or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPhone › ITC calls for import ban against Samsung, rejects Google's flip-flop arguments
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

ITC calls for import ban against Samsung, rejects Google's flip-flop arguments

post #1 of 58
Thread Starter 
The US International Trade Commission's Office of Unfair Import Investigations (OUII) has recommended an import ban against Samsung's Android devices infringing upon four Apple patents, rejecting contradictory, flawed arguments by Google.

ITC brief


A report by Florian Mueller of FOSS Patents details the recommendation, which will be next considered by the ITC's six member Commission before a ban is put into place.

Particularly notable in the ITC's staff recommendation brief is the fact that arguments by Google in support of Samsung were summarily rejected as legally incorrect, disingenuous and contradictory.

ITC destroys Google's "public interest" arguments



Google's arguments against an ITC import ban on infringing Samsung devices maintained that such action would not advance the public interest; that Apple's patents were not really 'inventive' and easy to work around; that market competition would be harmed; and that such a ban would be an "extraordinary remedy" for patent infringement.

The ITC found Google's arguments to be legally incorrect, biased and contradictory. While Google portrayed itself to the ITC as a neutral party offering a "friend of the court" perspective, the group referred to Google in the brief as a "non party," fully recognizing why Google has involved itself in the case surrounding its own Android licensee.

The staff also targeted the legal fallacy of Google's "public interest" argument, writing, "With respect to non-party Google's arguments, OUII first notes that the question is not whether an exclusion order would 'advance' the public interest (see Google Comments at 1); rather, the statute states that the Commission 'shall' issue an exclusion order 'unless' the public interest dictates otherwise. 19 U.S.C. ? 1337(d)(1)."

As Mueller explains, the ITC is charged with protecting intellectual property and the rule of law, and while its power to ban infringing imports can be challenged by a significant "public interest" argument against doing so, that's a "reasonable hurdle to overcome."

Google's argument, the ITC states, has the law backward. By arguing that a ban must "advance the public interest," (and claiming that it wouldn't in this case), Google hoped to shift the burden of proof around.

"The ITC staff apparently doesn't like this distortion of the statute," Mueller noted.



Google's workaround and competitive arguments also found invalid



The second element of Google's arguments was even more strongly dismantled by the ITC staff, which wrote:

"Moreover, Google's contention that the patents are not 'inventive' and are easily designed around, even if true, actually shows the lack of impact on the public interest ? once Samsung designs around the patents, then its products will no longer be subject to exclusion."

Mueller cited a recent ruling by Chief Judge Rader, who wrote, "If indeed [the defendant in that case] had a non-infringing alternative which it could easily deliver to the market, then the balance of hardships would suggest that [it] should halt infringement and pursue a lawful course of market conduct."

With regards to limitations on competition, the ITC stated:

"Finally, Google's arguments concerning the lack of competition in the marketplace (see Google Comments at 3-4) are contradicted by both the publicly-available information cited above and the Commission's findings in other recent investigations involving similar products."

The brief concludes, "Thus, OUII does not believe that the public interest precludes issuance of its proposed remedies in this investigation."

Google displays egregious hypocrisy in arguing both sides of patent cases



Google's arguments against the enforcement of Apple's patents are not just flawed, but grossly hypocritical. When arguing on behalf of its subsidiary Motorola, Google's attorneys argue the exact opposite position.

As early noted, again by Mueller, Google not only argues both sides of the law with regard to Android, but even filed contradictory policy statements on intellectual property and the role of the proper role of the ITC on the same day.

"This may have been the first time in the history of United States International Trade Commission that the same party, on the same day, submitted an anti-IP/weak-ITC policy statement and a pro-IP/strong-ITC one," Mueller observed."This may have been the first time in the history of United States International Trade Commission that the same party, on the same day, submitted an anti-IP/weak-ITC policy statement and a pro-IP/strong-ITC one."

He juxtaposed Google's pro-IP arguments against Apple and and its anti-patent arguments in favor of Android, which included a pleading in favor of a Samsung ban on Apple products related to a FRAND licensing dispute:

"? a rule that would allow it to continue to import infringing products with impunity would undermine [...] the statutory mandate of the ITC," Google's attorneys wrote.

"It would, in short, allow infringers to cause the exact harm on domestic industry and United States consumers that Congress intended the Commission to prevent."

So much for the "public interest" in ignoring intellectual property, at least when it concerns Apple's. An in this case, Google was arguing for import bans on FRAND patents while arguing against the enforcement of Apple's, which are not under FRAND terms.

Globally, courts have generally rejected sales bans on FRAND patents, apart from the ITC's recent, controversial decision to ban certain older iOS devices based on Samsung's FRAND patent claims asserted on Infineon chips, which have already paid to license Samsung's FRAND patents in a case where Samsung argues for more money from Apple regardless).

Google digs deeper into the hypocrite bucket



Directly contradicting its own "public interest" argument against Apple's patents, Google's attorneys wrote, in support of Samsung's efforts to ban Apple products over FRAND claims:

"The 'public interest' exception to the statute has historically been narrowly and rarely applied, reflecting the proper balance between the public?s interest in competition from imported goods and the enforcement of patent rights, which has furthered technological advancement in the nation."While Google claims Apple's efforts to obtain an import ban over Samsung's infringements are "extraordinary," it uses the opposite word to describe Samsung's efforts to ban Apple's products.

And while Google claims Apple's efforts to obtain an import ban over Samsung's infringements are "extraordinary," it uses the opposite word to describe Samsung's efforts to ban Apple's products:

"Where [...] the Commission has found a violation of Section 337, the ordinary presumption in favor of issuance of an exclusion order should apply," Google wrote in favor of Samsung.

"Congress intended injunctive relief to be the normal remedy for a Section 337 violation and that a showing of irreparable harm is not required to receive such injunctive relief," it later added. [emphasis added]

Waiting for finality



The ITC staff's dismantling of Google's input in the Samsung case doesn't necessarily mean that the Commission will enact an import ban of infringing Samsung devices, and Mueller details a series of issues that would affect the potential scope of the ITC's final decision.

"I'm sure there will be at least some infringement finding(s)," Mueller wrote, adding that "the question is just how many of the four patents the judge found infringed will ultimately be deemed valid and infringed."

If a ban is enacted, Samsung will be required to post a substantial bond equal to 58 percent (recommended by the ITC staff) or up to 88 percent (recommended earlier by Judge Pender) of its relevant US smartphone sales during the presidential review period.
post #2 of 58
Has Google tried to buy out the ITC yet? 1wink.gif#Waze
Edited by John.B - 6/13/13 at 12:15pm

   Apple develops an improved programming language.  Google copied Java.  Everything you need to know, right there.

 

    AT&T believes their LTE coverage is adequate

Reply

   Apple develops an improved programming language.  Google copied Java.  Everything you need to know, right there.

 

    AT&T believes their LTE coverage is adequate

Reply
post #3 of 58
ITC, you just keep bemusing me. Both ways, good and bad.
post #4 of 58
I'm surprised AI would bother with the staff opinion as tho it's somehow binding. They are simply another third party offering their viewpoint. Further, if the ITC judge accepted the staff recommendation in it's entirety if would be a much more narrow victory for Apple than what the ITC preliminary ruling already offers. In other words the staff disagrees with some of the ITC's pro-Apple rulings to this point. It would be in Apple's better interests for the staff opinions not to be adopted.

It was pretty much just a typical anti-Google article from Mueller as far as his opinion. The facts he chose to include are correct of course as they normally are, and I'd agree with him that an import ban is more likely than not.
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #5 of 58
So which is going to be more important? The U.S. ITC ruling to ban certain older iOS devices for infringing on Samsung patents or the U.S. ITC ruling now banning Samsung devices for infringing on four Apple patents?
post #6 of 58
Quote:
Originally Posted by John.B View Post

Has Google tried to buy out the ITC yet? 1wink.gif#Waze

 

No, but they're working on their own version. It'll be free for anyone to use, but there'll be ads, obviously.

post #7 of 58
Just let me know when this leads to an enforceable ban and monetary damages on patent-infringing Samsung.

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply
post #8 of 58
Quote:
Originally Posted by SpamSandwich View Post

Just let me know when this leads to an enforceable ban and monetary damages on patent-infringing Samsung.

It can't lead to monetary damages. That would be a cure in civil court not the ITC.
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #9 of 58

I won't believe all this crap until any money is actually exchanged or device actually banned.

post #10 of 58
ITC to Google:
....................../´¯/)
....................,/¯../
.................../..../
............./´¯/'...'/´¯¯`·¸
........../'/.../..../......./¨¯\
........('(...´...´.... ¯~/'...')
.........\.................'...../
..........''...\.......... _.·´
............\..............(
..............\.............\...
post #11 of 58
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

I'm surprised AI would bother with the staff opinion as tho it's somehow binding. They are simply another third party offering their viewpoint. Further, if the ITC judge accepted the staff recommendation in it's entirety if would be a much more narrow victory for Apple than what the ITC preliminary ruling already offers. In other words the staff disagrees with some of the ITC's pro-Apple rulings to this point. It would be in Apple's better interests for the staff opinions not to be adopted.

It was pretty much just a typical anti-Google article from Mueller as far as his opinion. The facts he chose to include are correct of course as they normally are, and I'd agree with him that an import ban is more likely than not.

 

There you go again, bashing Mueller when argues against your paymasters, citing him when he argues in their favor. Make up your mind, is he a trusted neutral authority, or a hopelessly biased partisan?

 

As for the article pointing out the rank hypocrisy of Google, well, that's why they wrote it, and Google deserves to have its hypocrisy held up for the world to see. If that makes you uncomfortable, find another job.

post #12 of 58

Lawyers talking out of both sides of their mouths?!  Now I've heard it all!

post #13 of 58
Quote:
Originally Posted by AppleInsider View Post
..... arguments by Google in support of Samsung were summarily rejected as legally incorrect, disingenuous and contradictory.

Ouch. Just one of those three would have been enough.... lol.gif

post #14 of 58
Quote:
Originally Posted by AppleInsider View Post

If a ban is enacted, Samsung will be required to post a substantial bond equal to 58 percent (recommended by the ITC staff) or up to 88 percent (recommended earlier by Judge Pender) of its relevant US smartphone sales during the presidential review period.

Even if it is 1%, finally, we'll finally get the truth on their actual sales.....

post #15 of 58
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

I'm surprised AI would bother with the staff opinion as tho it's somehow binding. They are simply another third party offering their viewpoint. Further, if the ITC judge accepted the staff recommendation in it's entirety if would be a much more narrow victory for Apple than what the ITC preliminary ruling already offers. In other words the staff disagrees with some of the ITC's pro-Apple rulings to this point. It would be in Apple's better interests for the staff opinions not to be adopted.

It was pretty much just a typical anti-Google article from Mueller as far as his opinion. The facts he chose to include are correct of course as they normally are, and I'd agree with him that an import ban is more likely than not.

The point of the article was to highlight Google's hypocrisy - arguing that a ban would be extraordinary when it's applied against Samsung, but the ordinary course of affairs when applied against Apple. The article highlights more of Google's hypocrisy.
"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 #16 of 58
Quote:
Originally Posted by anantksundaram View Post

Even if it is 1%, finally, we'll finally get the truth on their actual sales.....

 

Not sure if that's even possible. They could be faking all kinds of data.

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply
post #17 of 58

Mueller's phone of choice runs Android, so don't try and paint him as an Apple fanboy.  For those who read his blog, his posts go into EXTREME detail (and length) about virtually every patent-related topic he choses to comment on, and to my mind, he seems very fair-minded.  You don't have to search his site too far to find opinions that castigate Apple.

post #18 of 58
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

I'm surprised AI would bother with the staff opinion as tho it's somehow binding. They are simply another third party offering their viewpoint. Further, if the ITC judge accepted the staff recommendation in it's entirety if would be a much more narrow victory for Apple than what the ITC preliminary ruling already offers. In other words the staff disagrees with some of the ITC's pro-Apple rulings to this point. It would be in Apple's better interests for the staff opinions not to be adopted.

It was pretty much just a typical anti-Google article from Mueller as far as his opinion. The facts he chose to include are correct of course as they normally are, and I'd agree with him that an import ban is more likely than not.

 

Isn't it round about now when you try to convince folk that Google isn't suing anyone, by insisting that Motorola is somehow a completely separate company and not attached to Google at all?

post #19 of 58
Quote:
Originally Posted by anantksundaram View Post

Ouch. Just one of those three would have been enough.... lol.gif

 

Those seem like an awfully large amount of letters to spell "bullshit".

Android: pitting every phone company in the world against one, getting a higher number, and considering it a major achievement.
Reply
Android: pitting every phone company in the world against one, getting a higher number, and considering it a major achievement.
Reply
post #20 of 58
@coffeetime
But not a single Mueller article with a favorable Google comment in his entire FossPatents history. Ever. For anything. Not that being paid by both MS and Oracle would have anything to do with that.

I'll agree the facts he chooses are usually correct tho. That's why I make him a daily read.
Edited by Gatorguy - 6/13/13 at 2:42pm
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #21 of 58
The "Transform SPH-M920" mentioned in the doc is a phone from 2010 running android 2.1... What a waste of time and legal fees...
post #22 of 58
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rayz View Post

Isn't it round about now when you try to convince folk that Google isn't suing anyone, by insisting that Motorola is somehow a completely separate company and not attached to Google at all?

Of course they're a separate company... and also owned by Google. I'm guessing you were making a point? Moto hasn't started any new IP lawsuits either since Google purchased them. With that said Motorola operates separately according to statements. That's not unusual is it?
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #23 of 58

I love it when hypocrisy get eviscerated.

post #24 of 58
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

But not a single one favorable to Google or Android in his entire FossPatents history. Ever. For anything. Not that being paid by both MS and Oracle would have anything to do with that.

I'll agree the facts he chooses are usually correct tho. That's why I make him a daily read.

 

Translation of above quote:
I just wish he weren't so objective in his coverage of Google or Android. He could throw us a bone occasionally. He won't even accept payments from Google for favorable coverage.

I'll quote him whenever I like what he says, but I'll bash him whenever he writes honestly about Google or Samsung. I, or my staff, read him every day in case there's something we can use in our propaganda efforts, or some truth we need to counter.
post #25 of 58
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post



Of course they're a separate company... and also owned by Google. I'm guessing you were making a point? Moto hasn't started any new IP lawsuits either since Google purchased them. With that said Motorola operates separately according to statements. That's not unusual is it?

 

lol.gif

post #26 of 58
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

I'm surprised AI would bother with the staff opinion as tho it's somehow binding. They are simply another third party offering their viewpoint. Further, if the ITC judge accepted the staff recommendation in it's entirety if would be a much more narrow victory for Apple than what the ITC preliminary ruling already offers. In other words the staff disagrees with some of the ITC's pro-Apple rulings to this point. It would be in Apple's better interests for the staff opinions not to be adopted.

It was pretty much just a typical anti-Google article from Mueller as far as his opinion. The facts he chose to include are correct of course as they normally are, and I'd agree with him that an import ban is more likely than not.

Do you get paid to spread your misinformation and phony pro-Google propaganda Gatorguy?

 

Facts speak for themselves. Google is a lying hypocrite about IP. Trying to demonize Mueller for spelling out the facts just makes it evident you have no respect for the truth.

 

You, unlike Mueller, never add anything to the discussion but noise, fallacy and distractions away from the truth. You are consistently terrible.  

post #27 of 58
Quote:
Originally Posted by Corrections View Post

Do you get paid to spread your misinformation and phony pro-Google propaganda Gatorguy?

Facts speak for themselves. Google is a lying hypocrite about IP. Trying to demonize Mueller for spelling out the facts just makes it evident you have no respect for the truth.

You, unlike Mueller, never add anything to the discussion but noise, fallacy and distractions away from the truth. You are consistently terrible.  

Consider Gatorguy corrected!

(And right out in public in front of everybody! How embarrassing!)
Android: pitting every phone company in the world against one, getting a higher number, and considering it a major achievement.
Reply
Android: pitting every phone company in the world against one, getting a higher number, and considering it a major achievement.
Reply
post #28 of 58
Having Daniel/Corrections call me out is akin to a big thumbs up. :-)

As for which of us gets paid for what we write I'm pretty sure Daniel doesn't do it for free.
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #29 of 58
Not when that thumb goes right up your ass.

And to think they used to say that there was always time for lube!
Android: pitting every phone company in the world against one, getting a higher number, and considering it a major achievement.
Reply
Android: pitting every phone company in the world against one, getting a higher number, and considering it a major achievement.
Reply
post #30 of 58
Quote:
Originally Posted by GTR View Post

Not when that thumb goes right up your ass

Witty!! And only a few minutes to come up with it too. A fine show of intellect so well done sir.
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #31 of 58
Quote:
Originally Posted by Corrections View Post

Do you get paid to spread your misinformation and phony pro-Google propaganda Gatorguy?

Facts speak for themselves. Google is a lying hypocrite about IP. Trying to demonize Mueller for spelling out the facts just makes it evident you have no respect for the truth.

You, unlike Mueller, never add anything to the discussion but noise, fallacy and distractions away from the truth. You are consistently terrible.  

Yes, he's consistently terrible, but at least he doesn't deny that he's ignorant on technology issues (see my signature).
"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 #32 of 58
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post

Yes, he's consistently terrible, but at least he doesn't deny that he's ignorant on technology issues (see my signature).

Well hey Joe. You've been uncharacteristically quiet lately. I almost missed you.
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #33 of 58
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

Having Daniel/Corrections call me out is akin to a big thumbs up. :-)

As for which of us gets paid for what we write I'm pretty sure Daniel doesn't do it for free.

The difference is that he usually knows what he's talking about. You simply google, cut, paste.
post #34 of 58
Quote:
Originally Posted by anantksundaram View Post

The difference is that he usually knows what he's talking about. You simply google, cut, paste.

Just be sure to let me know when I'm wrong and "correct" it. I'm sure you won't let me down when it happens.
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #35 of 58
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post


Just be sure to let me know when I'm wrong and "correct" it. I'm sure you won't let me down when it happens.

Nah. It's too much work. Life's too short to keep track of junk like that.
post #36 of 58
Quote:
Originally Posted by anantksundaram View Post

Nah. It's too much work. Life's too short to keep track of junk like that.

I don't think he meant all his wrongs lol.gif
"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 #37 of 58
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post


Just be sure to let me know when I'm wrong and "correct" it. I'm sure you won't let me down when it happens.

 

Funny stuff, GG, no one can even keep track of how many times you've been called out for posting blatantly false information. Then there's always the furious spin to deny that you ever said what you said. You've got chutzpah, I'll give you that, to pretend like you've never been "corrected".

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by anantksundaram View Post


Nah. It's too much work. Life's too short to keep track of junk like that.

 

It would be a full time job to keep up with and contradict all his nonsense. After all, it's a full time job for him to post it.

 

Of course, his most consistent hypocrisy, over time, is his current signature, which is clearly meant as a personal attack.

post #38 of 58
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post

Yes, he's consistently terrible, but at least he doesn't deny that he's ignorant on technology issues (see my signature).

In all fairness regarding Gatorguy's statement, no one else has been able to make a stable and secure version of Android.
post #39 of 58

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

Witty!! And only a few minutes to come up with it too. A fine show of intellect so well done sir.

 

My use of wit

Could be reduced quite a bit,

If only you'd

Stop posting shit.

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by MacBook Pro View Post

...no one else has been able to make a stable and secure version of Android.

 

Not necessarily true.

 

This guy's hard at work making one now.

 

Android: pitting every phone company in the world against one, getting a higher number, and considering it a major achievement.
Reply
Android: pitting every phone company in the world against one, getting a higher number, and considering it a major achievement.
Reply
post #40 of 58
Double Post
Edited by GTR - 6/14/13 at 1:05pm
Android: pitting every phone company in the world against one, getting a higher number, and considering it a major achievement.
Reply
Android: pitting every phone company in the world against one, getting a higher number, and considering it a major achievement.
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: iPhone
  • ITC calls for import ban against Samsung, rejects Google's flip-flop arguments
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPhone › ITC calls for import ban against Samsung, rejects Google's flip-flop arguments