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.
Thread beginning with comment 568576
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
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 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 Parent Score: 1

RE[2]: what goes around...
by dragos.pop on Thu 1st Aug 2013 14:58 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 Parent Score: 2

v RE: what goes around...
by Liza on Thu 1st Aug 2013 13:50 in reply to "what goes around..."
RE[2]: what goes around...
by pandronic on Thu 1st Aug 2013 17:11 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 Parent Score: 4