 2009, right after winning the Presidency the first time. Health Care, Social Security, and other Entitlements make up far more of the budget than anything that the Pentagon has spent.

Reply Score: 3

RE: yea
by siride on Sun 4th Aug 2013 18:34 UTC in reply to "yea"
siride Member since:
2006-01-02

Obama hasn't introduced any new spending of significance except for the stimulus, which was a one time deal. However, defense and especially medicare and social security spending have gone up based on the nature of the programs. The last two are also mandatory spending, so unless there is reform, there is no way to not spend less when the economy tanks and the healthcare system costs skyrocket.

Reply Score: 5

RE[2]: yea
by bnolsen on Tue 6th Aug 2013 03:48 UTC in reply to "RE: yea"
bnolsen Member since:
2006-01-06

so where did all that money go in these huge budgets? the defecit has increased 6 trillion when it was just over 10.5 trillion when he took office. You don't rack up all that debt without the money going somewhere. It certainly didn't go towards any economic or job recovery.

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: yea
by siride on Tue 6th Aug 2013 13:04 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: yea"
siride Member since:
2006-01-02

Well, as I said, a lot of existing spending continued to go up. At the same time, receipts from taxes decreased precipitously due to the recession. If you have less income and your electricity bill goes up, you're going to rack up debt without having to introduce new spending.

Reply Score: 2

The incompetence of the tech press
by jphamlore on Sat 3rd Aug 2013 21:05 UTC
jphamlore
Member since:
2011-02-15

This whole affair just shows the incompetence of the tech press. These maneuverings before the ITC to get import bans are hardly new. Why just around the 2007 time frame Nokia and Qualcomm were engaged in a patent battle that dwarfs the impact of anything Apple versus Samsung will have, especially since reports are Apple is going to go back to Samsung starting in 2015 for Samsung's 14nm expertise.

Where were you when Nokia paid Qualcomm a lump sum payment of about $2.3 BILLION USD, a sum far larger than anything Samsung or Apple would ever pay each other?

http://articles.latimes.com/2008/oct/17/business/fi-qualcomm17

Doesn't that seem the slightest bit unusual or noteworthy when one company is paying a mortal enemy the sum of $2.3 BILLION USD? And then that company abandons one of its core competencies, selling off its mobile wireless modem business:

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/07/technology/07nokia.html?_r=0

Nothing noteworthy to see there? Then two years later the company who paid out the unprecedented lump sum payment is forced to convert its phones to use both the ARM SoCs and the LTE baseband chipsets of the company it paid all that money to. Nothing noteworthy to see there?

This is just irresponsible incompetence of the entire tech press to miss the truly important stories.

Reply Score: 4

Real patent hardball: Qualcomm CDMA
by jphamlore on Sat 3rd Aug 2013 21:21 UTC
jphamlore
Member since:
2011-02-15

You want real patent hardball, that was Qualcomm versus everyone else for Qualcomm's CDMA patents. Here's what it meant for Nokia:

http://www.qualcomm.com/media/releases/2007/04/05/qualcomm-files-ar...

By not having any idea of history, the tech press misses the same exact thing happening right in front of its noses. Because China noticed what an awesome thing it was to have a major telecom using a standard no one else was using and whose IP could be use to bludgeon other country's companies into cross-licensing or even surrendering their IP.

The Chinese could hardly be blamed for emulating the exact same strategy the US used with Qualcomm / CDMA / Verizon. It's worked out great for China having TD-SCDMA on China Mobile to bludgeon everyone else including Qualcomm to cross-license their IP and establish research labs in China employing thousands of engineers.

But then that would lead to awkward questions wouldn't it for European leaders about whether they made the wrong choice to have a too open standard in GSM so that everyone else could have compatibility and be able to sell in Europe whereas European companies would be bullied in the US and Chinese markets into surrendering IP.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/24/technology/24qualcomm.html

"As part of the settlement, Nokia said it had agreed to withdraw a complaint it made to the European Commission against Qualcomm and assign ownership of a number of patents to Qualcomm."

Reply Score: 2

It's not that clear, Thom
by oskeladden on Sat 3rd Aug 2013 22:02 UTC
oskeladden
Member since:
2009-08-05

The trouble is that from a strictly legal point of view, it's not at all clear what FRAND means in relation to competitors. Does a FRAND requirement force you to offer your licenses to competitors on the same terms as to non-competitors, or can you offer terms that are substantially different? What does 'non-discriminatory' mean in this context? Legal opinion is far from clear. The ITC's ruling follows one strand of opinion (of which the clearest example is probably the work of Damien Gerardin, available on SSRN), but there are plenty of people who disagree (including the vast majority of US patent scholars). The reality is that the FRAND commitment was drafted in a different era, when nobody anticipated the sort of ridiculous behaviour we now see in relation to shiny gadgets, so the question of what the clause means is well and truly up for grabs. The ITC is pretty low down in the pecking order when it comes to interpreting the law, so it's not at all surprising that the US Department of Justice give its views as to what 'FRAND' means less than total respect. The view they're taking is in essence that this is an issue that needs to be resolved by a Court, not a quasi-administrative body like the ITC. That is the precise import of the last paragraph of the memo.

My own view is that this is not an issue the law courts can resolve - in an ideal world, standard-setting organisations would have arbitral tribunals that would provide authoritative rulings on the meaning of ambiguous clauses and phrases in their standard agreements and / or regulations. Regrettably, that's unlikely to happen. In the absence of that, though, I sort of agree with the DoJ that an organisation like the ITC should not be in the business of determining what contested phrases like 'FRAND' mean. That isn't the role it was supposed to play when it was set up. The courts (and, in particular, the lower judiciary in the US) are far from ideal as fora to decide disputes of this type, but even they're better than the ITC.

Reply Score: 3

RE: It's not that clear, Thom
by Carewolf on Sat 3rd Aug 2013 23:16 UTC in reply to "It's not that clear, Thom"
Carewolf Member since:
2005-09-08

The ruling from ITC said the patents in question were not FRAND, and even though they were not FRAND, had been offered on FRAND terms by Samsun gto Apple. Apple had simply refused to negotiate.

Ofcourse ITC could be wrong, but since only older iPhones and iPads infringe, I think they might be onto somthing about the patents not being that standard essential ;)

Edited 2013-08-03 23:17 UTC

Reply Score: 7

RE[2]: It's not that clear, Thom
by MOS6510 on Sun 4th Aug 2013 07:08 UTC in reply to "RE: It's not that clear, Thom"
MOS6510 Member since:
2011-05-12

For the newer models Apple bought the chips from a company that did pay a license.

Reply Score: 3

oskeladden Member since:
2009-08-05

For the newer models Apple bought the chips from a company that did pay a license.


Intel, from whom Apple bought some of the chips for the older version, also had a license. The ITC said that that didn't matter, because Apple didn't buy the chips in the US, and because Apple couldn't prove that Samsung had specifically authorised those sales to Apple. See p. 67 of the ITC's ruling.

Once again, a giant company like Apple can structure its global supply chain to make the US the legal site of the transfer of property in the chips even if they don't come within a thousand miles of the US (as it now has done). A smaller company will struggle to do this. They're the ones who the ITC's approach will ultimately hurt.

Reply Score: 5

RE[2]: It's not that clear, Thom
by oskeladden on Sun 4th Aug 2013 08:42 UTC in reply to "RE: It's not that clear, Thom"
oskeladden Member since:
2009-08-05

The ruling from ITC said the patents in question were not FRAND


Actually, it said nothing of that sort.  The ITC refused to decide the question of whether the patents were FRAND or not, on the basis that the parties hadn't led evidence before the judge at first instance on this question.  They said as much on pp. 50-51 of their decision (available at http://essentialpatentblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/337-TA-79...).

and even though they were not FRAND, had been offered on FRAND terms by Samsun gto Apple. Apple had simply refused to negotiate.

 
 Again, it said nothing of that sort.  Apple and Samsung were negotiating quite extensively.  And it very specifically did not say that the terms that Samsung offered were FRAND.  It said, more than once, that offers did not have to be FRAND.  Samsung would, according to the ITC, have complied with its FRAND obligations even if every single offer it made was unreasonable, as long as the negotiations held out the possibility of ultimately coming to a final agreement that was reasonable.   The basis of its decision was that Samsung was not asking for anything that would have made a reasonable final agreement impossible.  See pages 60-62.

This is probably entirely correct on the facts, but its wider implications are potentially chilling. I don't hold a brief for Apple or Samsung.  I don't particularly care which of them wins, and I wouldn't be particularly bothered if either of them had their phones disappear from the market.  What I do care about is that the ITC's ruling guts the concept of FRAND.  This is all well and good when the target is a hated company like Apple, but these same principles will bite small upstart companies even harder.  Apple can always litigate their way around disputes: a small company without the money to engage in long and protracted negotiations cannot.  A series of unreasonable opening licensing offers will kill a small company  (as I have seen first hand, having acted for enough of them when I was in practice).  Which is why I find it troubling that the ITC seems to think ruthless conduct is compatible with a FRAND obligation.  To the extent that the DoJ tells the ITC to take a different approach to awarding injunctions in FRAND cases, it's a step in the right action, as it will make it harder for Motorola, Microsoft, Nokia, or some other such company to use standard-essential patents to kill - say - Jolla's phone, or the Ubuntu Phone or the Firefox Phone.  

Reply Score: 6

RE[2]: It's not that clear, Thom
by Tony Swash on Sun 4th Aug 2013 15:29 UTC in reply to "RE: It's not that clear, Thom"
Tony Swash Member since:
2009-08-22

Apple had simply refused to negotiate.


The details of the negotiations have not been made public.

Reply Score: 1

RE: It's not that clear, Thom
by l3v1 on Sun 4th Aug 2013 05:55 UTC in reply to "It's not that clear, Thom"
l3v1 Member since:
2005-07-06

it's not at all clear


It is clear, you are just missing the point, which is: "I have decided to disapprove the USITC's determination".

Regarding Apple, if they reuire such protection, then they'd better just simply take the loss. It's still better to lose then to be this kind of a loser.

So, let's see what will they do in the MS vs Motorola frand case, where each party is from the US.

Reply Score: 4

RE[2]: It's not that clear, Thom
by oskeladden on Sun 4th Aug 2013 08:48 UTC in reply to "RE: It's not that clear, Thom"
oskeladden Member since:
2009-08-05

So, let's see what will they do in the MS vs Motorola frand case, where each party is from the US.


They can't do anything in that case. The US Trade Representative has no jurisdiction over the main dispute there, because it's being litigated before a court (the Federal District Court at Seattle), rather than the ITC. Which is precisely what they've asked Samsung to do, as you'll see if you read the determination in this case.

Reply Score: 3

RE[2]: It's not that clear, Thom
by Nelson on Sun 4th Aug 2013 12:59 UTC in reply to "RE: It's not that clear, Thom"
Nelson Member since:
2005-11-29

This is the equivalent of your boss telling you that you did your job wrong. The USTR has authority over the ITC.

This isn't some grand reversal or game changing move -- its simply telling Samsung that the price negotiations are to be had in the courts. Like MS/Moto.

Reply Score: 4

RE: It's not that clear, Thom
by Lennie on Sun 4th Aug 2013 10:33 UTC in reply to "It's not that clear, Thom"
Lennie Member since:
2007-09-22

The trouble is that from a strictly legal point of view, it's not at all clear what FRAND means in relation to competitors. Does a FRAND requirement force you to offer your licenses to competitors on the same terms as to non-competitors,


As someone who doesn't speak "legalese". Yes, I think that is what it means. Actually, I think that is the whole point.

Well, maybe it means 'similar terms'.

or can you offer terms that are substantially different? What does 'non-discriminatory' mean in this context? Legal opinion is far from clear.


If I understand standards and their processes around it, I would expect that before something is declared a standard, that the FRAND-status of all patents that cover it should be clear.

What is unclear here I think if Apple can claim FRAND should apply to this patent for something it considers a standard or 'essential'.

Edited 2013-08-04 10:52 UTC

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: It's not that clear, Thom
by oskeladden on Tue 6th Aug 2013 11:24 UTC in reply to "RE: It's not that clear, Thom"
oskeladden Member since:
2009-08-05

As someone who doesn't speak "legalese". Yes, I think that is what it means. Actually, I think that is the whole point.


Well, consider this scenario.  Company S has a standard-essential patent, which it licenses to companies X, Y and Z (who're not competitors) for just money.  Company A, a competitor, requests a license.  Company S states it will not grant a license for just money to Company A, but will grant a license for money + a cross-license.

Does such a demand violate an obligation to grant a license on FRAND terms?  The ITC says it does not: FRAND, according to them, is compatible with making demands of one licensee that you don't of others, as long as the final outcome is commercially reasonable.  I personally find this problematic, because it seems to junk the 'non-discriminatory' bit of 'fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory.' 

If I understand standards and their processes around it, I would expect that before something is declared a standard, that the FRAND-status of all patents that cover it should be clear.


This is very literally impossible.  There is simply no way anyone can find out what patents cover a standard.  Standard setting organisations rely on their members disclosing all relevant patents, but (a) the obligation to do so is weak, particularly if the ITC's position in this case is upheld (b) third parties are free to assert claims.

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: It's not that clear, Thom
by Lennie on Tue 6th Aug 2013 12:03 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: It's not that clear, Thom"
Lennie Member since:
2007-09-22

I guess the ITC has a different definition of fair than you do.

Yes, 3rd parties can obviously still assert claims.

Reply Score: 2

This is plain bad
by CapEnt on Sat 3rd Aug 2013 22:03 UTC
CapEnt
Member since:
2005-12-18

Now the battle will evolve from a Apple vs Samsung to a enormous battle at WTO between South Korean government (and other countries who sides with Samsung's interests) and USA regarding protectionism.

And, if WTO history tells something, is that USA very frequently gets the worse in their rulings. And the whole American tech industry will need to pay Apple's bill.

Reply Score: 10

No this is good
by jphamlore on Sat 3rd Aug 2013 22:23 UTC in reply to "This is plain bad"
jphamlore Member since:
2011-02-15

On the other patent front, Apple's lawsuits against Samsung are going basically nowhere as far as extracting any cash from Samsung. What the US is doing is basically declaring the battle a draw and strongly hinting that both sides should settle, especially since they have already agreed to work together to pay for Samsung's state-of-the-art 14nm fabs according to the Korean press.

The only thing keeping this battle going is Apple would lose a tremendous amount of face if they would ever admit they're not getting one cent from Samsung in tribute. But if Cook had settled like he should have had when he first took over, that would have been forgotten by now instead of being a continuing festering wound.

Reply Score: 2

US Protectionism and Isolation
by shotsman on Sun 4th Aug 2013 05:46 UTC in reply to "This is plain bad"
shotsman Member since:
2005-07-22

This is nothing new. If you study the Economic and Political History of the 20th Century you will find several previous periods where the US has turned away from the world at large and looked inward into itself.

There is (IMHO) something in the US Psyche that makes them do the following (in simple terms)
- US Is No 1. Go USA
- Oh no, we aren't so we will take our ball and play with ourselves. No you Aliens are not welcome.

NIH is a term that is ideal for Americans. When I worked for a now defunct US Computer maker we had to make sure all the product documentation was in US English even if 1) The product was not for sale in the US 2) The British words were in Websters alongside the US Spelling.
Doh!

Trying to start to sell something in the USA is notoriously difficult and your path is strewn with Land Mines. If you think about Left Hand and Right Hand not knowing what each other is doing. In my experience this is 10 times worse in the US simply because of the different government departments are virtual fiefdoms and often their regulations are directly contradictory to each other.

Then there are the fun and games getting type approval for your product in EVERY state. What might work for CA won't work for OH and vice versa.

When I was in business and trying to do this, I often wondered it the world would be a better place if the US simple ceased to exist such were the endless frustrations. It is ok for large companies who can put enough manpower and importantly LAWYERS on the case but for small businesses, just forget it. In the end, my company just gave up with the US market. Selling into China was far easier.

Reply Score: 5

By the pricking of my thumbs..
by hackus on Sat 3rd Aug 2013 22:33 UTC
hackus
Member since:
2006-06-28

1) Currency War

2) Trade War

3) WORLD WAR

...something wicked this way comes.

-Hack

Reply Score: 4

Comment by majipoor
by majipoor on Sat 3rd Aug 2013 22:36 UTC
majipoor
Member since:
2009-01-22

Even EU agrees with Obama:
http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-12-1448_en.htm

Only Thom is 100% sure that the ITC (a US commission BTW) cannot be wrong against the opinion of so many actors, both in US and in Europe.

Let's see what will be his opinion when the ITC ban a Samsung smartphone for an Apple patent violation soon.

Reply Score: 4

RE: Comment by majipoor
by Carewolf on Sat 3rd Aug 2013 23:19 UTC in reply to "Comment by majipoor"
Carewolf Member since:
2005-09-08

It a different case, and only an investigation not a verdict or ruling.

Reply Score: 4

RE: Comment by majipoor
by leos on Sun 4th Aug 2013 03:45 UTC in reply to "Comment by majipoor"
leos Member since:
2005-09-21

Let's see what will be his opinion when the ITC ban a Samsung smartphone for an Apple patent violation soon.


Yep, I can imagine the outrage. In fact we've already seen in in the cases where Apple won.

It's a comedy, since all this money goes into lawsuits and then there is no reward. Some more of that and maybe these companies will learn that they might as well save themselves the legal costs. Same goes the other way with Apple's victory over Samsung on design patents. That will get drawn out forever and I'm sure eventually the award will be zero or insignificant, while the legal costs will be in the tens or hundreds of millions.

Reply Score: 5

RE: Comment by majipoor
by cdude on Sun 4th Aug 2013 20:40 UTC in reply to "Comment by majipoor"
cdude Member since:
2008-09-21

They need to agree else press may publish some new scandals about european leaders. See, that investment into NSA pays out!

Reply Score: 1

Hummmm.
by Windows Sucks on Sat 3rd Aug 2013 23:30 UTC
Windows Sucks
Member since:
2005-11-10

Did everyone miss that this is the SAME thing the FTC told Motorola in its agreement not to press anti trust charges on Google.

And the whole tech industry in the US from Verizon to Microsoft asked for this ban to be vetoed. Only company that didn't was Google of course.

FRAND patents are not going to go anywhere through the ITC. If you have issues with a company using your FRAND patents then sue them in Federal Court, not press for bans through the ITC. Simple.

Reply Score: 5

this was totally expected
by kristoph on Sun 4th Aug 2013 02:59 UTC
kristoph
Member since:
2006-01-01

As I wrote in my previous post on this matter it would have been shocking not to have the Obama administration intervene.

The idea that a company, really ANY company, can use the ITC to ban the import of products into the US, rather then simply sue to recover damages, is fundamentally dangerous. In theory it should sometimes be allowed to save a company from ruin but it is clearly not the case here.

Even if we agree/disagree on who is the guilty party (or if there is a non-guilty party) we should all be able to agree that patents should never be use to destroy competing companies. In this case, Apple obviously would not have been destroyed, but if Samsung got this ban against Apple why not a smaller manufacturer who might simply not be able to last through a subsequent lawsuit..

Thom, as usual your using bias to cloud your argument. When the judgement in a lawsuit went against Samsung you went after a juror yet here, even though numerous jurisdictions have said this is a SEP, you focus on the position of the ITC ignoring counter arguments. I personally believe it's a SEP but you know what, whatever it is, it can be settled in a court and Apple can be made to pay the fees if need be, there is no need for a ban here, or in most other cases of this type.

Edited 2013-08-04 03:04 UTC

Reply Score: 5

v RE: this was totally expected
by Tony Swash on Sun 4th Aug 2013 15:32 UTC in reply to "this was totally expected"
RE[2]: this was totally expected
by MOS6510 on Sun 4th Aug 2013 16:24 UTC in reply to "RE: this was totally expected"
MOS6510 Member since:
2011-05-12

The logic is simple and not about patents. It's about certain companies being evil and others being the good guys. Patents are just a way of "proving" Apple is evil. If there were no patents something else would be brought up. Even if Apple does a good thing someone will come up with a reason why it's actually with evil intent or the good guys forced Apple to do something good.

It used to be Microsoft/Windows vs Linux, now it's Apple vs Android.

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: this was totally expected
by jigzat on Sun 4th Aug 2013 18:50 UTC in reply to "RE: this was totally expected"
jigzat Member since:
2008-10-30

I couldn't have said it better, but there is something more about this decision, and is that Obama's administration is trying to strength USA industrial production and that means taking side with Apple.

It wouldn't have sense to affect Apple at the same time they are trying to set some factories inside the country and the government is trying to convince them into bring some cash back.

Now regarding the patent system of course there is something wrong but it is a necessary evil. An industrial world without such system would be a chaos, the companies would began acting like states during the cold war, the industrial espionage would be even worst and companies will get to the point of attacking and sabotaging each other.

Reply Score: 2

...
by Hiev on Sun 4th Aug 2013 04:43 UTC
Hiev
Member since:
2005-09-27

All I have to say is:

Who is the boss?

Reply Score: 3

Huh.
by Thom_Holwerda on Sun 4th Aug 2013 08:24 UTC
Thom_Holwerda
Member since:
2005-06-29

Fascinating little tidbit: Obama owns a large amount of Apple stock.

http://money.cnn.com/2009/05/15/news/economy/obama-stocks/index.htm

Curious.

Reply Score: 6

RE: Huh.
by Kochise on Sun 4th Aug 2013 09:13 UTC in reply to "Huh."
Kochise Member since:
2006-03-03

Really curious, indeed...

Kochise

Edited 2013-08-04 09:14 UTC

Reply Score: 2

RE: Huh.
by shotsman on Sun 4th Aug 2013 10:00 UTC in reply to "Huh."
shotsman Member since:
2005-07-22

That was 2009. does he have the same portfolio now in 2013? That is a more important question.

If he did then I'd fully expect a number of billion dollar lawsuits to be heading his way tomorrow.

Edited 2013-08-04 10:01 UTC

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Huh.
by MOS6510 on Sun 4th Aug 2013 11:53 UTC in reply to "RE: Huh."
MOS6510 Member since:
2011-05-12

Not likely.

Besides, Obama didn't veto because he felt like it or owned Apple stock. It's a process involving a lot of people. He is a president, not an emperor.

The reasoning behind it may have been fair or it may have been "dirty", but it's not a decision by one person. Obama probably didn't even have a say in it.

There are a lot op people with knowledge and skill related to the subject. They investigate, think and come up with scenarios and recommendations from which other people pick one and Obama signs it.

Reply Score: 5

RE[3]: Huh.
by Nelson on Sun 4th Aug 2013 13:05 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Huh."
Nelson Member since:
2005-11-29

Right. Obama likely did not have any personal role in this decision whatsoever. He delegated responsibility to the USTR for precisely this reason, so he doesn't have to concern himself with them.

This isn't a "Presidential Pardon", its the USTR overruling the actions of the ITC. To highlight the significance of the matter, and why SEPs are dangerous, this is the first such veto in 15 years.

Reply Score: 4

RE: Huh.
by brichpmr on Sun 4th Aug 2013 11:51 UTC in reply to "Huh."
brichpmr Member since:
2006-04-22

Fascinating little tidbit: Obama owns a large amount of Apple stock.

http://money.cnn.com/2009/05/15/news/economy/obama-stocks/index.htm

Curious.



A bunch of Americans directly or indirectly own Apple stock....what is your concrete source for Obama's having directed this veto??

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: Huh.
by Kochise on Sun 4th Aug 2013 15:10 UTC in reply to "RE: Huh."
Kochise Member since:
2006-03-03

Obama can influence the Apple's stock price according to a litigation result : if Apple fails and recognized as patent infringing, stock price may drop drastically, thus Obama's shares...

Not to speak about Apple's cash reserve if they have to pay back a large sum of money to Samsung, having their products blocked, etc.

Kochise

Reply Score: 3

RE[3]: Huh.
by Nelson on Sun 4th Aug 2013 19:45 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Huh."
Nelson Member since:
2005-11-29

I think suggesting that the US is engaging in protectionism is as primitive an idea as the notion of protectionism itself.

It can't possibly be that the ITC overstepped its bounds (and lets ignore that practically the entire industry opposed this ruling and a bipartisan group of US Senators), it can't possibly be that this would have wide impacting ramifications for SEPs, no, it must be that Obama himself, personally is in the tank for Apple.

We've seen this pattern time and time again on OSNews. The "blame everybody but Samsung" game. When Samsung lost a billion dollar trial, the JURY was blamed. When there were motions that disagreed with Samsung's positions, the (Korean) Judge was blamed.

This elementary view of the way the US Government and legal system works reeks of foreign ignorance.

There is no grand conspiracy. There is only your own denial to reality.

Reply Score: 2

v RE: Huh.
by Tony Swash on Sun 4th Aug 2013 15:30 UTC in reply to "Huh."
RE[2]: Huh.
by Kochise on Sun 4th Aug 2013 19:59 UTC in reply to "RE: Huh."
Kochise Member since:
2006-03-03

Nope, right on the spot ! What are Obama's justifications to go against ITC's elaborated decision ? Because, yes, he can ?

Kochise

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: Huh.
by cdude on Sun 4th Aug 2013 20:46 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Huh."
cdude Member since:
2008-09-21

Nailed. If Obama didn't do that pure out of personal interests, ie money, then he should do something to stop, halt, pause Samsung's import ban, that is starting this month, too. And then he needs to do same for all import bans.
If not then there was a certain motivation behind this special case. Money sounds plausible.

Edited 2013-08-04 20:49 UTC

Reply Score: 1

RE[4]: Huh.
by Nelson on Sun 4th Aug 2013 22:35 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Huh."
Nelson Member since:
2005-11-29

Nailed. If Obama didn't do that pure out of personal interests, ie money, then he should do something to stop, halt, pause Samsung's import ban, that is starting this month, too. And then he needs to do same for all import bans.
If not then there was a certain motivation behind this special case. Money sounds plausible.


I cant believe such idiocy gets voted up.

Reply Score: 3

RE[5]: Huh.
by MOS6510 on Mon 5th Aug 2013 04:30 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Huh."
MOS6510 Member since:
2011-05-12

I cant believe such idiocy gets voted up.


Welcome to the Internet!

Reply Score: 3

RE[3]: Huh.
by Tony Swash on Sun 4th Aug 2013 22:23 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Huh."
Tony Swash Member since:
2009-08-22

Nope, right on the spot ! What are Obama's justifications to go against ITC's elaborated decision ? Because, yes, he can ?

Kochise


I am not sure how you think the world works but it seems to be very simplistic.

I find the notion that the President of the USA would make a high profile decision like this because the decision might mean that he could make a few bucks on a possible but uncertain small change in the value of some shares that he owns pretty ludicrous.

Obama is the president of the USA not the world, his job is to look after the interests of the USA. The situation from the point of view of that job function is pretty clear cut. A foreign owned company with a track record of copying the designs and products of what is considered to be one of the most innovative of the leading American tech companies has managed to get a US supervisory body to ban the import of a flag ship product of that leading American tech company. Vetoing that is a no brainer. If Obama didn't he would be failing in his job of protecting the interests of the USA. This is not about right or wrong it's about realpolitik and realities of what national leaders do, of what their job is.

Reply Score: 1

RE[4]: Huh.
by Thom_Holwerda on Sun 4th Aug 2013 22:45 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Huh."
Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

Ah, so you admit the merits of this specific case are irrelevant, and that it's strictly a political decision.

Good to know you agree with us.

Reply Score: 2

RE[5]: Huh.
by brichpmr on Sun 4th Aug 2013 22:51 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Huh."
brichpmr Member since:
2006-04-22

Ah, so you admit the merits of this specific case are irrelevant, and that it's strictly a political decision.

Good to know you agree with us.


No, we agree with Obama.

Reply Score: 1

RE[5]: Huh.
by Tony Swash on Mon 5th Aug 2013 00:12 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Huh."
Tony Swash Member since:
2009-08-22

Ah, so you admit the merits of this specific case are irrelevant, and that it's strictly a political decision.


Of course it is - are you twelve years old or do just not just get out all that often. That's what politicians do - make political decisions what other decisions do you think they would make? And you can be absolutely sure that Samsung's track record in relation to the respecting of IP played a big part in this, as it should.

By the way Thom why not take this opportunity of explaining succinctly what principles you believe in, in relation to all this, you know the sort of things you think are right and wrong no matter what party or company is on either side of any particular dispute?

And while you are at it do you have any examples of how IP restrictions have impinged in major way on your use of technology?

Reply Score: 0

RE[6]: Huh.
by Kochise on Mon 5th Aug 2013 06:34 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Huh."
Kochise Member since:
2006-03-03

Is the sentence "independence of justice" completely unsound ? There are rules, international rules, international patent system every manufacturer agree to comply to. Apple is well known for infringing the patent system, abusing it in every way possible (prior art, copying -xeroxing-, asking ban not on functionality but -rounded- form factor, ...) but when it comes to stop Apple from stepping on other shoes, Woooops, nada, don't ya date touching on Apple's supremacy ? Come on...

Double standards !

Protecting USA's interests ? Who'se gonna be assassinated next by the CIA to protect USA's interests ? What next puppet regime will be put in place to protect USA's interests ? Ooh, and by the way, don't forget to go to church on Sunday, and praise all your soul this merciful God that bless you, because you obviously deserve all His attention. You have so much to be pardoned for...

I'm wondering when you gonna wake up from your wonderful dream were you believe to rule the World. Sure, the trick USA it using -cf this special case- to protect its best interests shows how much USA really cares about the rest of the planet. Financial machination, global crisis caused by faulty US banking system -subprimes-, Greek bankruptcy caused by US bank Goldman & Sachs, US software developer Microsoft forcing global OEM to install Windows thus killing competition and later saved from split by Bush administration, etc...

You really should look deep into yourself and see how the USA is really not that bright country you all believe in so much. A little introspection once in a while is good. Go, travel overseas or just to your Canadian neighbors, watch the differences, learn from the others, and stop that crap before it is too late.

The way you just accept this matter of fact by raising your shoulders and telling it's Obama's decision for the good of the USA tells a lot about your mindset.

"I reject your reality and substitute my own" (c) Adam Savage

Kochise

Reply Score: 5

RE[7]: Huh.
by MOS6510 on Mon 5th Aug 2013 06:42 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: Huh."
MOS6510 Member since:
2011-05-12

Aren't you overreacting? It's just a bunch of older generation Apple devices that avoided an US import ban. Apple hasn't been cleared of any patent infringement in this case.

The real winner are the consumers.

Reply Score: 2

RE[7]: Huh.
by brichpmr on Mon 5th Aug 2013 09:03 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: Huh."
brichpmr Member since:
2006-04-22

yep

Edited 2013-08-05 09:04 UTC

Reply Score: 1

v RE[7]: Huh.
by Tony Swash on Mon 5th Aug 2013 10:34 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: Huh."
RE[5]: Huh.
by Tony Swash on Mon 5th Aug 2013 16:45 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Huh."
Tony Swash Member since:
2009-08-22

Here is the back ground to the merits of this case. Hidden inside Samsung's behaviour and tactics are some principles apparently that you seem to think are worth defending. love to know what they are.

The "patent infringement" that Samsung asserted in order to win its original (now vetoed) U.S. import ban against certain GSM versions of Apple's iPhone 4 and iPad 2 models isn't a matter of Apple copying technology that Samsung invented, and then refusing to pay Samsung for the use of it.

Samsung claimed infringement of a radio technique implemented in low level code and related to the GSM / UMTS 3G networking standard. That code was sold to Apple as part of a finished product, embedded in the PMB9801 baseband chips it purchased from Infineon to solder into the logic boards of its iPhone 4 and iPad 2.

On the iPhone 4 and iPad 2 models Samsung was targeting, Apple's iOS runs the A4 Application Processor (AP) while a second, embedded operating system RTOS, sold by Mentor Graphics) runs the Baseband Processor (BP). The two chips communicate like a PC connected to an external modem via a serial cable.

The Application Processor is the main SoC, such as the iPhone 4's A4, which incorporates an ARM CPU core, a PowerVR GPU core and additional integrated logic. This "brain" also has RAM attached to it externally.

The Baseband Processor is a computer unto itself which handles the device's mobile radio and analog audio processing. On the GSM iPhone 4 and iPad 2, this is Infineon's PMB9801, branded as "X-GOLD 616" and identified as 337S3833 on the chip itself. It has its own ARM microcontroller, RAM and integrated ROM firmware and talks to the AP, the antenna's radio chip and the SIM card.

In 2010, iSuppli estimated the iPhone 4's A4, which is manufactured by Samsung, to cost $10.75, while it estimated its Infineon baseband chip to cost $11.72.

In its hardball negotiations with Apple last year, Samsung demanded a 2.4 percent royalty to cover the use all of its Standards Essential Patents (SEPs) pertaining to 2G/3G GSM/UMTS technologies used in the baseband chip.

Apple had a few problems with this, as noted in an April 30, 2012 letter from Apple's intellectual property licensing director Boris Teksler, addressed to Seongwoo Kim at Samsung. First, it disputed whether Samsung's SEPs were even valid. Second, it doubted whether they were even in use within the components it was buying. Third, the baseband components Apple was buying, initially from Infineon and later Qualcomm, had already licensed Samsung's technologies on behalf of their customers.

This "first sale" doctrine means that if you buy a product from a company that has legitimately licensed the use of the technologies it employs, the original patent owner can't go "double dipping" and demand more patent royalties from the end user, just as a landowner can't lease their property to a hotel chain, then come back and demand rent from anyone who comes to stay there.

Most egregiously, however, Samsung wasn't just demanding a double-dipping royalty for questionable patent claims on the baseband chip. It was demanding a royalty percentage of the full retail price of the finished product. With an average selling price of $660 in 2012, that amounted to around $15.84 per iPhone and iPad Apple was selling, that is more than the cost of the component containing the disputed Samsung feature.

"Can Samsung provide Apple with any evidence of any company paying Samsung a royalty similar to the 2.4% of ASP [Average Selling Price] terms that Samsung has requested from Apple?" Teksler asked in the letter.

Apple stated that it was willing to pay Samsung FRAND rates for its UMTS portfolio, comparable to what it paid to license technologies like H.264. However, it was only prepared to pay a total of 5-7 percent royalties for baseband chip patents, and only on the value of the chip itself. Samsung's share of those total royalties would have to be proportional to its contribution. In return, Apple would offer Samsung a reciprocal arrangement on its own UMTS patents. Samsung didn't like any of this.

Due to its history as a component and featurephone manufacturer, Samsung didn't have many valuable smartphone user interface, operating system or device design patents, but it did have patents on lower level mobile radio and other component-related technologies.

However, Samsung was also manufacturing many of the components in Apple's iPhone and iPad, including its AP, DRAM and flash memory, parts accounting to over $50 of the total $187.51 bill of materials estimated by iSuppli. Samsung therefore had to focus on the patents it could allege against the technology in one of the parts it wasn't already suppling Apple with: the baseband chip. Most of the patents Samsung asserted in the U.S. case, and in the more than 50 lawsuits worldwide raging in at least 9 different countries, are related to 3G UMTS technologies built into the baseband.

That includes patent 7,362,867, which Samsung almost successfully used to block sales of Apple's older products in the ITC case last week.

If the Obama administration hadn't intervened, Samsung's import ban wouldn't have stopped sales of Apple's modern iPhone and iPad, but it would have disrupted Apple's operations and taken away the cheapest iPhone option on AT&T, a carrier that, according to Kantar, is already pushing more entry level Android phones to new smartphone users than it is iPhones.

Samsung had originally filed patent '867, for "a scrambling code generating apparatus of a downlink transmitter in a UMTS mobile communication system," in 2000. It was granted in 2008, but Samsung only began alleging infringement by Apple in 2011, in response to Apple's suit against it.

The ITC import ban Samsung initiated (separately, in parallel to Judge Koh's U.S. Federal Court case) only managed to successfully allege infringement by Apple of '867 on products using Infineon chips, which Apple had begun phasing out the previous fall in a move toward a "global" iPhone compatible with CDMA networks.

Apple's shift to Qualcomm baseband chips fortuitously limited the potential fallout of the ITC ban that was eventually granted in June 2013, before being vetoed over the weekend prior to the first business day when the ban was slated to go into effect.

Apple wasn't forced to stop using the UMTS technology Samsung had patented. Qualcomm, the vendor of Apple's current baseband chips, had licensed the use of the patent from Samsung. The ITC recognized that this "exhausted" Samsung's ability to sue Apple for "using" the patent on modern devices with Qualcomm chips. Samsung managed to convince the ITC that Infineon's license was no longer valid once Apple bought the chips and began using them.

But Infineon had also licensed Samsung's patents. The difference was that Samsung managed to convince the ITC that Infineon's license was no longer valid once Apple bought the chips and began using them.

To do this, Samsung invented a specious legal argument that insisted that, despite Infineon having a legitimate license to Samsung patents, and despite Intel, which had bought Infineon, also having secured a license to Samsung's patents, and despite having signed agreements with a UMTS standards body that barred it from being able to arbitrarily revoke its license in order to extort higher licensing fees, that it could revoke its license anyway and insist that Apple had to pay, not just FRAND licensing fees, but anything Samsung could imagine, a veritable blank check.

And if Apple refused to give Samsung whatever it demanded, Samsung would tell everyone that Apple was refusing to pay licensing fees and refusing to negotiate while also publicly insisting that Apple was "infringing its patents."

Samsung somehow managed to convince the ITC that Intel's license was only valid in the United States, and that Intel's American sales of Infineon chips to Apple in California was not a transaction it recognized to be in the United States.

Reply Score: 3

RE[6]: Huh.
by jigzat on Mon 5th Aug 2013 19:39 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Huh."
jigzat Member since:
2008-10-30

Cool bro, very insightful.

Reply Score: 0

RE[4]: Huh.
by Soulbender on Mon 5th Aug 2013 08:51 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Huh."
Soulbender Member since:
2005-08-18

I find the notion that the President of the USA would make a high profile decision like this because the decision might mean that he could make a few bucks on a possible but uncertain small change in the value of some shares that he owns pretty ludicrous.


Indeed, that is rather silly. He's the president, it's not like he's going to end up in the poorhouse after his term.

This is not about right or wrong it's about realpolitik and realities of what national leaders do, of what their job is.


Dude, you just sabotaged your entire argument up until now.

Reply Score: 5

RE[5]: Huh.
by Tony Swash on Mon 5th Aug 2013 10:44 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Huh."
Tony Swash Member since:
2009-08-22



"This is not about right or wrong it's about realpolitik and realities of what national leaders do, of what their job is.


Dude, you just sabotaged your entire argument up until now.
"

How? Do you think that most independent national national leaders do not put their nations interests first in trade disputes? Seems like a pretty obvious part of what being a national leader is, protecting the economic interest of your nation.

Reply Score: 2

RE[6]: Huh.
by Soulbender on Mon 5th Aug 2013 13:13 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Huh."
Soulbender Member since:
2005-08-18

Do you think that most independent national national leaders do not put their nations interests first in trade disputes?


I was referring to the previous SEP/FRAND arguments. After all, Obama was looking at what was best for the country, not the actual facts of the case whatever they may be.

Reply Score: 3

RE[7]: Huh.
by MOS6510 on Mon 5th Aug 2013 15:38 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: Huh."
MOS6510 Member since:
2011-05-12

It seems most Apple dislikers don't care about facts, law, human lives and reality.

But that does provide strange surprises and mind boggling arguments raising the entertainment value by a significant level.

Reply Score: 2

RE: Huh.
by kristoph on Mon 5th Aug 2013 23:22 UTC in reply to "Huh."
kristoph Member since:
2006-01-01

Yes, the leader of the free world is undoubtedly making these decisions based on how much it's going to increase his portfolio.

Do you actually think about what your write?

Reply Score: 1

Is this really so bad?
by novad on Sun 4th Aug 2013 10:55 UTC
novad
Member since:
2010-06-10

Don't understand me wrong.
This veto is a shame for the US administration!

The ITC made a fair (Which was surprising) ruling and everyone had to accept it (Including Apple)

Is the veto surprising??? Certainly not. For those who heard about the EADS (Airbus) and Boeing war know already that the US plays dirty.

What is interesting is that this is a clear signal to every major actor in whatever domain all over the world. As long as you aren't a "danger" you're welcome in the US. If you have success .......

The problem with that is that this protects US companies in the US... What about the countries which have been affected by the US protectionism?

Will China (Huawei and many others) or India accept ITC rulings now? Well... I wouldn't.

I'll continue to follow what is reported here:
http://stats.areppim.com/stats/stats_mobiosxtime.htm

I think we'll see more and more difference between US and Worldwide curves

Reply Score: 4

RE: Is this really so bad?
by brichpmr on Sun 4th Aug 2013 11:53 UTC in reply to "Is this really so bad?"
brichpmr Member since:
2006-04-22

What?? You don't think other countries employ protectionist rules and regs? What planet do you live on?

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Is this really so bad?
by novad on Sun 4th Aug 2013 13:27 UTC in reply to "RE: Is this really so bad?"
novad Member since:
2010-06-10

On the same planet as you. No need to be rude.

What I just say is that they play more dirtily than others.

US companies trials against other US companies are somehow interesting (Oracle / Google) but as soon as a foreign companies are in the game, even if they play with "US rules", the game is done in advance (Much more than in other democratic countries).

Every country tries to protect its economy, but this blatant move will just give a free pass for even more aggressive moves to anyone.

That's bad... For everyone

Typos edited

Edited 2013-08-04 13:43 UTC

Reply Score: 7

do not understand
by Janvl on Sun 4th Aug 2013 12:15 UTC
Janvl
Member since:
2007-02-20

I do not understand Thom.

On one hand he is always telling how wrong Apple is with it's patent's, its trolling and the socalled "own" designs.
On the other hand he buys this stuff.

Being consequent means refraining from buying products produced by vendors that behave in a way you do not approve.

Reply Score: 4

RE: do not understand
by Thom_Holwerda on Sun 4th Aug 2013 12:33 UTC in reply to "do not understand"
Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

Being consequent means refraining from buying products produced by vendors that behave in a way you do not approve.


This is not possible, unless you move into the woods and live off rainwater and insects. Then again, the trees are probably planted by a corporation with shady doing (The Netherlands has no natural forests), the rain is poisonous, and the insects are infected with chemicals.

On top of that, our government isn't exactly free of shady things either.

See how crazy that would be?

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: do not understand
by MOS6510 on Sun 4th Aug 2013 12:36 UTC in reply to "RE: do not understand"
MOS6510 Member since:
2011-05-12
RE[2]: do not understand
by Janvl on Mon 5th Aug 2013 06:13 UTC in reply to "RE: do not understand"
Janvl Member since:
2007-02-20

A boy with a toy is still a boy,

be happy with your apple-stuff.

Reply Score: 3

RE[3]: do not understand
by MOS6510 on Mon 5th Aug 2013 06:31 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: do not understand"
MOS6510 Member since:
2011-05-12

The difference between men and boys is the price of their toys.

Reply Score: 3

RE[4]: do not understand
by Janvl on Mon 5th Aug 2013 10:48 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: do not understand"
Janvl Member since:
2007-02-20

If price is the only argument to show you are a "men" then you are a poor guy that has not yet understood much of life.
I support Apple/Windows/Linux/Android know the differences, Apple is not that much better, they have a better marketting-machine but the products are as average as the others.
I avoid Apple because of the way they treat there customers, like children that do need to know how there stuff works, main thing is they buy the stuff and the services, no matter the quality.

Considering the ITC, they should as of now refrain from using the word "international". They are neither international nor independent.

Edited 2013-08-05 10:50 UTC

Reply Score: 6

RE[5]: do not understand
by MOS6510 on Mon 5th Aug 2013 10:53 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: do not understand"
MOS6510 Member since:
2011-05-12

"The difference between men and boys is the price of their toys" means that men will remain "boys", they just buy more expensive toys. Like a car, snowboard, sound system, anti-gravity pool, etc... It has nothing to do with Apple.

BTW it must be hard to support Apple and avoid them at the same time.

I too work with a number of different system, I just don't have formed a hatred for a company.

Reply Score: 2

RE[6]: do not understand
by Janvl on Mon 5th Aug 2013 11:02 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: do not understand"
Janvl Member since:
2007-02-20

I do not hate apple. I just do not buy there stuff for many reasons.

Supporting a platform as closed as apple is no big deal, there is not much one is allowed to do in the os, on mac's at least one has a shell-prompt.

I do not know what your problem with linux on the desktop is but I have been using it for over 8 years now and it does everything I need.

Reply Score: 4

RE[7]: do not understand
by MOS6510 on Mon 5th Aug 2013 11:13 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: do not understand"
MOS6510 Member since:
2011-05-12

My problem with desktop Linux is being a married working father with a dog. This means time is not a luxury. Also I need my computer at home for work. So I do not have the means to spend hours fixing things.

I jumped on the Linux bandwagon in 1998 like a lot of my friends, but when Windows 2000 arrived they all jumped back. I managed to hold out until 2005, having tried a number of distributions from Red Hat to SuSE to Slackware to Debian to Ubuntu.

The GUI side of things is just too buggy, OS upgrades tend to break stuff, even small updates do. The CLI side is much much better. A lot of GUI software is of poor quality.

I still have Linux machines around and tend to play with them, but I'd never use one as my main machine. At work I try to promote Linux servers over Windows ones.

Now I have iMacs, MacBooks, iPhone, iPods, iPad, AppleTVs and a number of other Apple devices/computers, old and new. Sure they have their restrictions and downsides, but they tend to always work and save me a LOT of time.

Reply Score: 2

RE[6]: do not understand
by zima on Thu 8th Aug 2013 21:17 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: do not understand"
zima Member since:
2005-07-06

anti-gravity pool

What?

Reply Score: 2

RE[7]: do not understand
by MOS6510 on Thu 8th Aug 2013 21:52 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: do not understand"
MOS6510 Member since:
2011-05-12

Anti-gravity in itself is very weak, but if you just add water you can float without swimming.

At first it's a bit weird, because you think you do need to swim, but after a very short while you get used to it.

It's very populair over here, but that also makes it annoying because the pools are full of people that "just float" meaning they don't pay any attention and keep bumping in to you.

The funny thing is you pay to go the the pool and NOT swim and it's more expensive than pools where you do have to swim.

Reply Score: 2

Speak with your wallet
by cmost on Sun 4th Aug 2013 16:07 UTC
cmost
Member since:
2006-07-16

I don't like Apple the company mostly because of its corporate bullying practices and the way it tightly controls how buyers use its products. Moreover I find Apple products to be technically inferior to its competition's products (slower processors, less RAM and no SD expansion ports for example) while also being overtly overpriced compared to competing, higher spec products. Why Apple's cult of followers wait in line for hours to buy this junk simply defies logic. I don't buy iAnything from Apple and never will! Every time I use my ASUS Android tablet or my Samsung Galaxy Nexus or my simple generic $20.00 mp3 player or even my Linux powered desktop or netbook I give the proverbial finger to Apple and it's highfalutin crap.

Reply Score: 2

RE: Speak with your wallet
by MOS6510 on Sun 4th Aug 2013 16:18 UTC in reply to "Speak with your wallet"
MOS6510 Member since:
2011-05-12

Maybe you need to buy and/or use some Apple devices to understand.

Having the best specifications doesn't automatically make something the best device or provide the best experience.

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Speak with your wallet
by Kochise on Mon 5th Aug 2013 06:40 UTC in reply to "RE: Speak with your wallet"
Kochise Member since:
2006-03-03

Crippled experience may I say. Developers are conforming to the strict and limiting Apple rules to be allowed to release their application on the AppStore. And when an application obviously makes money, Apple copy it, "improve its own offering" then ditch the original Application because it creates a duplicate functionality. How smart for the users' experience POV.

But I agree, the specs are not everything. That's why I stick to my aging yet comfortable HTC Evo 3D. It just provides my with what I need. And have a replaceable battery and a microSD slot.

Kochise

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: Speak with your wallet
by MOS6510 on Mon 5th Aug 2013 06:49 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Speak with your wallet"
MOS6510 Member since:
2011-05-12

Crippled experience may I say. Developers are conforming to the strict and limiting Apple rules to be allowed to release their application on the AppStore. And when an application obviously makes money, Apple copy it, "improve its own offering" then ditch the original Application because it creates a duplicate functionality. How smart for the users' experience POV.


Do you have any examples of that? I know of Apple making their own app that does what an existing app does, but I'm not aware of those apps being taken down.


But I agree, the specs are not everything. That's why I stick to my aging yet comfortable HTC Evo 3D. It just provides my with what I need. And have a replaceable battery and a microSD slot.


That's good news. Personally I've never had to replace a battery. My iPhone 3G still works and I have even older phones (Nokia) that still work fine. By the time the battery dies it makes much more sense to buy the latest generation phone. I'm already up 2 phones from the 3G.

Reply Score: 2

RE: Speak with your wallet
by shotsman on Sun 4th Aug 2013 16:54 UTC in reply to "Speak with your wallet"
shotsman Member since:
2005-07-22

Hmmm. Interesting

you slate Apple for NOT having a removable SD Card and then go onto praise 'Samsung Galaxy Nexus' which according to this --> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galaxy_Nexus

states that it has no removable storage.

Am I correct or is this a case of 'white man speak with forked tongue?'

Please correct me if I am wrong. I will accept a slap on the wrist.

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Speak with your wallet
by cmost on Sun 4th Aug 2013 20:02 UTC in reply to "RE: Speak with your wallet"
cmost Member since:
2006-07-16

Hmmm. Interesting

you slate Apple for NOT having a removable SD Card and then go onto praise 'Samsung Galaxy Nexus' which according to this --> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galaxy_Nexus

states that it has no removable storage.

Am I correct or is this a case of 'white man speak with forked tongue?'

Please correct me if I am wrong. I will accept a slap on the wrist.


Yes I am aware of that obviously but I chose to forgo the SD expansion slot on my Nexus phone because I felt that having a Google phone without carrier garbage and one that gets instant updates to Android far outweighed the lack of expansion. By the way, the reason why Nexus devices lack expansion is because Google refuses to pay a licensing fee to Microsoft for exFAT which it finagled as the default file system for SD specification. The only Nexus device that had an expansion card was the original Nexus One.

Reply Score: 3

RE: Speak with your wallet
by Tony Swash on Sun 4th Aug 2013 17:10 UTC in reply to "Speak with your wallet"
Tony Swash Member since:
2009-08-22

Why Apple's cult of followers wait in line for hours to buy this junk simply defies logic.


No it doesn't. You cannot see anything attractive about Apple products but if you made a very small intellectual effort you could work what other people see in them. Here are some clues.

Apple products have a well known reputation for being designed for ease of use.

Because Apple offers a complete service and product stack Apple product users don't have to be system integrators, the amount of troubleshooting required to get Apple products and services to work together is small compared to market norms.

Apple has the best content stack attached to it's products (the totality of apps, music, films, TV, ebooks, educational materials, etc).

Apple products retain their value very well compared to market averages.

Apple has a premium brand reputation

Apple products are well designed and attractive.

Apple comes at the top or near the top of most surveys of customer satisfaction and customer support. Any discerning consumer will see this early in their product research.

Apple's retail outlets have a very high standard of customer support and if anything goes wrong are generally very helpful. The level of support and help available in an Apple retail store is an order of magnitude better than the market average.

Apple's product range is simple and easy understand, for example compare this:
http://www.gsmarena.com/samsung-phones-9.php
to this
http://store.apple.com/uk/iphone/family/iphone/compare

This not to argue that you or anyone else should buy Apple products, merely it is showing that the reason so many people do, and indeed get quite enthusiastic about Apple products, is not illogical. None of the things I listed have happened by chance, they were all deliberately designed and implemented to make customers enthusiastic about Apple products.

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: Speak with your wallet
by novad on Sun 4th Aug 2013 19:06 UTC in reply to "RE: Speak with your wallet"
novad Member since:
2010-06-10

@Tony

I very often disagree with what you say but this time I have to admit that most of your arguments make sense Give my just the possibility to add my 2 cents on a few points you didn't mention.

All what you described explains why people buy Apple products, not why they stay in line for hours in the rain to buy the last iWhatever sometimes even without knowing what in detail it is.

To all the rational points you gave you must add the fanaticism of a non negligible part of these followers.

Their Brand fidelity is sometimes close to a cult. I've never seen that in other domains (Except some HI-FI nerds).

There's another reason than satisfaction why some people continue to buy Apple products once they started.

It's anecdotal but it happened to not so few people I personally know.

The closed and fully integrated Apple ecosystem you praise is at the same time a great comfort when you use it but a big problem when you want to move to something else. Those people don't want to lose all they had to pay for, especially their multimedia files. They simply don't know how to transfer it to a more open system and stay prisoners with Apple.

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: Speak with your wallet
by MOS6510 on Sun 4th Aug 2013 19:56 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Speak with your wallet"
MOS6510 Member since:
2011-05-12

I can copy multimedia files from my Macs and play them on Windows and Linux systems.

A more valid point would be iOS apps that don't work on non-iOS devices. Or Mac software.

Then again, it's the same going from other systems to iOS/OS X.

Reply Score: 2

RE[4]: Speak with your wallet
by novad on Sun 4th Aug 2013 20:08 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Speak with your wallet"
novad Member since:
2010-06-10

I know it's possible (and I often do it for them) but I speak about the lambda user who doesn't know how to do and it's not always trivial (for example eBooks).

I didn't speak about the software as it is obvious (at least for people in this forum ;-) )

Reply Score: 2

RE[5]: Speak with your wallet
by MOS6510 on Sun 4th Aug 2013 20:19 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Speak with your wallet"
MOS6510 Member since:
2011-05-12

That's a large majority on any consumer system.

I know Windows users that don't know which Windows version they have or how the Start menu works.

My wife has an iMac and dumps everything on her desktop and never clears her downloads folder. Her husband is Mr. Apple and still she doesn't know a lot of basics.

On holiday a guy proudly told me he discovered a new feature on his iPad: the space bar. Some time ago he typed an email and when he was done all the words were stuck to each other. He explained how the space bar worked. He only used his iPad for a newspaper app.

Reply Score: 3

RE[6]: Speak with your wallet
by zima on Tue 6th Aug 2013 15:18 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Speak with your wallet"
zima Member since:
2005-07-06

Did you at least tell him that space bar is around for over a century, on mechanical typewriters?

Reply Score: 2

RE[7]: Speak with your wallet
by MOS6510 on Wed 7th Aug 2013 11:17 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: Speak with your wallet"
MOS6510 Member since:
2011-05-12

In those siuations I just gently smile and nod, desperatlly trying to avoid providing any fuel to extend the communication session.

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: Speak with your wallet
by Tony Swash on Sun 4th Aug 2013 22:47 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Speak with your wallet"
Tony Swash Member since:
2009-08-22

@Tony

I very often disagree with what you say but this time I have to admit that most of your arguments make sense Give my just the possibility to add my 2 cents on a few points you didn't mention.

All what you described explains why people buy Apple products, not why they stay in line for hours in the rain to buy the last iWhatever sometimes even without knowing what in detail it is.

To all the rational points you gave you must add the fanaticism of a non negligible part of these followers.

Their Brand fidelity is sometimes close to a cult. I've never seen that in other domains (Except some HI-FI nerds).


Apple are a very, very successful brand, a brand that generates a very high level of loyalty, enthusiasm and affection. Apple deliberately built that brand and continue to build and support it. Having a brand like that is not accident, it's the result of a particular business model, a style of corporate communication and marketing, a particular corporate management system (built around functions and not product divisions for example) and a style and philosophy of product design.

Quite a few other products and other brands have had a similar degree of loyalty and enthusiasm, think of the lines for big game launches, a new Harry Potter, the lines that formed before the Windows 95 launch. Getting that sort of customer response is a precious commodity for companies but getting it is very difficult, some companies or products achieve it fleetingly, but Apple have managed to sustain it for years. That is not an accident nor is it some weird inexplicable phenomena as long as one is willing to pick it apart, analyse it and accept that it has real and material causes, that it is a result of a way of doing business and a way of making products.

There's another reason than satisfaction why some people continue to buy Apple products once they started.

It's anecdotal but it happened to not so few people I personally know.

The closed and fully integrated Apple ecosystem you praise is at the same time a great comfort when you use it but a big problem when you want to move to something else. Those people don't want to lose all they had to pay for, especially their multimedia files. They simply don't know how to transfer it to a more open system and stay prisoners with Apple.


That's true and that too is deliberate on the part of Apple but the degree of cost and inconvenience associated with leaving the Apple ecosystem when one has accumulated a contents or data library is mostly over stated, but it does have a cost. The fact of the matter is that if a large percentage of Apple customers were unhappy with their Apple products or really wanted to move onto new non-Apple products they would find a way to deal with the inconvenience of switching ecosystems but all the surveys show the same thing, Apple customers are more loyal to Apple products than other companies customers are too theirs. The costs of switching ecosystems is real but it's only a part of the reason, and not the determining reason, for people sticking with Apple. If Apple produced a line of bad products, unreliable, poorly designed, with poor customer support, they would lose their customer base pretty quickly and no amount of ecosystem lock in would prevent it.

Reply Score: 3

RE[2]: Speak with your wallet
by theinonen on Sun 4th Aug 2013 19:34 UTC in reply to "RE: Speak with your wallet"
theinonen Member since:
2009-10-06



Apple comes at the top or near the top of most surveys of customer satisfaction and customer support. Any discerning consumer will see this early in their product research.


It only shows Apple users have more problems with their products than users of other brands and they have more dealings with support than others.

I see no reason why anyone would even take part on these surveys if they never have had any dealings with customer support at first place. Apple users also like to promote their systems more than others and it gives false impression of how things are in real life.

For computers that just work people seem to have lots of problems with them. I only need to take quick look at local Apple forum to see that those are very problematic systems indeed. (Or then it says something about the users...)

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: Speak with your wallet
by brichpmr on Sun 4th Aug 2013 22:56 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Speak with your wallet"
brichpmr Member since:
2006-04-22

"

Apple comes at the top or near the top of most surveys of customer satisfaction and customer support. Any discerning consumer will see this early in their product research.


It only shows Apple users have more problems with their products than users of other brands and they have more dealings with support than others.

I see no reason why anyone would even take part on these surveys if they never have had any dealings with customer support at first place. Apple users also like to promote their systems more than others and it gives false impression of how things are in real life.

For computers that just work people seem to have lots of problems with them. I only need to take quick look at local Apple forum to see that those are very problematic systems indeed. (Or then it says something about the users...)
"

All computer makers experience some amount of failures or problems. Many surveys over the past decade at least confirm that Apple is at the top when it comes to resolving those issues for their users. Obviously, you only experience Apple tech from a distance...understandable that you draw such erroneous conclusions.

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: Speak with your wallet
by Tony Swash on Mon 5th Aug 2013 10:40 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Speak with your wallet"
Tony Swash Member since:
2009-08-22

"

Apple comes at the top or near the top of most surveys of customer satisfaction and customer support. Any discerning consumer will see this early in their product research.


It only shows Apple users have more problems with their products than users of other brands and they have more dealings with support than others.

I see no reason why anyone would even take part on these surveys if they never have had any dealings with customer support at first place. Apple users also like to promote their systems more than others and it gives false impression of how things are in real life.

For computers that just work people seem to have lots of problems with them. I only need to take quick look at local Apple forum to see that those are very problematic systems indeed. (Or then it says something about the users...)
"

What a silly response. I know the fact sometime hurt but just shutting your eyes does not make the scary bogeyman go away ;)

Both these data sources (and I can post loads more similar ones if you want) are based on obvious and sensible metrics

http://asq.org/qualitynews/qnt/execute/displaySetup?newsID=15469

http://www.zdnet.com/want-the-most-reliable-windows-pc-buy-a-mac-or...

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Speak with your wallet
by Lorin on Mon 5th Aug 2013 05:56 UTC in reply to "RE: Speak with your wallet"
Lorin Member since:
2010-04-06

"Apple products have a well known reputation for being designed for ease of use".

Simpleton Friendly

Reply Score: 5

RE[3]: Speak with your wallet
by Tony Swash on Mon 5th Aug 2013 12:58 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Speak with your wallet"
Tony Swash Member since:
2009-08-22

"Apple products have a well known reputation for being designed for ease of use".

Simpleton Friendly


What crass and insecure posturing.

I presume you consider yourself a non-simpleton and thus prefer technology that is designed to be difficult to use. That makes sense

Reply Score: 1

RE[4]: Speak with your wallet
by mistersoft on Mon 5th Aug 2013 17:49 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Speak with your wallet"
mistersoft Member since:
2011-01-05

I had the dubious pleasure of updating my parents iPhones(4 and 4S) and iPad yesterday. Updating them from a ranging of older IOii to current and syncing them with/to what that actually wanted rather than the mish-mash as was.

....and I'm not saying it's a wholly dreadful experience.. android is certainly no better (in the simplicity stakes)

but I find IOS and Apple PARTICULARLY, nay EXTREMELY annoying for having this veneer of seeming simple and easy.. but (a)it's hard than it looks to actually do all the things you want to -- and (b)you often can't(!) actually do what you want to.


I'd much rather have more control, a finer level of control, and have less constrictions on me than apple's approach of this Fake Simplicity.. and concomitant sneering hand-holding.

Yes, I hate to say it Apple, that's what it comes across like to me. Sneering, condescending..

.Give me the device, allow me full or near full control (Document the what, wheres, whens and whys properly!) and now: 'Let go of my hand please, you're not my Dad or my Mum!'

or maybe that's just my feeling

Reply Score: 5

RE[5]: Speak with your wallet
by kristoph on Mon 5th Aug 2013 23:20 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Speak with your wallet"
kristoph Member since:
2006-01-01

You must have been updating from a really old version because all my updates have basically involved clicking the update button on my phone.

The new versions of stock Android are the same so it's really not a huge deal either way.

Reply Score: 2

v RE: Speak with your wallet
by brichpmr on Sun 4th Aug 2013 22:53 UTC in reply to "Speak with your wallet"
RE[2]: Speak with your wallet
by Soulbender on Mon 5th Aug 2013 08:57 UTC in reply to "RE: Speak with your wallet"
Soulbender Member since:
2005-08-18

No, you merely show that you are making 'crap' personal decisions.


Only in the RDF could not choosing Apple be a 'crap' personal decision.

Reply Score: 5

RE[3]: Speak with your wallet
by brichpmr on Mon 5th Aug 2013 09:07 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Speak with your wallet"
brichpmr Member since:
2006-04-22

"No, you merely show that you are making 'crap' personal decisions.


Only in the RDF could not choosing Apple be a 'crap' personal decision.
"


No, also in a world where OSX and IOS are but one of multiple platforms used.

Reply Score: 1

RE[4]: Speak with your wallet
by Soulbender on Mon 5th Aug 2013 09:20 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Speak with your wallet"
Soulbender Member since:
2005-08-18

A crap personal decision is something that would have a negative effect on the person. There are no negative effects from not choosing Apple products.

Reply Score: 4

RE[5]: Speak with your wallet
by MOS6510 on Mon 5th Aug 2013 09:37 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Speak with your wallet"
MOS6510 Member since:
2011-05-12

Switching from desktop Linux to OS X made me very happy.

Linux is fun to play around with on the desktop, first choice to install on a server, but for serious desktop use it's too much hassle.

Reply Score: 2

RE[6]: Speak with your wallet
by Soulbender on Mon 5th Aug 2013 10:00 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Speak with your wallet"
Soulbender Member since:
2005-08-18

Switching from desktop Linux to OS X made me very happy.


Then that was a good personal decision for you. However, that does not mean that using Linux is a crap personal decision.

Linux is fun to play around with on the desktop, first choice to install on a server, but for serious desktop use it's too much hassle.


Windows is not good enough for serious use for me yet that does not mean that everyone that uses Windows made a crap personal decision.

Reply Score: 5

RE[3]: Speak with your wallet
by kristoph on Mon 5th Aug 2013 23:17 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Speak with your wallet"
kristoph Member since:
2006-01-01

Only in the RDF could not choosing Apple be a 'crap' personal decision.


Wasn't the whole issue that he was choosing Apple?

Reply Score: 2

Hmm...
by 1c3d0g on Sun 4th Aug 2013 21:35 UTC
1c3d0g
Member since:
2005-07-06

...sounds like Apple has powerful friends in high places...this is bad news for everyone. :-|

Edited 2013-08-04 21:35 UTC

Reply Score: 2

Great news !
by phoudoin on Mon 5th Aug 2013 08:41 UTC
phoudoin
Member since:
2006-06-09

The more US's hypocrisy under pseudo international bi or multi-lateral trade agreements is exposed, the better.

Maybe more and more nations world wide will stop agreed blindly to complain with such agreements which are and always were very asymmetrical, hiding protectionism under an "free trade liberalism" sticker.

Add that to NSA's PRISM & co, I can't thanks this Obama's administration more: they're doing far more to wake up the world's nations than all previous ones. Combined.

Please don't stop.

Reply Score: 5

Cutting through the crap
by Tony Swash on Mon 5th Aug 2013 12:56 UTC
Tony Swash
Member since:
2009-08-22

A minority opinion filed by Dean Pinkert, one of the ITC's six commissioners, who voted against the majority pro-Samsung decision has laid out in careful detail why his fellow commissioners were wrong to order Apple to cease and desist selling those five products -- including a version of the iPhone 4 that is one of the company's most popular -- on the strength of Samsung's complaint.

Among the reasons he cites:

The patent in question was part -- and only a tiny part -- of an international standard, and as such Samsung had agreed to make it available for licensing under terms that are fair, reasonable and nondiscriminatory (FRAND).

Samsung had made no effort to demonstrate that the licensing terms it offered Apple "satisfied an objective standard of reasonableness."

That the only time Samsung made such an offer -- in oral discussions in December 2012 -- it came with strings attached to which Apple could not agree.

What those strings were are blacked out in the document, but Pinkert adds in the next sentence: "it is neither fair nor non-discriminatory for the holder of the FRAND-encumbered patent to require licenses to non-FRAND-encumberd patents as a condition for licensing its patent" (emphasis his).


Reading between the lines, it sounds like Samsung had refused to license its standard-essential patents (SEPs) unless Apple offered its non-essential iPhone patents in return.

The issue of cross licensing is one that has often been raised here. Some argue that all demands for cross licensing should be met because somehow cross licensing is a good thing in and of itself. But cross licensing is a voluntary undertaking as is participation in a FRAND arrangement. Once a company submits it's IP to be included in a FRAND framework it is limited as to what it can ask for in terms of licesing arrangements and deals.

In this case the issue is whether the Samsung FRAND patent in question is customarily and usually licensed to other third parties with attached demands for access to obligatory cross licensing of non-FRAND IP. If it isn't, and I think it highly unlikely that it is, then clearly the demands made on Apple were unusual and were thus discriminatory.

Edited 2013-08-05 13:03 UTC

Reply Score: 3