or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPhone › Microsoft, Intel, Oracle & AT&T come to Apple's defense in looming iPhone 4 ban
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Microsoft, Intel, Oracle & AT&T come to Apple's defense in looming iPhone 4 ban

post #1 of 36
Thread Starter 
High stakes in an impending iPhone 4 ban by the International Trade Commission have created some unlikely bedfellows, with a trade group representing Microsoft coming to the defense of rival Apple.

ITC


Microsoft is part of BSA, which also represents Oracle and Intel. The group has argued that the use of standard-essential patents to ban products should not be allowed, except under unusual circumstances, The Wall Street Journal reported on Monday.

Those companies are also joined by AT&T, which was cited in Apple's legal papers as saying that the ITC's ban, set to go into effect Aug. 4, is "inconsistent with the president's goal of ubiquitous broadband deployment."

Verizon also appealed to President Barack Obama in an open letter last week, asking the administration to intervene in Apple v. Samsung and prevent the looming ban. Verizon's support comes in spite of the fact that the ban will only affect the iPhone 4 variant that runs on AT&T and T-Mobile networks.

The president has not intervened in an ITC ban since 1987, but the ruling against Apple has a number of officials calling for something to be done. Monday's report cited people familiar with the matter saying that antitrust officials from the Justice Department and the Federal Trade Commission are also weighing in on the ruling.

U.S. Trade Representative Michael Froman is also "conducting a careful and balanced review process of the ITC decision," the agency said in a statement.

Apple believes that Samsung shouldn't be able to block iPhone or iPad sales because the company isn't licensing its standard essential patents under fair, reasonable and nondiscriminatory terms, or FRAND. The iPhone maker has argued that a product ban could give Samsung the clout to extract high patent royalties from rival companies.

The ITC ruled in June that the AT&T versions of Apple's iPhone 4, iPhone 3GS and iPhone 3G all infringe on patents owned by Samsung, and that the devices must be banned from sale by early August. Apple has filed a stay in opposition, arguing the ban would "sweep away an entire segment of Apple's product offerings" and negatively impact its carrier partners.
post #2 of 36
the root of all evil is found in lawyers!

TechnoMinds

We are a Montreal based technology company that offers a variety of tech services such as tech support for Apple products, Drupal based website development, computer training and iCloud...

Reply

TechnoMinds

We are a Montreal based technology company that offers a variety of tech services such as tech support for Apple products, Drupal based website development, computer training and iCloud...

Reply
post #3 of 36
Talk about your four horsemen...

Ten years ago, we had Steve Jobs, Bob Hope and Johnny Cash.  Today we have no Jobs, no Hope and no Cash.

Reply

Ten years ago, we had Steve Jobs, Bob Hope and Johnny Cash.  Today we have no Jobs, no Hope and no Cash.

Reply
post #4 of 36
"could give Samsung the _cloud_ to extract high patent royalties"

lol
"There's no chance that the iPhone is going to get any significant market share. No chance" - Steve Ballmer
Reply
"There's no chance that the iPhone is going to get any significant market share. No chance" - Steve Ballmer
Reply
post #5 of 36

Easy to fix the whole mess.  When something is licensed under FRAND, it should be decided up front the royalty fee and trigger point where the royalty is due.  No more arguing after that.
 

post #6 of 36
Quote:
Originally Posted by techno View Post

the root of all evil is found in lawyers!

How?

post #7 of 36
That judge should be put to trial and be banned for life. He is an idiot.
post #8 of 36

That ban would make a horrible example indeed.  That thing needs to be block.

That being said, I hope that Apple will paid its FRAND to Samsung at some point, The amount should be set by a third party imo.

post #9 of 36
I dont think Apple's bothered if the iphone 4 were banned.
It's 2 generations behind, and quite frankly it wouldn't matter.
5S is almost out in a few months, by when iphone 4 would have been history.
post #10 of 36
I love how people hate on Apple for protecting their IP, but Samesung gets a pass every time for going after standards based patents. Who's the evil one here?

People need to remove their hypocritical glasses and start asking themselves why its suddenly cool to support a S. Korean company over one right here in the US that is only trying to make sure people don't blatantly copy their products.

I realize product is made overseas, but all the real work is done here in the US. People in this country should be supporting Apple whether they buy the product or not. I don't see a lot of people from other countries hating on Apple like our own. Sad.
post #11 of 36

A lawyer i worked with told me this - "its in the best interest of the law firm to tell the client how a case may end up - but if a client has principals then they have to PAY for those principals!"

 

and with Verizon, att and microsoft etc, that brings  a WHOLE new meaning to "the enemy of my enemy is my friend!" ?!?

post #12 of 36
Quote:
Originally Posted by jameskatt2 View Post

That judge should be put to trial and be banned for life. He is an idiot.

 

When judges ban Samsung products they are geniuses who know the law. When they ban Apple products they are idiots? Care to tell us what the actual legal error was in his ruling.
post #13 of 36
So the Americans, namely Google and Microsoft as well as Verizon and AT&T ( because they dont want the market be totally controlled by Apple ) Brought Samsung to their Home turf, Helped it and make it big. Then all of a sudden the same company who brought him in also fight against the FRAND case with Apple.

Another Great Example NO FRIENDS, NO ENEMIES, JUST INTERESTS.

And since an Cheaper iPhone coming out, like what other have said i dont think Apple would be bothered at all.
post #14 of 36
Interesting, aren't these the combined owners of the Nortel LTE patent portfolio? Samsung is playing with fire.
post #15 of 36
that may explain why Apple is going to sell low cost iPhone 5C to avoid that legal issue?
post #16 of 36
Quote:
Originally Posted by nikilok View Post

I dont think Apple's bothered if the iphone 4 were banned.
It's 2 generations behind, and quite frankly it wouldn't matter.
5S is almost out in a few months, by when iPhone 4 would have been history.

Of course it matters. Age has nothing to do with it. If a ruling is totally wrong, it's totally wrong.

And, completely separate from the primary issue at hand, if Apple decides it's "okay" that an old model is banned and nothing else, then Samsung gets away with having their old, useless models banned and nothing else, too.

EDIT: Why the heck does everyone seem okay with this? "They're not selling it anymore, therefore it's fine" is the opposite of what we should be saying.
Edited by Tallest Skil - 7/29/13 at 8:00am

Originally posted by Relic

...those little naked weirdos are going to get me investigated.
Reply

Originally posted by Relic

...those little naked weirdos are going to get me investigated.
Reply
post #17 of 36

All is fair in business.  Apple won't be selling the iPhone 4 after September's iPhone refresh anyway.  

post #18 of 36

Whose government is this!?

post #19 of 36
Quote:
Originally Posted by jtaylor13 View Post

If apple had a clue they would adapt to the new phone/tablet world.
 

 

TROOOLLLLLLLL  !!!!!!

 

That is a funny statement since Apple pretty much invented both markets. omg I just bited.  Granted competition did "innovate" into bigger screens.  I fail to see anything else they did. Its like everyone is waiting on Apple next move to clone them again.

 

imo Apple will move into payments this year, with a combination of fingerprints and NFC all in association with a major player in payments. Then all the other smartphones will add fingerprints and try to compete. then pundits will scream on rooftops Apple didnt invent fingerprints on smartphone or NFC payments, bla bla bla.

 

imo same will go for the game console market. Apple will move in with hardware based on mobile chips, resultings in cheaper to make game console, more games at a lower price.  Then the market will clone them and a few years later pundits will say apple didnt innovate or invented anything.


Edited by herbapou - 7/29/13 at 9:00am
post #20 of 36
Quote:
Originally Posted by jtaylor13 View Post

Android beats apple in every way.

It's not surprising that you have nothing intelligent to say when you can't tell the difference between an operating system and a multibillion dollar company.

Or, since you didn't capitalize "Apple", maybe you can't tell the difference between an operating system and a red fruit.

Crawl back in your hole.
"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 #21 of 36
Quote:
Originally Posted by AppleInsider View Post

Microsoft is part of BSA, which also represents Oracle and Intel. The group has argued that the use of standard-essential patents to ban products should not be allowed, except under unusual circumstancesThe Wall Street Journal reported on Monday.

 

The WSJ article seems to be mostly a rehash of previous events.   Microsoft et al put in their briefs with the ITC last Spring, arguing against injunctions.

 

Of course, an American company (Qualcomm) that DOES have a lot of major cellular SEPs thinks quite differently, and supports Samsung.

 

So it seems to at least partly boil down to the SEP haves, and the have-nots.

 

Quote:
The president has not intervened in an ITC ban since 1987, but the ruling against Apple has a number of officials calling for something to be done.

 

President Bush didn't intervene back in 2007 when Qualcomm and Verizon were in far worse straits over an ITC ban, so if  President Obama does so now, it might be seen as a popularity contest over himself and/or Apple.

 

Quote:
Apple believes that Samsung shouldn't be able to block iPhone or iPad sales because the company isn't licensing its standard essential patents under fair, reasonable and nondiscriminatory terms, or FRAND. The iPhone maker has argued that a product ban could give Samsung the clout to extract high patent royalties from rival companies.

 

Contrary to popular belief, Apple was not banned for refusing to pay a high rate. Such refusal is expected.  The ITC said they banned them for not negotiating to lower the rate, which is an ETSI requirement, and Apple is an ETSI member.

 

As the article noted, even the BSA members do not debate injunctions if a licensee fails to negotiate.  (The question is, what constitutes a negotiation?)

 

Of course, a major factor is that the ITC only has import bans as their enforcement power.  

 

The CAFC could still overturn their decision on appeal, which Apple has signaled they will immediately file if the President abstains.

 

-

 

Note:  I'm just reporting what I know from personally studying all the briefs and rulings, instead of relying on others.  As I've said before, I don't support bans, at least not over software patents.  Rather, I've said that forced arbitration is the way to go, a course which the FTC has also chosen with their recent Google agreement.

 

I think that in a year, all this will be moot anyway, as governments are now making it clear that if companies cannot come to an agreement, they'll be forced to.  At least that way, there's a known process in place.


Edited by KDarling - 7/29/13 at 10:07am
post #22 of 36
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jetz View Post

 

When judges ban Samsung products they are geniuses who know the law. When they ban Apple products they are idiots?Care to tell us what the actual legal error was in his ruling.

 

I think you pretty accurately answered your own question.

post #23 of 36
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chandra69 View Post

How?

 

An old adage said: 

One lawyer in a small town will go bankrupt after a short time,

Two lawyers in a small town, both will go rich. 

post #24 of 36
.umm, apple blocked samsung from the sale of galaxy tab 2 on similar principles? Then sued them for their similar icons and rounded corners which were like every other tablet in the market...

I don't see how 2 wrongs make a right. - or how 2 arced perpendicular lines make a right angle... Ahem.. Apple is not shy to diminish the law system either but in apples defense samsung IS simply being a sore loser in their battles by lashing back with this childish ban.

Apple still buys chips from Samsung after all, let's just continue to play nice (FYI wouldn't buy an apple product OR a samsung, maybe apple one day who knows).
post #25 of 36
The four horseman is gitting old
post #26 of 36
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dubeck View Post

…FYI wouldn't buy an apple product OR a samsung…

Then why do you even care?

Originally posted by Relic

...those little naked weirdos are going to get me investigated.
Reply

Originally posted by Relic

...those little naked weirdos are going to get me investigated.
Reply
post #27 of 36
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dubeck View Post

.umm, apple blocked samsung from the sale of galaxy tab 2 on similar principles? Then sued them for their similar icons and rounded corners which were like every other tablet in the market...

...

 

Yeah, AFTER Apple released their products, everyone else followed along.

post #28 of 36
Perhaps Apple should have gotten a license. After all they go on about defending their intellectual rights to rounded corners and invalid bounce back patents etc etc. It looks bad that they ignore the rights of others on an actual real invention like 3G connectivity.

Samsung would have spent billions developing that tech. Who are apple to demand a 1 dollar license ?

Sorry, but Apples needs to lose one to force them to start being reasonable. At least this one doesn't effect the iPhone 5.

If the tables were reversed,would the other US tech companies have defended the outsider Samsung?
post #29 of 36
Quote:
Originally Posted by MeZmeriZe1 View Post

…an actual real invention…

Shut up.
Quote:
like 3G connectivity.

FRAND. End of discussion.

Originally posted by Relic

...those little naked weirdos are going to get me investigated.
Reply

Originally posted by Relic

...those little naked weirdos are going to get me investigated.
Reply
post #30 of 36
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post


Shut up.
FRAND. End of discussion.

Ummmm, the F in FRAND is Fair not Free.

post #31 of 36
Quote:
Originally Posted by bleh1234 View Post

Ummmm, the F in FRAND is Fair not Free.

Strictly speaking, $1 isn't free.

Originally posted by Relic

...those little naked weirdos are going to get me investigated.
Reply

Originally posted by Relic

...those little naked weirdos are going to get me investigated.
Reply
post #32 of 36
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post


Strictly speaking, $1 isn't free.

and when was the last time Apple paid this $1 per unit. As it stand, its "free". All Apple has to do is send the "check", if Samsung didnt accept it, its refusal of payment.

post #33 of 36
Quote:
Originally Posted by icoco3 View Post

Easy to fix the whole mess.  When something is licensed under FRAND, it should be decided up front the royalty fee and trigger point where the royalty is due.  No more arguing after that.
 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by bleh1234 View Post

Ummmm, the F in FRAND is Fair not Free.

 

As I mentioned previously, to end all disagreements, when something is declared standards essential, the fee and its trigger point should be declared.  Makes the whole licensing system "Fair and Reasonable" and no one can argue about the cost.

post #34 of 36
Quote:
Originally Posted by icoco3 View Post

 

 

As I mentioned previously, to end all disagreements, when something is declared standards essential, the fee and its trigger point should be declared.  Makes the whole licensing system "Fair and Reasonable" and no one can argue about the cost.


and in regards with cross-licensing?

post #35 of 36
Quote:
Originally Posted by bleh1234 View Post


and in regards with cross-licensing?

 

Retail vs wholesale....

post #36 of 36
Apple finds D.C. is tough without friends
http://www.politico.com/story/2013/07/apple-finds-dc-is-tough-without-friends-94948.html

This is not the first time I have had the feeling our elected crooks in Washington, D.C. will continue to hammer Apple to force it to pay them off in order to continue doing business without many road blocks in the United States.

After the tax evasion farce, I remember reading an article that said Apple most likely would have to start spending more money in Washington to keep the bad from happening.

Looking at how the ITC banned the import of some Apple devices due Apple being unwilling to negotiate cross-licensing its non-FRAND patents with Samsung to use Samsung's FRAND patents is pretty telling.

It is amazing Google was forced to drop its pursuits of banning devices that used its FRAND patents, but Samsung is being given a free pass with the US government's blessing to rip off Apple by using FRAND patents!
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: iPhone
  • Microsoft, Intel, Oracle & AT&T come to Apple's defense in looming iPhone 4 ban
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPhone › Microsoft, Intel, Oracle & AT&T come to Apple's defense in looming iPhone 4 ban