or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › US ITC judge rules Apple does not violate Samsung patents
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

US ITC judge rules Apple does not violate Samsung patents

post #1 of 38
Thread Starter 
A judge with the U.S. International Trade Commission ruled on Friday in favor of Apple, finding that the iPhone maker did not infringe on patents owned by rival Samsung.

Apple's iPhone, iPad and iPod touch product lines were cleared of accusations of infringement from Samsung, according to Reuters. Specifically, ITC Judge James Gildea's preliminary ruling found that Apple did not violate four patents owned by Samsung.

The complaint was first filed by Samsung in mid-2011. That filing, like most patent infringement suits, sought to bar the sale of Apple products in the U.S.

Gildea's ruling is only preliminary, however, and the full commission must still make a final determination on the case. The ITC will decide whether to overturn Gildea's ruling at a hearing in January.

The ITC decision is yet another victory for Apple, which won a crucial battle last month when a California jury found that Samsung has infringed upon Apple's patented inventions. The jury had recommended that Apple be awarded $1.05 billion in damages from the South Korean electronics maker.

Though already numerous, the lawsuits between Samsung and Apple may continue to grow. Earlier this week, before the iPhone 5 was even unveiled, The Korea Times issued a report citing "ranking officials" at Samsung who allegedly indicated their company was preparing to sue Apple for infringing upon its 4G LTE patents.
post #2 of 38
F U Sammy!
post #3 of 38
Quote:
Originally Posted by AppleInsider View Post
... Though already numerous, the lawsuits between Samsung and Apple may continue to grow. Earlier this week, before the iPhone 5 was even unveiled, The Korea Times issued a report citing "ranking officials" at Samsung who allegedly indicated their company was preparing to sue Apple for infringing upon its 4G LTE patents.

 

Shouldn't that read ...preparing to sue Qualcomm...?

It is useless for sheep to pass laws outlawing carnivorism when the wolf is of a different mind.
Reply
It is useless for sheep to pass laws outlawing carnivorism when the wolf is of a different mind.
Reply
post #4 of 38

I wonder if Samsung's plans to sue over 4G LTE got derailed by Apple not supporting SVD over LTE in the iPhone 5. Apple may be just waiting for Samsung--or more likely some other entity--to submit their voice-over-LTE patents for FRAND licensing.

post #5 of 38
Wah, wah, wah Samsung.

It's too bad we can't just dink Samsung's mobile division right off the planet for selling junk.
post #6 of 38
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cyberzombie View Post

Shouldn't that read ...preparing to sue Qualcomm...?

The story was that Samsung was to sue Apple. This isn't uncommon. Apple may buy the chips from Qualcomm but that doesn't mean that the IP in the chip, used and licensed by Qualcomm, doesn't also have additional licensing for vendors that use the IP in their products.

This license fee tends to be a percentage of the first sale total retail cost of the completed device. I'm sure Apple has no problem with paying that fee for the first sale total recall cost, but I bet what Apple and Samsung consider to be the first sale cost are very different. It's been reported in the past that Apple buys the completed product from Foxconn. This is the first sale. Then Apple acts a distributor and then sells it with their mark up, thus reducing the license fees considerably.

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply
post #7 of 38

This case is becoming more clear-cut as time goes on. 

 

What would it take for the trolls to realize that Apple is *not* the problem, but *everyone else* that doesn't seem to understand a) how patents work, and b) how not to violate them, and c) how not to abuse them (in the case of FRAND) *is* the problem?

post #8 of 38
Quote:
Originally Posted by drblank View Post

Wah, wah, wah Samsung.
It's too bad we can't just dink Samsung's mobile division right off the planet for selling junk.

 

Funny thing is, it wouldn't really make any difference to anyone. One less OEM flooding the market with a universally-licensed junk-OS . . . can easily be replaced by *another* OEM that will do the exact same thing. 

 

Samsung, HTC, Moto, whatever. 

 

HP, Dell, Lenovo, whatever. 

 

OEM is an OEM is an OEM. 

post #9 of 38
Quote:
Originally Posted by Quadra 610 View Post

Funny thing is, it wouldn't really make any difference to anyone. One less OEM flooding the market with a universally-licensed junk-OS . . . can easily be replaced by *another* OEM that will do the exact same thing. 

Samsung, HTC, Moto, whatever. 

HP, Dell, Lenovo, whatever. 

OEM is an OEM is an OEM. 

I disagree. Most of the others have made at least SOME effort to make phones with a unique appearance. Samsung is by far the worst at making such slavish copies.
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
post #10 of 38

At what point does shame, or failing that, self-esteem kick in?

post #11 of 38
Originally Posted by anantksundaram View Post
At what point does shame, or failing that, self-esteem kick in?

 

Samsung's real innovation seems to have been removing themselves from those old traditions.

Originally Posted by helia

I can break your arm if I apply enough force, but in normal handshaking this won't happen ever.
Reply

Originally Posted by helia

I can break your arm if I apply enough force, but in normal handshaking this won't happen ever.
Reply
post #12 of 38
Apple keeps winning and others keep losing. Isn't that two victories this week alone?

Author of The Fuel Injection Bible

Reply

Author of The Fuel Injection Bible

Reply
post #13 of 38

Time for a song:-

 

 

It seems appropriate somehow.

Better than my Bose, better than my Skullcandy's, listening to Mozart through my LeBron James limited edition PowerBeats by Dre is almost as good as my Sennheisers.
Reply
Better than my Bose, better than my Skullcandy's, listening to Mozart through my LeBron James limited edition PowerBeats by Dre is almost as good as my Sennheisers.
Reply
post #14 of 38
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post


I disagree. Most of the others have made at least SOME effort to make phones with a unique appearance. Samsung is by far the worst at making such slavish copies.

The problem is that Samsung's copying of Apple has made it the only smartphone manufacturer that has remained competitive in the marketplace against Apple. The lesson is that, while you will pay a penalty the penalty is far outweighed by the long term benefit. The risk takers are the losers in this situation.

post #15 of 38
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post


The story was that Samsung was to sue Apple. This isn't uncommon. Apple may buy the chips from Qualcomm but that doesn't mean that the IP in the chip, used and licensed by Qualcomm, doesn't also have additional licensing for vendors that use the IP in their products.
This license fee tends to be a percentage of the first sale total retail cost of the completed device. I'm sure Apple has no problem with paying that fee for the first sale total recall cost, but I bet what Apple and Samsung consider to be the first sale cost are very different. It's been reported in the past that Apple buys the completed product from Foxconn. This is the first sale. Then Apple acts a distributor and then sells it with their mark up, thus reducing the license fees considerably.

 

Didn't it come out in the discovery phase in one of the cases against Apple, that the contracts Motorola and Samsung have with Qualcomm, specifically forbid them from suing Qualcomm's customers over the patents Qualcomm licenses?

 

Hence the attempts by Motorola and Samsung to nullify the license agreements between Apple and Qualcomm.

 

Maybe it was Intel who had those specific paragraphs, there's a lot to remember.

Better than my Bose, better than my Skullcandy's, listening to Mozart through my LeBron James limited edition PowerBeats by Dre is almost as good as my Sennheisers.
Reply
Better than my Bose, better than my Skullcandy's, listening to Mozart through my LeBron James limited edition PowerBeats by Dre is almost as good as my Sennheisers.
Reply
post #16 of 38
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post


 It's been reported in the past that Apple buys the completed product from Foxconn. This is the first sale. Then Apple acts a distributor and then sells it with their mark up, thus reducing the license fees considerably.

 

If that's the case, it's f^cking genius, and man would that burn Samsung. I hope you're right.

 

So Apple works out the component deals and shipping schedules and Foxconn places the orders, assembles and ships and bills Apple per piece? Technically that is the first sale. That is brilliant and a superb way of circumventing any royalty payments based on the retail sale price.  

Why does Apple bashing and trolling make people feel so good?

Reply

Why does Apple bashing and trolling make people feel so good?

Reply
post #17 of 38
Quote:
Originally Posted by drblank View Post

Wah, wah, wah Samsung.
It's too bad we can't just dink Samsung's mobile division right off the planet for selling junk.

 

Junk that doesn't change from one model to the next, they took a Galaxy S 2 added a few pixels to the screen and made it a bit bigger, then called it an S III, their koolaid drinking customers lapped it up.*

 

 

*Post may contain traces of sarcasm, which may be lost on some, please consult a British comedian if suffering from adverse affects.

Better than my Bose, better than my Skullcandy's, listening to Mozart through my LeBron James limited edition PowerBeats by Dre is almost as good as my Sennheisers.
Reply
Better than my Bose, better than my Skullcandy's, listening to Mozart through my LeBron James limited edition PowerBeats by Dre is almost as good as my Sennheisers.
Reply
post #18 of 38
Quote:
Originally Posted by focher View Post

The problem is that Samsung's copying of Apple has made it the only smartphone manufacturer that has remained competitive in the marketplace against Apple. The lesson is that, while you will pay a penalty the penalty is far outweighed by the long term benefit. The risk takers are the losers in this situation.

Of course. But Quadra 610 said "Funny thing is, it wouldn't really make any difference to anyone."

I was simply pointing out that it DOES make a difference. The rest of the industry and, in the end, the consumers would be better off if Samsung gets completely squashed and competitors have to come up with their own technologies.
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
post #19 of 38

 

Quote:

Originally Posted by hill60 View Post

 

Didn't it come out in the discovery phase in one of the cases against Apple, that the contracts Motorola and Samsung have with Qualcomm, specifically forbid them from suing Qualcomm's customers over the patents Qualcomm licenses?

 

Hence the attempts by Motorola and Samsung to nullify the license agreements between Apple and Qualcomm.

 

Maybe it was Intel who had those specific paragraphs, there's a lot to remember.

You are absolutely right.   The court case in california the jury ruled that qualcomm had paid the license fee and due to the contract that qualcomm had with samsung they could not sue any of qualcomms customers that buy there chips, also they found in favor of apple on the double dipping clause as well you cant charge twice for the same patent its against the law, the term is "patent exhaustion".  If this were not the case anyone who makes a product could sue anyone who uses them including people that purchase them for infringing on there patent for not paying them royalties.  Both intel and qualcomm have those in there contracts.

 

 

Here is a good definition of patent exhaustion or doctrine of first sale.

 

The exhaustion doctrine, also referred to as the first sale doctrine, is a common law patent doctrine that limits the extent to which patent holders can control a patented product after an authorized sale. Under the doctrine, once an unrestricted, authorized sale of a patented article occurs, the patent holder’s exclusive rights to control the use and sale of that article are exhausted, and the purchaser is free to use or resell that article without further restraint from patent law.

 

Procedurally, the patent exhaustion doctrine operates as an affirmative defense, shielding authorized purchasers from infringement claims concerning the use or sale of a patented good after the patent owner authorized its sale.

 

In other words they can't charge both qualcomm and the end customer for the patent because the end customer is using a qualcomm product incorporating that patent in there completed end device.  That would be "double dipping".


Edited by Mechanic - 9/14/12 at 4:06pm
post #20 of 38
Quote:
Originally Posted by hill60 View Post

Junk that doesn't change from one model to the next, they took a Galaxy S 2 added a few pixels to the screen and made it a bit bigger, then called it an S III, their koolaid drinking customers lapped it up.*


*Post may contain traces of sarcasm, which may be lost on some, please consult a British comedian if suffering from adverse affects.

British comedians, do you mean this?

https://twitter.com/rickygervais/status/246525518390915072
post #21 of 38
Quote:
Originally Posted by jfanning View Post


British comedians, do you mean this?
https://twitter.com/rickygervais/status/246525518390915072

 

Better than my Bose, better than my Skullcandy's, listening to Mozart through my LeBron James limited edition PowerBeats by Dre is almost as good as my Sennheisers.
Reply
Better than my Bose, better than my Skullcandy's, listening to Mozart through my LeBron James limited edition PowerBeats by Dre is almost as good as my Sennheisers.
Reply
post #22 of 38
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post


... It's been reported in the past that Apple buys the completed product from Foxconn. This is the first sale. Then Apple acts a distributor and then sells it with their mark up, thus reducing the license fees considerably.

So that's why it's not called "the New iPhone". It's pre-owned or used¡


Edited by city - 9/14/12 at 6:35pm
Cubist
Reply
Cubist
Reply
post #23 of 38
Quote:
Originally Posted by focher View Post

The problem is that Samsung's copying of Apple has made it the only smartphone manufacturer that has remained competitive in the marketplace against Apple. The lesson is that, while you will pay a penalty the penalty is far outweighed by the long term benefit. The risk takers are the losers in this situation.

Sadly you're absolutely correct. I don't know what the future holds for the likes of HTC and Motorola. HTC makes nice phones but just don't sell well, and the latest offerings by Moto are utterly disappointing. Though as of late it does seem like Samsung is straying away from copying Apple.
"Few things are harder to put up with than the annoyance of a good example" Mark Twain
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
"Few things are harder to put up with than the annoyance of a good example" Mark Twain
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
post #24 of 38
Quote:
Originally Posted by hill60 View Post

Junk that doesn't change from one model to the next, they took a Galaxy S 2 added a few pixels to the screen and made it a bit bigger, then called it an S III, their koolaid drinking customers lapped it up.*


*Post may contain traces of sarcasm, which may be lost on some, please consult a British comedian if suffering from adverse affects.

Weren't you just defending Apple against people that complained that Apple did just that? Look again the SGS lll looks very little to the SGS ll
"Few things are harder to put up with than the annoyance of a good example" Mark Twain
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
"Few things are harder to put up with than the annoyance of a good example" Mark Twain
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
post #25 of 38
Quote:
Originally Posted by dasanman69 View Post

Look again the SGS lll looks very little to the SGS ll

 

And it's those cosmetic changes to phones that are really important.

post #26 of 38
Quote:
Originally Posted by focher View Post

The problem is that Samsung's copying of Apple has made it the only smartphone manufacturer that has remained competitive in the marketplace against Apple. The lesson is that, while you will pay a penalty the penalty is far outweighed by the long term benefit. The risk takers are the losers in this situation.

 

 

Doesn't seem to make any sense.  A court in Munich recently found that Motorola smartphone infringed on Apple's bouncing-back patent. Now, why isn't Motorola's risk taking paying off?

post #27 of 38
Quote:
Originally Posted by hill60 View Post

 

Junk that doesn't change from one model to the next, they took a Galaxy S 2 added a few pixels to the screen and made it a bit bigger, then called it an S III, their koolaid drinking customers lapped it up.*

 

 

*Post may contain traces of sarcasm, which may be lost on some, please consult a British comedian if suffering from adverse affects.

 

u talking about S3 or iPhone 5? 

post #28 of 38
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mechanic View Post

You are absolutely right.   The court case in california the jury ruled that qualcomm had paid the license fee and due to the contract that qualcomm had with samsung they could not sue any of qualcomms customers that buy there chips, also they found in favor of apple on the double dipping clause as well you cant charge twice for the same patent its against the law, the term is "patent exhaustion".  If this were not the case anyone who makes a product could sue anyone who uses them including people that purchase them for infringing on there patent for not paying them royalties.  Both intel and qualcomm have those in there contracts.

 

 

Here is a good definition of patent exhaustion or doctrine of first sale.

 

The exhaustion doctrine, also referred to as the first sale doctrine, is a common law patent doctrine that limits the extent to which patent holders can control a patented product after an authorized sale. Under the doctrine, once an unrestricted, authorized sale of a patented article occurs, the patent holder’s exclusive rights to control the use and sale of that article are exhausted, and the purchaser is free to use or resell that article without further restraint from patent law.

 

Procedurally, the patent exhaustion doctrine operates as an affirmative defense, shielding authorized purchasers from infringement claims concerning the use or sale of a patented good after the patent owner authorized its sale.

 

In other words they can't charge both qualcomm and the end customer for the patent because the end customer is using a qualcomm product incorporating that patent in there completed end device.  That would be "double dipping".

 

 

Um..  don't think that's what the exhaustion doctrine says.  According to Wiki you just quoted:

 

The exhaustion doctrine, also referred to as the first sale doctrine, is a common law patent doctrine that limits the extent to which patent holders can control a patented product after an authorized sale. Under the doctrine, once an unrestricted, authorized sale of a patented article occurs, the patent holders exclusive rights to control the use and sale of that article are exhausted, and the purchaser is free to use or resell that article without further restraint from patent law. Note, however, that under current law, the patent owner retains the right to exclude purchasers of the articles from making the patented invention anew, unless it is specifically authorized by the patentee.[1]

 

Likewise, Qualcomm's customers are not  covered by default under Samsung's licensing agreement. Qualcomm and Samsung had however signed an agreement not to go after their customers year back. Samsung terminated the agreement when Apple sued Samsung last year. 

post #29 of 38

What's missing from this news item is very important, here's the quote from Engadget :

 

Quote:
While Judge James Gildea didn't publicly outline why Apple was in the clear, he added that Samsung lacks a domestic business that uses the patents -- important when it's trying to claim economic harm in the US.

  

So for all we know, Apple did infringe and should have paid license fees, but the ITC simply states it cannot do anything, not even investigate properly, because Samsung does not have a domestic business so in their definition there can not be any economic harm and thus no sentencing.

 

Sounds very strange to me from a country which projects it's own laws on other countries (see mega upload) and this was also a non issue in the Californian case (I know it's because that was not ITC related).

post #30 of 38
Quote:
Originally Posted by hill60 View Post


Are you sure you understand what sarcasm is?
post #31 of 38
Quote:
Originally Posted by tooltalk View Post

 

 

Um..  don't think that's what the exhaustion doctrine says.  According to Wiki you just quoted:

 

The exhaustion doctrine, also referred to as the first sale doctrine, is a common law patent doctrine that limits the extent to which patent holders can control a patented product after an authorized sale. Under the doctrine, once an unrestricted, authorized sale of a patented article occurs, the patent holders exclusive rights to control the use and sale of that article are exhausted, and the purchaser is free to use or resell that article without further restraint from patent law. Note, however, that under current law, the patent owner retains the right to exclude purchasers of the articles from making the patented invention anew, unless it is specifically authorized by the patentee.[1]

 

Likewise, Qualcomm's customers are not  covered by default under Samsung's licensing agreement. Qualcomm and Samsung had however signed an agreement not to go after their customers year back. Samsung terminated the agreement when Apple sued Samsung last year. 

Apple (the purchaser) hasn't made the patented invention anew. They haven't reversed engineered the chips; they haven't copied them; they haven't manufactured similar devices. They've merely used the physical product they were sold. They haven't "made" anything anew.

post #32 of 38
Quote:
Originally Posted by jfanning View Post


Are you sure you understand what sarcasm is?

 

It's choice, aye bro'.

Better than my Bose, better than my Skullcandy's, listening to Mozart through my LeBron James limited edition PowerBeats by Dre is almost as good as my Sennheisers.
Reply
Better than my Bose, better than my Skullcandy's, listening to Mozart through my LeBron James limited edition PowerBeats by Dre is almost as good as my Sennheisers.
Reply
post #33 of 38
Quote:
Originally Posted by tooltalk View Post


Um..  don't think that's what the exhaustion doctrine says.  According to Wiki you just quoted:

The exhaustion doctrine, also referred to as the first sale doctrine, is a common law patent doctrine that limits the extent to which patent holders can control a patented product after an authorized sale. Under the doctrine, once an unrestricted, authorized sale of a patented article occurs, the patent holders exclusive rights to control the use and sale of that article are exhausted, and the purchaser is free to use or resell that article without further restraint from patent law. Note, however, that under current law, the patent owner retains the right to exclude purchasers of the articles from making the patented invention anew, unless it is specifically authorized by the patentee.[1]

Likewise, Qualcomm's customers are not  covered by default under Samsung's licensing agreement. Qualcomm and Samsung had however signed an agreement not to go after their customers year back. Samsung terminated the agreement when Apple sued Samsung last year. 

I think you are the one misunderstanding the exhaustion doctrine.

Qualcomm licenses the technology and builds a chip which contains that technology. Apple buys the chip and installs it - unmodified - into their phone. Apple does not recreate the technology anew, but rather simply uses the existing device which has already paid for a license. That's a classic example covered by patent exhaustion - as the court already ruled.
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
post #34 of 38
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dickprinter View Post

 

If that's the case, it's f^cking genius, and man would that burn Samsung. I hope you're right.

 

So Apple works out the component deals and shipping schedules and Foxconn places the orders, assembles and ships and bills Apple per piece? Technically that is the first sale. That is brilliant and a superb way of circumventing any royalty payments based on the retail sale price.  

does apple have any frand IP and if so are they happy to allow other firms to use the same techniques. If they do then I can see their point, if not, one could argue that they are being underhanded.

post #35 of 38

But isn't there a Samsung USA (or whatever) that buys the handsets from Samsung mobile and then distributes them? Or are they shipped direct from the far east to 3rd party distributors. or is this just anti competative legislation acting as a market barrier by any other name

post #36 of 38
Quote:
Originally Posted by hungover View Post

But isn't there a Samsung USA (or whatever) that buys the handsets from Samsung mobile and then distributes them? Or are they shipped direct from the far east to 3rd party distributors. or is this just anti competative legislation acting as a market barrier by any other name

That's an entirely different situation.

Apple has no control over Foxconn and they are entirely separate companies. Therefore, an Apple purchase from Foxconn is not the same as a Samsung US purchase from Samsung Mobile.

That said, I'm not sure that an Apple purchase from Foxconn would count as first purchaser. I haven't reviewed the law, but I believe that in that case, Apple would count as a distributor, not a purchaser under the doctrine.
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
post #37 of 38
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post


That's an entirely different situation.
Apple has no control over Foxconn and they are entirely separate companies. Therefore, an Apple purchase from Foxconn is not the same as a Samsung US purchase from Samsung Mobile.
That said, I'm not sure that an Apple purchase from Foxconn would count as first purchaser. I haven't reviewed the law, but I believe that in that case, Apple would count as a distributor, not a purchaser under the doctrine.

Sorry, not quite sure that I understand your reply, I wasn't  referring  to the frand element  in that post,  I was referring to the lack of a domestic entity in the usa

post #38 of 38

Good HTC phone, but it is not selling, and by MOTO's latest product is totally disappointing. After knowing these types of Vintage leather satchel bags for men, you may know which type is the most appropriate cwmalls.com bag for you. If you are going to purchase a Leather double handle briefcase and it is important to search for some information of the bag.


Edited by infoleather - 9/21/12 at 9:18pm
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: General Discussion
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › US ITC judge rules Apple does not violate Samsung patents