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 568585
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[6]: Comment by Nelson
by majipoor on Thu 1st Aug 2013 13:28 UTC 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

RE[8]: Comment by Nelson
by Liza on Thu 1st Aug 2013 13:46 in reply to "RE[7]: Comment by Nelson"
Liza Member since:
2013-08-01

Your claimed opinion does not make something a fact. Especially given that you've told really obvious falsehoods several times, both in the article itself and in the comments here. (EG: you're assuming your audience isn't aware of the history of these cases and so you can claim Apple is the aggressor.) Or you just don't care what the truth is.

If you want to convince people this isn't a standards essential patent, please explain-- or better yet, give examples-- of someone implementing the given standard without violating it.

Of course to do that, you'd have to actually understand the technology.... and in my experience with patent discussions on the internet, people usually make claims with no understanding of any technology at all. (It's much easier to not be bothered by pesky facts.)

So, prove it.

Reply Parent Score: -1

RE[8]: Comment by Nelson
by majipoor on Thu 1st Aug 2013 14:18 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