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.
Permalink for comment 568602
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[8]: Comment by Nelson
by majipoor on Thu 1st Aug 2013 14:18 UTC in reply to "RE[7]: Comment by Nelson"
majipoor
Member since:
2009-01-22

The article is about a lawsuit based on SEP patents: you don't want to take this fundamental aspect into account because it doesn't fit your agenda.

If many ask Obama to veto the ruling (including the FTC, Intel, Verizon and a few other major actors), it is only because we are talking about FRAND patents.

So yes, it is all about SEP and FRAND and the fact that you consider this point as meaningless is... meaningless.

And Apple problem is not about paying a fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory fee to Samsung, it is about the fact that what Samsung is asking is neither fair, reasonable nor non-discriminatory.

Just in case you miss the point: there are something like 2000 patents in the 3G pool alone belonging to dozens of patent holders. Can you explain why Apple was willing to take a license from all these patent holders, including Samsung for the Qualcomm chip in the newest iPhones and iPad models and was not willing to take a license from Samsung on older chips?

Edited 2013-08-01 14:31 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 1