Presidential veto in favor of Apple expected to alter future patent litigation strategies
Patent disputes in the U.S. could change significantly, with the International Trade Commission playing a less important role, following a veto from President Barack Obama's administration in the ongoing Apple-Samsung litigation.
A statement accompanying the presidential ruling made over the weekend declared that the ITC should take "public interest" into account in its decisions, which will guide future judgements from the commission. While the ITC has, in the past, been a way for companies to secure a relatively quick injunction against competing products, analyst Maynard Um of Wells Fargo said the commission will likely become less of a venue for companies to gain leverage in patent disputes.
"This weekend's ruling may alter the strategy of some companies and potentially change (or prolong) dispute outcomes if the ITC becomes more constrictive in handing down cease and desist orders," Um wrote in a note to investors provided to AppleInsider on Monday.
The rare ruling handed down over the weekend marks the first time the executive branch has stepped in to veto a decision from the ITC since the late 1980s. The veto will allow Apple to continue selling the iPhone 4 on AT&T.
In addition to altering the larger patent litigation landscape, Um believes the veto will also have implications in the ongoing intellectual property disputes between Samsung and Apple. In particular, he said Samsung will likely have less leverage to negotiate the compensation rates it originally wanted, and the veto could also reduce the perceived value of some patents.
"While this does not devalue patents and patents will still be necessary as a form of offense and defense (particularly those that are standards essential patents), companies may think twice about acquiring portfolios at any cost, given the potentially reduced chance of being awarded a cease and desist order," Um said.
A statement accompanying the presidential ruling made over the weekend declared that the ITC should take "public interest" into account in its decisions, which will guide future judgements from the commission. While the ITC has, in the past, been a way for companies to secure a relatively quick injunction against competing products, analyst Maynard Um of Wells Fargo said the commission will likely become less of a venue for companies to gain leverage in patent disputes.
"This weekend's ruling may alter the strategy of some companies and potentially change (or prolong) dispute outcomes if the ITC becomes more constrictive in handing down cease and desist orders," Um wrote in a note to investors provided to AppleInsider on Monday.
The rare ruling handed down over the weekend marks the first time the executive branch has stepped in to veto a decision from the ITC since the late 1980s. The veto will allow Apple to continue selling the iPhone 4 on AT&T.
In addition to altering the larger patent litigation landscape, Um believes the veto will also have implications in the ongoing intellectual property disputes between Samsung and Apple. In particular, he said Samsung will likely have less leverage to negotiate the compensation rates it originally wanted, and the veto could also reduce the perceived value of some patents.
"While this does not devalue patents and patents will still be necessary as a form of offense and defense (particularly those that are standards essential patents), companies may think twice about acquiring portfolios at any cost, given the potentially reduced chance of being awarded a cease and desist order," Um said.
Comments
"This weekend's ruling may later the strategy of some companies and potentially change (or prolong) dispute outcomes if the ITC becomes more constrictive in handing down cease and desist orders," Um wrote in a note to investors provided to AppleInsider on Monday.
Lob some cash onto a "leader" and poof, all laws go away. Sad.
.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimijon
As much as I bleed in seven colors, having the president veto this is simple wrong.
Lob some cash onto a "leader" and poof, all laws go away. Sad.
If by cash you mean international commerce I get it but there's no evidence anyone has lobbed cash toward any leader. I'm seeing this more like an adult stepping into the room to stop the fight.
Hopefully we'll get some signs that the squabble will be over soon. I know there will be animosity and grudges for a while to come but let's let the fighting end.
So Apple can say No, I don't want to pay what everyone else does for this technology that lets us actually sell a phone as a phone. Then, they get away without paying a dime.
What a scumbag company.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ddawson100
...I wonder what choice Sammie has for next moves.
If you are referring to the '384 patent, then the only obvious move is to actually offer a fair and reasonable licensing deal. On the other hand, if the "infringing" devices get EOL'ed with the new refresh, then I guess it'll be a moot point.
Standard MO, for any company. Apple doesn't really contribute much; last year was a mere 4M:
Apple on pace to double lobbying spending on taxes, other issues
"Even should Apple double its lobbying to $4 million in 2013, its spending is nowhere near that of other tech giants. Four million would put Apple at about the level that Facebook spent last year. By comparison, Oracle spent more than 50 percent more than that, while Microsoft spent twice that amount. The largest tech lobbying spender in 2012 was Google, which spent $18.2 million lobbying Washington."
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rob55
If you are referring to the '384 patent, then the only obvious move is to actually offer a fair and reasonable licensing deal. On the other hand, if the "infringing" devices get EOL'ed with the new refresh, then I guess it'll be a moot point.
I am talking about the court strategy in general but yeah, both of these issues in particular. It wouldn't be moot entirely would they? I don't know how it works but I assume that even if the models in question aren't sold any longer, they would still be fair game in eventually determining fees. That seems fair although I have no idea how the law works in this case.
Quote:
Originally Posted by harharhar
So Apple can say No, I don't want to pay what everyone else does for this technology that lets us actually sell a phone as a phone. Then, they get away without paying a dime.
What a scumbag company.
Maybe you should catch up with the facts before calling anyone a scumbag. Samesung making a verbal offer to license the '384 patent with the added requirement that Apple license some of their non-essential patents does not equate to a fair and reasonable offer. Apple made a clear and reasonable offer but Samesung refused. So, if Samesung doesn't get a dime, it'll be their own fault.
It's not as simple as that. The component manufacturer already paid Samsung the license fee so Apple shouldn't really have to.
Samsung expected Apple to pay fee of 2.7% on the full iPhone/iPad price for a single patent. Note, that the 3G standard includes almost 8,000 patents. Obviously, Apple had all the other patents covered except this one. Expert's opinion is that Samsung's share in the UTMS patents is 0.000375%, but they expect 2.7% out of the full device price. Note, that an iPhone is not just a 3G communications chip.
So, you expect the president to tolerate, even more, reward the extreme greed of a Korean company at the expense of an American one? Great.
It has always been that way and will always be that way. Though the point about SEP and non-SEPs is more of what this veto is about than all patents in general and the fair and non-discriminatory licensing that goes with the SEPs.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ddawson100
I am talking about the court strategy in general but yeah, both of these issues in particular. It wouldn't be moot entirely would they? I don't know how it works but I assume that even if the models in question aren't sold any longer, they would still be fair game in eventually determining fees. That seems fair although I have no idea how the law works in this case.
I'm certainly no expert either, but I imagine Samesung may be due some royalties if it is decided that Apple didn't already pay licensing when they bought the chips from Infineon. Also, as is clearly evident in the Teksler-Kim letter from April 30th of last year, Apple was more than willing to license the patent on FRAND terms, but Samesung flatly refused. They later made a verbal offer that Apple then had no choice but to refuse as it was obviously unfair and discriminatory.
The point is that they wanted Apple to pay several times more than what everyone else was paying.
Just do everyone a favor and seek out Philip Elmer DeWitt's story from this morning, which goes into careful detail about the reality of what has happened.
Rely on "notes" passed to a rumor site by analysts attempting to manipulate Apple's stock price up or down and you'll miss the truth by a country mile every time.
http://appleinsider.com/articles/13/08/05/samsungs-vetoed-push-for-an-itc-ban-against-apple-inc-in-pictures
Quote:
Originally Posted by iSteelers
The point is that they wanted Apple to pay several times more than what everyone else was paying.
And they wouldn't even disclose any evidence to support the exorbitant rates they are trying to get out of Apple.
The reason Samsung got away with the ITC ban for a minor part of the 3G patent is because most people refuse to read and attempt to understand what Samsung was trying to do. This obviously included the majority of the ITC judges (I use that term loosely). If the people who posted above would have read Daniel's earlier article, they would have had a much better understanding of what was going on. Samsung was trying to kill Apple in the court of public opinion. They had nothing to sue Apple over but it was easier to take them to the ITC (monkey) court and let all the anti-Apple media sites crucify them for doing things they weren't doing than to go to a legitimate court let all the facts be presented. (Even this tactic didn't work when the equally bogus DOJ would not accept Apple testimony, making their judgment basis on their own opinions of what happened in the eBook trial).
All of you who blindly feel everything Apple does is wrong need to take responsibility for your actions and understand what's going on before you spout out garbage you know nothing about. (This is not directed at capasicum, Solomon, or Rob55 who obviously know how to read.)
Hopefully, the Obama administration will begin an investigation of the ITC (and DOJ) to determine how these supposed judges came up with the obviously tainted decisions they did. Something is going on behind the scenes that needs to be investigated because the law is not being address properly.