or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › ITC delays ruling on possible Samsung product ban
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

ITC delays ruling on possible Samsung product ban

post #1 of 11
Thread Starter 
The U.S. International Trade Commission on Thursday filed an extension of its decision on whether Samsung infringed on certain Apple patents, a claim that could see a sales ban of products made by the South Korean tech giant.

ITC


While the ITC offered no explanation as to why it was extending the decision, which was scheduled to be handed down today, the body noted in its late-Thursday filing that a final ruling will be delivered on Aug. 9.

As noted by CNET, the rescheduled date falls on the same day that Apple and Samsung are slated to meet for oral arguments related to the landmark Apple v. Samsung trial that found the Korean company in violation of a number of Apple's patents.

The ITC review stems from a patent countersuit by Apple lodged in July 2011, which itself was a response to a Samsung complaint against the iPhone, iPad and iPod.

Presiding over the Apple case was Judge Thomas Pender, who issued an initial determination against Samsung in October. Upon the request of both parties, the ITC agreed to review all aspects of the case in January, subsequently remanding two Apple patents back to Judge Pender.

After the remand initial determination was issued in March, the Commission determined to review the ID and RID, asking for briefs from the parties, interested government agencies and the public.

According to the ITC's Thursday filing, the Aug. 9 completion date will bring an end to the months-long proceedings.

post #2 of 11

Good to see Apple being banned and Samsung getting extension on decision.

 

I thought it was US ITC but then I found out it is SK ITC.

post #3 of 11
So...

Apple uses standards essential tech and gets banned.

Samsung blatantly rips off design elements, proprietary tech, UI layouts, hardware design, etc. and gets an extension allowing them to still sell infringing products.

Great.

Gotta love it when your own country sells you out.
post #4 of 11

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply
post #5 of 11

SEPs don't mean you get to use them without paying and they also don't mean you can charge someone unfairly.  No one really knows if Samsung was demanding too much and I'd wager that different people have different feelings on what is fair.  All we know is that Apple said "no thanks" to the original offer and continued to use those patents without paying anything.  They're banking on not getting banned because they're Apple and how would the American ITC ban them against some foreigners?!

 

It would seem that the difficulty in coming to a "fair and reasonable price" is probably related to how this same patent is used among the other companies.

 

Motorola and Samsung decide to share all/some/essential patents so they both get to make phones with required SEPs.

 

Nokia and Samsung decide to share all/some/essential patents so they both get to make phones with required SEPs.

 

Apple offers no patents in return and so Samsung gives a price that they feel is worth the patents that the other companies have offered them.  This was obviously too much in Apple's eyes.

 

Let's also not forget that many of the patent's that Samsung is accused of violating could be wiped away in a software update while the patents Apple has been accused of using are essential to the phone actually working.
 

post #6 of 11
Quote:
Originally Posted by helicopterben View Post

Good to see Apple being banned and Samsung getting extension on decision.

 

It's a one week delay.  It doesn't single out anyone.  There were also delays while deciding Apple's ban.  ITC cases have extensions and re-investigations all the time.

 

Quote:

Originally Posted by 9secondko View Post

Apple uses standards essential tech and gets banned.

 

It's easier to figure out if a SEP is valid and infringed.  By definition, if you use the standard, it almost certainly will be.

 

Quote:
Samsung blatantly rips off design elements, proprietary tech, UI layouts, hardware design, etc. ...

 

Apple asserted five utility patents and two design patents.  They take time to figure out. 

 

For example, two of the patents are about recognizing if a headphone or microphone is plugged in.  Do you really think Samsung blatantly ripped those off?  The judges aren't so sure, because of prior art.  They dismissed one of them.  Another patent was for a volume rocker switch fulcrum, which was also found not infringed.  One was for a general case design with rounded edges.  No infringement found there, either.

 

That leaves one plug detection patent, one design patent for a flat face with a speaker slot, and two commonly asserted Apple patents on scroll direction lock and translucent keyboard overlay.

 

Quote:
... and gets an extension allowing them to still sell infringing products.

 

The accused devices are the Galaxy S 4G, Fascinate, Transform, Captivate, Intercept, Infuse 4G, Galaxy Tab (original) and Galaxy Tab 10.1 (second model).

 

Are any of those still being sold?  I don't know, but I doubt it.

post #7 of 11
Only offering the use of your patents to companies that have patents is being discriminatory by definition. Apple offered what it thought was fair, and Samsung disagreed I suppose. The issue is the value of patents are what ever they want to say they are worth. Again, that is not being fair, reasonable or non-discriminatory.

I also recall that these companies were double dipping since the broadband chip manufacturers had the right to use the patents, but then Samsung thought that Apple also had to pay. The price should be built into the component that enables the communication protocol.
post #8 of 11

I think most of the Samsung products in question are not sold any more any way. With the way these court cases are dragged out and the speed at which cell phone technology are moving forward, banning products will not have any significant impact on the bottom line of the infringing company. 

post #9 of 11
Quote:
Originally Posted by 9secondko View Post

So...

Apple uses standards essential tech and gets banned.

Samsung blatantly rips off design elements, proprietary tech, UI layouts, hardware design, etc. and gets an extension allowing them to still sell infringing products.

Great.

You're commenting on things in such a general manner that they can't even be considered real arguments. What you should keep in mind is that neither of these bans have gone into effect. They might both end up on hold, and it's always possible that this will lead to actual precedence when it comes to patent enforcement.

post #10 of 11
Quote:
Originally Posted by anantksundaram View Post

(Ugh. Deleted. What's the point.)

I know how you feel...and every update here brings a new crop of troll dementia 1rolleyes.gif

From this side of the pond, where it could be argued that the EU gets it right and is armed with the power to make it stick, it seems there is a lack of joined-up thinking in the US with every trade, standard and legal body, doing there own thing with no reference to each other's decisions. Intellectual dyslexia perhaps? Altogether an recipe for FUD which is exploited on both sides of the argument.
Is there no appetite for a definitive, non-appealable precedent? A common sense decision devoid of political and commercial influence that would be acceptable to all, that doesn't allow wriggle room by individual fiefdoms more intent on maintaining their power base at the expense of commercial certainty? Is that even possible with the US system? Is there a consensus for such a settlement?
So many uncertainties surely deems this urgently and absolutely neccessary.
post #11 of 11

Quote:
Originally Posted by jkichline View Post

Only offering the use of your patents to companies that have patents is being discriminatory by definition. 

 

Nobody has done that.  What companies have done, is offer additional deals with a lower price with cross-licensing.  Even Apple does that with their own IP offers.

Quote:
Apple offered what it thought was fair, and Samsung disagreed I suppose. The issue is the value of patents are what ever they want to say they are worth. Again, that is not being fair, reasonable or non-discriminatory.

 

Yep.  We all think that there should be at least guideline license rates publicly published early on.

 

(And, in fact, they have been for LTE.)

 

Quote:
I also recall that these companies were double dipping since the broadband chip manufacturers had the right to use the patents, but then Samsung thought that Apple also had to pay.

 

Nope.  The claim of double-dipping was yet another internet reporting mistake, made back before it came out that Infineon had no license with Samsung.

 

Quote:
The price should be built into the component that enables the communication protocol.
 
Can't do that with modern components that have such flexible capabilities.  
 
For example, just because the chip can do it, you don't want to pay for TD-SCDMA if your phone is not sold in China.  You don't want to pay for LTE if your inexpensive phone is made without antennas for it.   Etc.
 
The Raspberry Pi educational computer is another good example of this.  A GPU accelerated H264 CODEC is licensed to all purchasers of the Pi, but the MPEG-2 and VC-1 CODECs are not... even though the GPU can do those as well... because that would raise the base price of the unit too much.  However, they've made a deal where you can buy those extra licenses yourself, if you need them.

Edited by KDarling - 8/2/13 at 7:35am
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: General Discussion
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › ITC delays ruling on possible Samsung product ban