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 568602
To view parent comment, click here.
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

RE[9]: Comment by Nelson
by Thom_Holwerda on Thu 1st Aug 2013 14:20 in reply to "RE[8]: Comment by Nelson"
Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

Uh, the ITC states in its ruling that this is NOT a SEP patent!

Now you're just lying.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[10]: Comment by Nelson
by majipoor on Thu 1st Aug 2013 14:34 in reply to "RE[9]: Comment by Nelson"
majipoor Member since:
2009-01-22

You wrote "The ITC reviewed the negotiation history and materials between Samsung and Apple, and found that Samsung's offered licensing terms were reasonable, fair, and non-discriminatory. In other words, Samsung offered Apple FRAND licensing terms for the patent in question, but Apple simply refused to accept them."

Why would the ITC reviewed this point and why would Samsung have offered FRAND terms to Apple if those patents are not SEP?

You wrote: "the Commission found that there were still disputed issues concerning the patent at issue was even actually essential to the standard"

Which imply that this is not a fact, only a doubt. Who is lying?

And please, answer to the question: why didn't Samsung ask the same terms to Apple for the new Qualcomm chips?

Edited 2013-08-01 14:37 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[9]: Comment by Nelson
by Thom_Holwerda on Thu 1st Aug 2013 14:35 in reply to "RE[8]: Comment by Nelson"
Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

And Apple problem is not about paying a fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory fee to Samsung,


According to the ITC, this is exactly Apple's problem.

it is about the fact that what Samsung is asking is neither fair, reasonable nor non-discriminatory.


Uh, according to the ITC, it IS fair. Why do you keep lying?

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[10]: Comment by Nelson
by majipoor on Thu 1st Aug 2013 14:58 in reply to "RE[9]: Comment by Nelson"
majipoor Member since:
2009-01-22

First you say this is not a SEP patent, then you are arguing about FRAND terms?

I like your "flawgic".

The ITC considered that the terms were FRAND, which is an opinion, not a fact (because other european countries have ruled otherwise FYI). They thus ruled against Apple and granted Samsung a ban, which is the only real issue many have as they consider a ban should never be granted based on SEP patents. Because they are unavoidable.

So the Obama administration is asked by some to veto the ban. Nothing more, nothing less. It is not about ruling that Apple doesn't have to pay anything, it is ONLY about the ban.

You are refusing to see the complexity of such lawsuit, including the complexity concerning what is FRAND and what is not.

And you are refusing to see how dangerous this ruling could be for consumers. The first ban in history based on a SEP patent which could open the Pandora box and give ideas to some companies trying to monetize their SEP patents.

Reply Parent Score: 2