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 568639
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
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 Parent Score: 4