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 568577
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
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 Parent Score: 3

RE[6]: Comment by Nelson
by majipoor on Thu 1st Aug 2013 13:28 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 Parent Score: 2

RE[7]: Comment by Nelson
by Thom_Holwerda on Thu 1st Aug 2013 13:36 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 Parent Score: 3

v RE[6]: Comment by Nelson
by Liza on Thu 1st Aug 2013 13:43 in reply to "RE[5]: Comment by Nelson"
RE[7]: Comment by Nelson
by Soulbender on Thu 1st Aug 2013 14:17 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 Parent Score: 8

RE[7]: Comment by Nelson
by tupp on Thu 1st Aug 2013 22:08 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 Parent Score: 4

RE[7]: Comment by Nelson
by Beta on Fri 2nd Aug 2013 09:20 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 Parent Score: 3

RE[6]: Comment by Nelson
by Tony Swash on Thu 1st Aug 2013 17:17 in reply to "RE[5]: Comment by Nelson"
Tony Swash Member since:
2009-08-22

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


OK - here are a few very simple question.

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

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

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

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

Reply Parent Score: -1

RE[7]: Comment by Nelson
by Thom_Holwerda on Thu 1st Aug 2013 17:50 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

RE[7]: Comment by Nelson
by tupp on Thu 1st Aug 2013 22:11 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 Parent Score: 2