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 568610
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[10]: Comment by Nelson
by majipoor on Thu 1st Aug 2013 14:34 UTC 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[11]: Comment by Nelson
by Thom_Holwerda on Thu 1st Aug 2013 14:42 in reply to "RE[10]: Comment by Nelson"
Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

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


The burden of proof was on Apple. They failed to prove that the patent was, in fact, a SEP. Hence, it is not a SEP.

If I claim you are a murderer, but I fail to convince the judge that you are a murdered, then you are not a murderer. Very basis stuff that we Dutch learn in elementary school.

I feel like I'm talking to a child.

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


Because those are... Different chips, a different situation, a different time, and so on, and so forth. Stop trying to muddy the waters with irrelevant crap.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[12]: Comment by Nelson
by majipoor on Thu 1st Aug 2013 15:08 in reply to "RE[11]: Comment by Nelson"
majipoor Member since:
2009-01-22

"The burden of proof was on Apple. They failed to prove that the patent was, in fact, a SEP. Hence, it is not a SEP. "

This is ridiculous.

When defining a standard, is it up to the patent holder to declare his patent belong to the standard, in which case it is added into the standard's patent pool.

The problem is that apparently the patent holder do not have to give the exact list of patents involved, which is absurd I would say.

Anyway, Samsung has sued Apple on 3G patents in many countries and they apparently proposed Apple what they considered as FRAND terms for those patents. Why would they enter into FRAND discussion with Apple for non-SEP?

You are a bling hater. I give up at this point: you don't want to understand the complexity of the situation.

Reply Parent Score: 2