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.
E-mail Print r 6   · Read More · 49 Comment(s)
Thread beginning with comment 568670
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[10]: Comment by Nelson
by Tony Swash on Thu 1st Aug 2013 23:17 UTC in reply to "RE[9]: Comment by Nelson"
Tony Swash
Member since:

"Essentially no charging more than other people pay and no using the SEP patents to strong arm other companies into cross licensing if they happen to have desirable IP.

Except, as the ITC has noted in this ruling, asking for cross-licensing is perfectly possible within FRAND - no matter how many times you say it isn't. It has been the standard practice in this industry for a long time, and Apple, as a newcomer, should have just accepted that. It would, in fact, have been *discriminatory* of Samsung to somehow not ask that of Apple, while they have been asking that of others.

You didn't address my question though, but then, that's nothing new. So, I ask you again: what if perfectly fine FRAND terms are offered, but the potential licensee refuses to accept them but uses the technology anyway (as Apple has done here)? Should companies then just bend over and take it, and not do anything? Or, should FRAND patents be freely available for everyone, at no cost, as Apple seems to think they are?

Why don't you want to answer that question?

I thought I had. Companies should pay the generally acceptable going rate for FRAND patents and not use them without paying unless unacceptable rates have been demanded in which case they should refuse and seek legal redress. When Apple entered into a cross patent agreement with both HTC and Microsoft both parties agreed not to copy each other’s products. I suspect it's something like that which is what prevented a similar agreement with Samsung, can you imagine Samsung agreeing not to copy Apple products?

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[11]: Comment by Nelson
by Thom_Holwerda on Fri 2nd Aug 2013 07:23 in reply to "RE[10]: Comment by Nelson"
Thom_Holwerda Member since:

I thought I had.

No, you haven't, and you still haven't. You skirt around the issue so I'm going to try one more time.

If Samsung offered FRAND terms (ITC says they did), but Apple refused them (ITC says they did), yet continued to use the technology in question (as the ITC says they did) without paying (as the ITC says they did), should Samsung then not be allowed to sue Apple? Or should SEPs be free for the taking, without legal consequence?

A simple yes or no will suffice.

Edited 2013-08-02 07:24 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 4

RE[12]: Comment by Nelson
by MOS6510 on Fri 2nd Aug 2013 09:29 in reply to "RE[11]: Comment by Nelson"
MOS6510 Member since:

Earlier you wrote:

"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?"

Is or isn't it about SEP? A simple yes or no will do.

Reply Parent Score: 1