or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › Senators allude support for Presidential veto of imminent ITC iPhone and iPad ban
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Senators allude support for Presidential veto of imminent ITC iPhone and iPad ban

post #1 of 39
Thread Starter 
Ahead of a U.S. International Trade Commission ban of older Apple iPhone and iPad models, a bipartisan cadre of senators has sent a cautionary letter to Trade Representative Michael Froman, who is responsible for the Presidential review of the ITC order.

USTR
Michael Froman was sworn in as United States Trade Representative by Supreme Court Justice Elena Kagan in June. | Source: USTR


As noted by FOSS Patents' Florian Mueller, the letter doesn't take a stand on the merits of the ITC case, but it does ask U.S. Trade Representative Michael Froman to carefully consider how companies use FRAND patents weapons in anticompetitive litigation.

The letter is dated July 30 and was signed by Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D.-Minn.), Sen. Mike Lee (R.-Utah), Sen. Barbara Boxer (D.-Calif.), and Sen. Jim Risch (R.-Idaho). Three of the four senators who signed Tuesday's letter also signed a similar letter to the ITC in May regarding the Samsung and Apple case.

The ITC ban, which found certain older models of Apple's iPhone and iPad to have infringed on declared standard-essential Samsung patents, will go into effect on Aug. 5 unless a Presidential veto nixes the order.

Due to their nature, pledged standard-essential patents (SEPs) are meant to be licensed under fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory (FRAND) rates. Samsung's use of its 3G cellular technology SEPs against Apple has been a bone of contention, and Froman's decision to act, or to do nothing, could set an undesirable precedent for future litigation.

As explained by the senators:

Competition and consumers benefit tremendously from the creation of technology standards that promote interoperability, lower costs, and expand consumer choice. Standards are crucial to ensuring that consumers have access to a competitive market of compatible products. The standards setting process depends on a commitment from companies contributing patents to license those patents to all parties implementing the standard on fair, reasonable, and non-discriminatory (FRAND) terms. If companies implementing standards cannot rely on FRAND commitments, they will be less likely to participate in standard setting, which will drive up costs for consumers and reduce the pace of innovation.



Mueller said the fact that the public letter was written so close to the 60-day Presidential veto period is an "unmistakable expression of concern" regarding the USTR's decision. The correspondence is also indirectly supporting Apple, which is pushing for the veto.

post #2 of 39
Maybe they should have thought about the consequences before starting a nuclear war with samsung, huh? You don't get to throw a sucker punch and then whine and play the victim after getting knocked on your butt, sorry.
post #3 of 39
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cash907 View Post

Maybe they should have thought about the consequences before starting a nuclear war with samsung, huh? You don't get to throw a sucker punch and then whine and play the victim after getting knocked on your butt, sorry.


What the f*** are you talking about?  Stop with the idiotic insinuations and sensationalism.  Try posting with some logic and sensibility.

post #4 of 39
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cash907 View Post

Maybe they should have thought about the consequences before starting a nuclear war with samsung, huh? You don't get to throw a sucker punch and then whine and play the victim after getting knocked on your butt, sorry.

What a miserable realm of half-light you must inhabit. Apple had no choice but to sue, and you're big enough to know that. Aren't you?
post #5 of 39
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cash907 View Post

Maybe they should have thought about the consequences before starting a nuclear war with samsung, huh? You don't get to throw a sucker punch and then whine and play the victim after getting knocked on your butt, sorry.

Ignorance is bliss, you must be completely blissful.

 

Samsung was the one that started the whole problem.  If Samsung just stuck to making components and not trying to copy and then compete with their component customer, maybe Samsung wouldn't get these lawsuits against them.


I still don't know why Apple is in violation of their 3G technology.  Apple doesn't make the voice/data chips, they buy those from another supplier that licenses those patents from Samsung.  What Samscum is doing sounds like double dipping on the same licensing.

 

I think Samsung should be banned from selling finished products that compete with their component customers.  I wonder what the PC industry would do if Intel decided to market and sell their own line of desktops, servers, and laptops and just flat out sold their products cheaper than anyone since they make the processors themselves?  Oh wait, isn't conflict of interest and unfair business practices?

post #6 of 39
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cash907 View Post

Maybe they should have thought about the consequences before starting a nuclear war with samsung, huh? You don't get to throw a sucker punch and then whine and play the victim after getting knocked on your butt, sorry.


You think THAT is what this is about? You need to do some reading mate.

post #7 of 39

Speaking of legal items, looks like Cash907 is getting served in the comments

“What would I do? I’d shut Apple down and give the money back to the shareholders”

Michael Dell - 1997

Reply

“What would I do? I’d shut Apple down and give the money back to the shareholders”

Michael Dell - 1997

Reply
post #8 of 39
Quote:
Originally Posted by drblank View Post

 

Samsung was the one that started the whole problem.  If Samsung just stuck to making components and not trying to copy and then compete with their component customer, maybe Samsung wouldn't get these lawsuits against them.

 

You do realize that Samsung was making smartphones before the iPhone came out, right?

post #9 of 39
Maybe America should be a bit like China and the rest of the world & protect their countries businesses
post #10 of 39

If the infringing iDevices aren't banned then what happens afterwards?  Samsung is out of luck and Apple is allowed to continue infringing on the Samsung patent?  Surely that can't be the case.  Does a third party mediator step in and determine what fair and reasonable rates need to be paid along with damages for lost revenue?

post #11 of 39
Quote:
Originally Posted by DroidFTW View Post

Apple is allowed to continue infringing on the Samsung patent...

 

lol.gif

 

The very definition of irony.

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 #12 of 39
Quote:
Originally Posted by DroidFTW View Post

If the infringing iDevices aren't banned then what happens afterwards?  Samsung is out of luck and Apple is allowed to continue infringing on the Samsung patent?  Surely that can't be the case.  Does a third party mediator step in and determine what fair and reasonable rates need to be paid along with damages for lost revenue?

Given that the patents in question are FRAND, this should be easy.  Look at what Samsung is charging other licensees for the patents and apply that.  Also, as was stated earlier in this thread, how is Apple responsible for this if the patented areas are included in a component built by another company which probably already has the license and if they don't they would be the ones to violate the patent, unless it IS Apple who is building the component, of course.

post #13 of 39
Quote:
Originally Posted by DroidFTW View Post

If the infringing iDevices aren't banned then what happens afterwards?  Samsung is out of luck and Apple is allowed to continue infringing on the Samsung patent?  Surely that can't be the case.  Does a third party mediator step in and determine what fair and reasonable rates need to be paid along with damages for lost revenue?


No, the two parties are involved in lawsuits. Eventually, a Court will determine what is a fair, reasonable, and non-discriminatory rate. Samsung will get paid provided it is not found Apple already has a license by paying the part provider.

 

Look at the Motorola versus Microsoft suit. Motorola was asking for over four billion dollars for past use of its standard essential patents from Microsoft. The Court reviewed what others were paying Motorola, and determined Microsoft only owed about a two million dollars. Motorola wanted more from Microsoft because Google and Microsoft hate each other.

 

Companies like Samsung and Motorola are using the ITC has an offensive weapon. If they can get it to issue an injunction, it can force companies like Apple to have to negotiate the rate under a gun and pay more than what is a fair, reasonable, and non-discriminatory rate. That is a very dangerous precedent and will undermine what standard essential patents are all about. It also will raise the cost of products for consumers, and like in Germany, take whole groups of products off the shelf. The ITC made a very bad decision.

post #14 of 39
Quote:
Originally Posted by sambira View Post

Given that the patents in question are FRAND, this should be easy.  Look at what Samsung is charging other licensees for the patents and apply that.  Also, as was stated earlier in this thread, how is Apple responsible for this if the patented areas are included in a component built by another company which probably already has the license and if they don't they would be the ones to violate the patent, unless it IS Apple who is building the component, of course.


You are right on both accounts. Apple is claiming the patents are exhausted and the license is already paid, but the ITC is not looking at that argument because that involves an agreement with a third party. The ITC is merely looking at whether Apple and Samsung have a deal, which is ridiculous. If Apple's deal with the it's broadband chip provider includes a license, that should be an absolute defense to an injunction.

 

Moreover, Samsung is refusing to provide information on the deals it has with other companies. Again, the ITC is not requiring Samsung to provide that information. It is only looking at whether Apple and Samsung have a deal. This is the worst decision the ITC could have ever made and is completely unfair. It is also not consistent with its previous decisions involving other companies.

post #15 of 39
Quote:
Originally Posted by Everett Ruess View Post

Maybe America should be a bit like China and the rest of the world & protect their countries businesses


Bingo.

post #16 of 39

I think a ban under normal conditions is severe.

 

But isn't this the patent where Apple said "We'll pay you a dollar tops per phone take it or leave it, if you don't take it we're going to claim you're not willing to negotiate and not pay you anything!" and then went on to tell a judge he could only set the 'fair and reasonable' rate at $1 or below and if he set it higher he was wasting his time because Apple would just drag the case out for years........

 

Telling judges what they can and can't do in a courtroom rarely turns out to be the winning strategy- apparently even for Apple.

Apple had a lot to do with bringing this on themselves.

 

 

I'd be surprised if this gets a Presidential veto.  Other nations would claim favoritism for the home team and there's potential for an ensuing trade war.  More importantly to me is the basic concept.  FRAND patents are *supposed* to be among the most valuable patents to hold.  That is the whole basis of them.  They are so valuable that you HAVE to share them.  The patent world is just plain broken.

 

Which would be more useless, a Phone that does not have rounded corners- or a phone that cant communicate wirelessly?

 

Duh!   Yet Apple demands $30 for rounded corners and thinks $1 is 'max' for their phones to even be usable?

 

If this gets a Presidential veto the message will be clear- FRAND patents have no teeth, can be safely ignored, and have less value to the holders than more trivial patents.

 

Samsung already claims its '5g' technology will be several hundred times faster than the current 4g standard.  Why on earth would they even pursue patenting that under a FRAND license?  They'll just make it their own proprietary patent and refuse to license it to anyone else.  With their huge share of the smartphone market carriers will roll over and adopt it- why would they adopt the 'official' standard if 70% of the phones out there don't use it?  Hope Apple users enjoy snail mode or Apple gets a division with wireless expertise together faster and better than their cloud history.  Google of course already has their own super zippy version in the works which may get a huge benefit from their Loon project and Google fiber.  Why do we all need to be on the same networks, anyways?

post #17 of 39
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frood View Post

But isn't this the patent where Apple said "We'll pay you a dollar tops per phone take it or leave it, if you don't take it we're going to claim you're not willing to negotiate and not pay you anything!" and then went on to tell a judge he could only set the 'fair and reasonable' rate at $1 or below and if he set it higher he was wasting his time because Apple would just drag the case out for years........

 

Do you have a source for this?  I seem to recall the first part, but this is the first I've ever heard the second part.

post #18 of 39
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cash907 View Post

Maybe they should have thought about the consequences before starting a nuclear war with samsung, huh? You don't get to throw a sucker punch and then whine and play the victim after getting knocked on your butt, sorry.

Wow! You really show your true color. Pathetic.

post #19 of 39
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frood View Post

 

But isn't this the patent where Apple said "We'll pay you a dollar tops per phone take it or leave it, if you don't take it we're going to claim you're not willing to negotiate and not pay you anything!" and then went on to tell a judge he could only set the 'fair and reasonable' rate at $1 or below and if he set it higher he was wasting his time because Apple would just drag the case out for years........

Yeah.. just keep reading hating Apple propagandas as fact and you'll be smarter. You knows.. N7 is selling better in Japan than iPad after all. :rolleyes:

 

(Oh.. and apparently the battery life in the new N7 is great too.. :double rolleyes: .. pathetic company. pathetic fan base.)

 

I tell you in the simplest manner possible. Apple want to pay "what others paid" and before that have a judge looking at "is the cost covered when they purchased said component?".

 

Do you think that's fair?


Edited by matrix07 - 7/31/13 at 7:19pm
post #20 of 39

 

Quote:

Originally Posted by Frood View Post

But isn't this the patent where Apple said "We'll pay you a dollar tops per phone take it or leave it, ...

 

No sir, that was the one between Motorola and Apple where Judge Crabb dismissed the case with prejudice.  Even Foss Patents, who is usually anti-Motorola and pro-Apple, said that Apple blew a great chance to have a totally fair judge decide the rate.

 

Quote:

Originally Posted by sambira View Post

Given that the patents in question are FRAND, this should be easy.  Look at what Samsung is charging other licensees for the patents and apply that.  

 

As far as I can tell from reading through the 800 pages of evidence, and 700 page ruling, one problem is that nobody had ever paid a flat cash rate.  Everyone else engaged in cross-licensing and paid little or nothing.  

 

Thus Samsung had to make up a starting cash rate, and it was then expected for Apple to negotiate it down.  While Samsung made other offers, Apple refused to negotiate and that's why they got the ban.  See the ITC statement at end of this post.

 

(Personally, I think that Apple should've still been given a last chance to resume negotiations or to enter abitration.)

 

Quote:
Also, as was stated earlier in this thread, how is Apple responsible for this if the patented areas are included in a component built by another company which probably already has the license and if they don't they would be the ones to violate the patent, unless it IS Apple who is building the component, of course.

 

The problem is that Infineon didn't have a Samsung license.  That's why this only affects devices built before Apple switched to Qualcomm.

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by TBell View Post

Companies like Samsung and Motorola are using the ITC has an offensive weapon. 

 

As does Apple.  Remember that Apple got an ITC ban on certain HTC phones, which forced the latter into making a deal with Apple.  It's been guessed that HTC now pays Apple $6-$8 per phone, along with having to license some of their patents.

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by TBell View Post

You are right on both accounts. Apple is claiming the patents are exhausted and the license is already paid, but the ITC is not looking at that argument because that involves an agreement with a third party. 

 

No sir, see above about Infineon.  After the ITC ruled that Apple's devices infringed, Apple did not dispute that they owed Samsung a royalty.

 

However, Apple wanted it to be based only on a tiny percentage of the broadband chip price.

 

While that makes some sense, one problem was that ETSI royalties are not usually done that way.  Secondly, using the physical chip price makes no sense, as that can go down over time, and has nothing to do with the continued value of related IP.

 

Ultimately, the ITC said the price was not up to Apple alone to decide, nor could they simply refuse to negotiate, nor could they claim as a defense that Samsung didn't follow ETSI FRAND rules when they themselves did not do so.

 

Quote:
"The Administrative Law Judge concludes that the evidence does not support Apple’s allegation that Sarnsung failed to offer Apple licenses to Samsung’s declared-essential patents on FRAND terms. Patents have the attributes of personal property. 35 U.S.C. § 261. Their value, in terms of licensing, varies according to a myriad of factors, and it is not enough for Apple to say that Samsung’s license offer was unreasonable based on Apple’s rationale

"Remarkably, even though Apple complains that Samsung’s license offer was not FRAND, Apple has not shown that, as a member to ETSI, it ever availed itself of the process and procedures of the ETSI under Clause 4.3 of the ETSI Guide on IPRs, which provides for mediation by ETSI Members or the Secretariat. (RX-0713 at Clause 4.3.) 

"It is not enough for Apple to complain that Samsung’s license offer of 2.4 percent of the selling prices of Apple’s devices, is unreasonable, since there is insufficient evidence of customs and practices of industry participants showing that Samsung’s demand is invidious with respect to Apple. 

"Furthermore, negotiations often involve a process of offer and counteroffer before the parties arrive at an agreed price, but Apple’s evidence does not demonstrate that Apple put forth a sincere, bona tide effort to bargain with Samsung. Rather, it appears that Apple and Samsung both decided to negotiate licensing terms between each other through the tortuous, and expensive, process of litigation. 

"More than what has been cited by Apple is necessary in order to establish that Samsung violated its obligations under Clause 6.1 of Annex 6: ETSI Intellectual Property Rights Policy. More than that, Apple needs to establish a legal basis for foreclosing enforcement under Section 337 in this investigation, which Apple has not done.
"

- ITC case 337-794

 

Again, I think a ban was too strong, but that's the only power the ITC has.  Therefore it was an easy prediction that they would continue to use them in FRAND cases, no matter what the FTC had suggested.

 

If the Executive Branch does not override the ruling, the next step will be Apple filing with the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, which they've already indicated they will do.


Edited by KDarling - 7/31/13 at 7:56pm
post #21 of 39
Quote:
Originally Posted by drblank View Post

Ignorance is bliss, you must be completely blissful.

 

Samsung was the one that started the whole problem.  If Samsung just stuck to making components and not trying to copy and then compete with their component customer, maybe Samsung wouldn't get these lawsuits against them.


I still don't know why Apple is in violation of their 3G technology.  Apple doesn't make the voice/data chips, they buy those from another supplier that licenses those patents from Samsung.  What Samscum is doing sounds like double dipping on the same licensing.

 

I think Samsung should be banned from selling finished products that compete with their component customers.  I wonder what the PC industry would do if Intel decided to market and sell their own line of desktops, servers, and laptops and just flat out sold their products cheaper than anyone since they make the processors themselves?  Oh wait, isn't conflict of interest and unfair business practices?

 

Well, Samsung has been making mobile phones for at least two decades now, smartphone for almost a decade. So Samsung should have stuck to making their own phones while Apple  should have just stuck to making pretty Mac's, is that what you are saying?

 

Samsung didn't make the photo gallery scrolling feature in Android, but that didn't stop Apple from taking Samsung to courts, right?

 

I agree, I think Apple should be banned from selling mobile devices that competes with their suppliers.  Or perhaps Apple should have signed a non-compete agreement with Samsung like Dell did when Dell outsourced all their laptop manufacturing to Samsung years ago -- very unlikely considering that, again, Samsung has been in the mobile phone device biz for much longer than Apple. Oh, well, this must hurt your brain. 


Edited by tooltalk - 7/31/13 at 10:06pm
post #22 of 39
Quote:
Originally Posted by Everett Ruess View Post

Maybe America should be a bit like China and the rest of the world & protect their countries businesses

 

And Samsung would be #1 smartphone maker in the US -- just like China. 

post #23 of 39

When the iPhone came out, it was something the world hadn't seen.  Primarily, we are talking about a mulitouch screen, no keyboard, fully functioning apps, WFi, bluetooth, no stylus, etc - all in one package.  it wasn't long before Android copied this success (about a year and a half).  You need to take a look Samsung's "smartphones" before and after the iPhone.  I owned a number of these smartphones, and they were terrible.  We are talking about Windows CE devices or Java-based interfaces.  Palm was actually one of the better interfaces out of all of them.

 

I'd like to see one of these "smartphones" that predated the iPhone. I guarantee you it doesn't hold a candle to what is consider smart today.

post #24 of 39
Quote:
Originally Posted by runbuh View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by drblank View Post

 

Samsung was the one that started the whole problem.  If Samsung just stuck to making components and not trying to copy and then compete with their component customer, maybe Samsung wouldn't get these lawsuits against them.

Hey, numnuts.  You do realize that Samsung was making smartphones before the iPhone came out, right?

 

Yeah, they were copying Blackberry and Palm though. 

 

 

I'm surprised that four Senators actually did something I find worthy of their office. I won't hold my breath for a repeat performance anytime soon though. :)

post #25 of 39
Quote:
Originally Posted by runbuh View Post

Hey, numnuts.  You do realize that Samsung was making smartphones before the iPhone came out, right?

Sure they were, and they looked like this:

http://macdailynews.files.wordpress.com/2012/07/120719_android_before_after_iphone.jpg

 

Notice anything?

 

Imagine if Toyota started making a Ford Mustang copy that, from 50 feet, you couldn't distinguish from a real Mustang. What would you say if Ford then sued Toyota? Suggest you put your anti-Apple bias aside and look at it objectively.

post #26 of 39
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cash907 View Post

Maybe they should have thought about the consequences before starting a nuclear war with samsung, huh? You don't get to throw a sucker punch and then whine and play the victim after getting knocked on your butt, sorry.

 

That is not quite how it happened.  Be serious.


Edited by icoco3 - 8/1/13 at 6:00am
post #27 of 39
Quote:
Hey, numnuts. You do realize that Samsung was making smartphones before the iPhone came out, right?

Ad hominem attacks weaken your argument. But that's okay, because your argument doesn't have any strength to begin with.

Yes, Samsung was making smartphones. Bad ones that nobody wanted to buy. So were a lot of people. Then the iPhone came along in 2007, and everyone's phones radically changed in design from having hardware keyboards taking up 40% of the device's face to having a capacitive touchscreen with software keyboard overnight.

To say otherwise is to ignore the stark reality that everyone (but you) recognizes.
Edited by MachineShedFred - 8/1/13 at 6:18am
post #28 of 39
Quote:
Originally Posted by KDarling View Post

 

As far as I can tell from reading through the 800 pages of evidence, and 700 page ruling, one problem is that nobody had ever paid a flat cash rate.  Everyone else engaged in cross-licensing and paid little or nothing.  

 

Well thought out post. Thank you. It seems that Apple, Samsung and the ITC have brought this down to the wire. Perhaps the ITC powers should extend to issuing FRAND rates rather than leaving to 'slow as molasses' courts. Or dissolve the ITC, as we witness the unintentional but long reaching negative effects of a ban.

post #29 of 39
Quote:
Originally Posted by TeeJay2012 View Post

Well thought out post. Thank you. It seems that Apple, Samsung and the ITC have brought this down to the wire. Perhaps the ITC powers should extend to issuing FRAND rates rather than leaving to 'slow as molasses' courts. Or dissolve the ITC, as we witness the unintentional but long reaching negative effects of a ban.

 

Thank you.  I always study the actual sources instead of relying on fansites or blogs for second (or millionth) hand info.

 

We can't dissolve the ITC.  It's too important for many industries.  However, I think you're on the right track with the rates idea.

 

Perhaps there should be a separate patent court system... one that is a combination of the ITC with its judges who are highly experienced in technical IP matters, and like the Federal Courts with their power to give monetary solutions, and with the power to force arbitration like the FTC.

 

The interesting thing is that, paradoxically, companies usually don't want the government to set rates.  At least, not automatically.  Their legal briefs almost always say that they want to retain the power to engage in initial negotiations themselves.  Letting the government set rates is a two-edged sword and they know it.


Edited by KDarling - 8/1/13 at 7:41am
post #30 of 39
Quote:
Originally Posted by KDarling View Post


No sir, see above about Infineon.  After the ITC ruled that Apple's devices infringed, Apple did not dispute that they owed Samsung a royalty.

However, Apple wanted it to be based only on a tiny percentage of the broadband chip price.

While that makes some sense, one problem was that ETSI royalties are not usually done that way.  Secondly, using the physical chip price makes no sense, as that can go down over time, and has nothing to do with the continued value of related IP.

Ultimately, the ITC said the price was not up to Apple alone to decide, nor could they simply refuse to negotiate, nor could they claim as a defense that Samsung didn't follow ETSI FRAND rules when they themselves did not do so.

And this is essentially what lead the ITC to agree that an injunction was the proper remedy.
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #31 of 39
Quote:
Originally Posted by runbuh View Post

 

You do realize that Samsung was making smartphones before the iPhone came out, right?

 

True. To be more accurate, Samsung copied other smartphones before they copy the iPhone. And they copied to the extend of naming their smartphone BlackJack to deceive a Blackberry buyer. Sued by RIM they settled in court.

post #32 of 39
Quote:
Originally Posted by r1sko View Post

 

True. To be more accurate, Samsung copied other smartphones before they copy the iPhone. And they copied to the extend of naming their smartphone BlackJack to deceive a Blackberry buyer. Sued by RIM they settled in court.

Samsung uses unfair business practices since they make a lot of the components commonly found in all smartphones and the go around and copy the component customer's products.  Samsung has the following information and leverage to compete unfairly.

 

They know what components each mfg is planning on using, what price they pay, delivery schedules and they have the ability to charge whatever they want, deliver whatever they want, hold product back if they want, etc.  Wasn't Samsung trying to increase the price of processors as soon as Apple went elsewhere for certain components?  I think they were increasing the cost of the processors by 20%, which is unfair pricing.  It didn't cost Samsung any more to make the things, but they seem to be wanting to increase their profits to offset the losses from losing other component business.

 

what do you think the OEM PC mfg would do if Intel turned around and started marketing and selling PC boxes with the Intel name on it in order to undercut the competition because they make the processors and other chip sets for things like ethernet, Thunderbolt, USB, etc.?

 

Samsung needs to their unethical business practices and just leave the smartphone and tablet industry altogether and just make components.

post #33 of 39
Quote:
Originally Posted by drblank View Post

Wasn't Samsung trying to increase the price of processors as soon as Apple went elsewhere for certain components?  I think they were increasing the cost of the processors by 20%, which is unfair pricing.  

 

IIRC, it turned out that the price increase had been scheduled for a while, and was agreed upon by Apple.

 

Apple's been negotiating parts contracts for quite a while now.  I don't think they would ever set themselves up for a surprise price increase.

post #34 of 39
Quote:
Originally Posted by KDarling View Post

 

IIRC, it turned out that the price increase had been scheduled for a while, and was agreed upon by Apple.

 

Apple's been negotiating parts contracts for quite a while now.  I don't think they would ever set themselves up for a surprise price increase.

When does it cost more to make a processor?  It usually costs them less over time.

 

Of course they had to agree upon it, they have no other choice since they aren't off the shelf processors.  if it's a newer processor, I can understand, but if it's just costing more for the same processor, that doesn't sound normal.

post #35 of 39
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wings View Post

Sure they were, and they looked like this:

http://macdailynews.files.wordpress.com/2012/07/120719_android_before_after_iphone.jpg

 

Notice anything?

 

Imagine if Toyota started making a Ford Mustang copy that, from 50 feet, you couldn't distinguish from a real Mustang. What would you say if Ford then sued Toyota? Suggest you put your anti-Apple bias aside and look at it objectively.

Neither one of those phones are from Samsung, so what's your point?  Here's a Palm Pilot from 2004 with rounded corners and icons.  Whoo-die-doo.  It's not even a smartphone.

http://www.mobile-review.com/print.php?filename=/pda/review/palm-tungsten-t5-en.shtml

 

What does any of this have to do with my pointing out that Samsung was making smartphones before Apple entered the market (like their Windows Mobile phones)?

post #36 of 39
Quote:
Originally Posted by r1sko View Post

 

True. To be more accurate, Samsung copied other smartphones before they copy the iPhone. And they copied to the extend of naming their smartphone BlackJack to deceive a Blackberry buyer. Sued by RIM they settled in court.


I agree 100% about their lame attempt at confusing people with the BlackJack name.  Interestingly, even after the settlement, Samsung came out with the BlackJack II.  Looking back, I think there was a lot of form copying going on - Moto Q/BackJack against Blackberry against Palm - lots of keyboard-equipped smartphones).

post #37 of 39
Quote:
Originally Posted by drblank View Post

Samsung uses unfair business practices since they make a lot of the components commonly found in all smartphones and the go around and copy the component customer's products.  Samsung has the following information and leverage to compete unfairly.

 

They know what components each mfg is planning on using, what price they pay, delivery schedules and they have the ability to charge whatever they want, deliver whatever they want, hold product back if they want, etc.  Wasn't Samsung trying to increase the price of processors as soon as Apple went elsewhere for certain components?  I think they were increasing the cost of the processors by 20%, which is unfair pricing.  It didn't cost Samsung any more to make the things, but they seem to be wanting to increase their profits to offset the losses from losing other component business.

 

what do you think the OEM PC mfg would do if Intel turned around and started marketing and selling PC boxes with the Intel name on it in order to undercut the competition because they make the processors and other chip sets for things like ethernet, Thunderbolt, USB, etc.?

 

Samsung needs to their unethical business practices and just leave the smartphone and tablet industry altogether and just make components.


If Samsung was the only component supplier in town, then your argument would be very valid.  Apple, and others, have choices as to where they source their components.  As I stated earlier, Samsung has been in the smartphone market before the iPhone came out.  Apple knew this and had other choices for component suppliers, and still chose to get components from Samsung.

 

By no means am I defending Samsung.  I think the whole smartphone industry leveraged/copied/improved the early efforts of Palm and RIM.

post #38 of 39
Quote:
Originally Posted by MachineShedFred View Post


Ad hominem attacks weaken your argument. But that's okay, because your argument doesn't have any strength to begin with.

Yes, Samsung was making smartphones. Bad ones that nobody wanted to buy. So were a lot of people. Then the iPhone came along in 2007, and everyone's phones radically changed in design from having hardware keyboards taking up 40% of the device's face to having a capacitive touchscreen with software keyboard overnight.

To say otherwise is to ignore the stark reality that everyone (but you) recognizes.


Attacks aside, my argument needs no strength.  It's a simple fact that Samsung was making smartphones before the iPhone came out.

 

I am not defending Samsung's actions, that's for the court system, but you must admit that Apple went into their relationship with Samsung eyes wide open.  Samsung was already competing, and some would argue already copying, before Apple chose to source components from Samsung.

 

Your bias is showing when you state that Samsung phones were "Bad ones that nobody wanted".  Facts please.  IIRC, the BlackJack sold so poorly that it was immediately canned.  Oh wait, no it wasn't - it sold so well that they came out with the BlackJack II.

post #39 of 39
Quote:
Originally Posted by drblank View Post

When does it cost more to make a processor?  It usually costs them less over time.

 

When raw materials go up, or demand increases.

 

For example, the Japan tsunami knocked out lots of silicon wafer production, along with chip fabs.  About 25% of the world's chip production went off line, leading to parts shortages and price increases.

 
Quote:
Originally Posted by drblank View Post

Samsung uses unfair business practices since they make a lot of the components commonly found in all smartphones and the go around and copy the component customer's products.  Samsung has the following information and leverage to compete unfairly.

 

They know what components each mfg is planning on using, what price they pay, delivery schedules and they have the ability to charge whatever they want, deliver whatever they want, hold product back if they want, etc.  

 

None of that is information about case or UI design, which is what they've been sued by Apple over... not about similar internals or displays (which they do not have).
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: General Discussion
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › Senators allude support for Presidential veto of imminent ITC iPhone and iPad ban