or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPhone › President Obama vetoes Samsung ban on Apple, Inc. iPhones, iPads
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

President Obama vetoes Samsung ban on Apple, Inc. iPhones, iPads - Page 5

post #161 of 262
Quote:
Originally Posted by mrrodriguez View Post


Or another tone AI would take would be

"Grr the President sticking his nose where it doesn't belong. The courts decided and that should be final"

Or

"We all know the Obama administration got paid by Google. This is Obama returning the favor. "

Look at the DOJ case. As soon as Apple lost all of AI was condemning the government, even Apple called its punishment punitive and draconian. The moment something is in Apples favor it's 'the right thing to do' .

 

Or, maybe you can look at the individual situations, and facts contained therein, to come to a conclusion whther each one is "right" or "wrong" instead of your simplistic 1:1 comparison as if both cases are similar and having a different reaction to the results means there's some sort of hypocricy. There isn't. The ebook case was ridiculous, and so was this ban. 

post #162 of 262
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

Huh?

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

Figured you might be one of those making believe you didn't understand.1wink.gif

 

Huh?

post #163 of 262
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

I still don't think you get it. Yes, a packet is a packet. They've not indicated they intend to restrict content or sources. Realistically there are limits to band-width, a fact which is not the same thing as working against net neutrality. I agree you should wait to toss stones. There will be plenty of time and AI will be an ideal grandstand to do it from.

What's with the 'they' come on, it's 'we' isn't it? 1wink.gif
Been using Apple since Apple ][ - Long on AAPL so biased
nMac Pro 6 Core, MacBookPro i7, MacBookPro i5, iPhones 5 and 5s, iPad Air, 2013 Mac mini, SE30, IIFx, Towers; G4 & G3.
Reply
Been using Apple since Apple ][ - Long on AAPL so biased
nMac Pro 6 Core, MacBookPro i7, MacBookPro i5, iPhones 5 and 5s, iPad Air, 2013 Mac mini, SE30, IIFx, Towers; G4 & G3.
Reply
post #164 of 262
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post

And the part you keep intentionally missing is that "public interest grounds" is not the political nonsense you are pretending that it is.

The statement from the ITC is quite clear. The ban was overturned because it should never have been issued for an SEP patent. Period. The fact that they went further and stated that it's in the public interest not to ban something over an SEP patent doesn't change that.

You're really resisting reading the legal opinion issued to the ITC aren't you? The trade rep doesn't argue that any of the facts the ITC based it's judgement on were flawed or not applicable. He doesn't dispute that Samsung's request for an injunction for SEP infringement may have been proper, say SEP injunctions are always wrong, nor disagree with the ITC finding that Samsung did try to negotiate a license with Apple. He doesn't say that the ITC determination of reverse hold-up on Apple's part was incorrect or say that Apple acted properly in the negotiations. None of those were cited as his reason behind the ITC being overruled does he?

What he did say, and the only reason directly and explicitly cited, was that the public interest concerns demanded that the injunction could not stand. FWIW I agree with that too. The President had already taken a public stand.

Your back and forth with me started when you asked how I was making the leap to say the ITC was overturned primarily over public interest concerns. That's not be be read as only over public interest concerns. I've explained my reasoning pretty darn well and pointed you to actual statements (or lack of them). You on the other hand don't appear able to rationally explain how I'm wrong tho you keep saying so.

If you disagree with anything I just said it's easy to dispute it. Simply show some actual evidence, something better than "I know you're wrong because I said so"
Edited by Gatorguy - 8/14/13 at 5:09am
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #165 of 262
Quote:
Originally Posted by digitalclips View Post

What's with the 'they' come on, it's 'we' isn't it? 1wink.gif

1smoking.giflol.gif Can't say you're not quick!
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #166 of 262
Quote:
Originally Posted by mdriftmeyer View Post

Google's whole Net Neutrality stance was a political ploy to grow their footprint into the ISP business. Once firmly entrenched, they won't give a rat's ass about it.

You could be right. You'll have to wait and see what they actually do "now that they is one".
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #167 of 262
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

EDIT: Where's my video?

 

Beats me. It's Huddler Tech. The servers are in Kasper's mom's basement, next to the washing machine. lol.gif

"Apple should pull the plug on the iPhone."

John C. Dvorak, 2007
Reply

"Apple should pull the plug on the iPhone."

John C. Dvorak, 2007
Reply
post #168 of 262
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

You're really resisting reading the legal opinion issued to the ITC aren't you? The trade rep doesn't argue that any of the facts the ITC based it's ruling one were flawed. He doesn't claim any of the fact-finding the ITC did was flawed. He doesn't dispute that Samsung's request for an injunction for SEP infringement may have been proper, say SEP injunctions are always wrong, nor disagree with the ITC finding that Samsung did try to negotiate a license . He doesn't say that the ITC determination of reverse hold-up on Apple's part was incorrect. None of those were cited as his reason behind the ITC being overruled does he? What he did say was the public interest demanded that the injunction could not stand. FWIW I agree with that too. The President had already taken a public stand.

Your back and forth with me started when you asked how I was making the leap to say the ITC was overturned primarily over public interest concerns. That's not be be read as only over public interest concerns. I've explained my reasoning pretty darn well and pointed you to actual statements (or lack of them). You on the other hand don't appear able to rationally explain how I'm wrong tho you keep saying so.

If you disagree with anything I just said it's easy to dispute it. Simply show some actual evidence, something better than "I know you're wrong because I said so" like you often do. Use your Ivy League education for something more than a doc to cover the hole in the wall: Research, read and post something more that an arrogant ad-hom. You can do it.

The rep doesn't have to argue anything. That's not his job, at least not at that point. He only has to issue his statement in terms that laypeople can understand in a short time.

The top concern for the ban was SEP abuse all along, as expressed by so many industry players publicly. Hence, public concern.

The details will be sort out behind the scene, before they issue more public statements.
Edited by patsu - 8/4/13 at 11:37am
post #169 of 262
Quote:
Originally Posted by Suddenly Newton View Post

Beats me. It's Huddler Tech. The servers are in Kasper's mom's basement, next to the washing machine. lol.gif

Huddler actually hosts the site on their own servers. But do you see it? It's that Jurassic Park clip.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-JFfN5pKzFU

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 #170 of 262
Quote:
Originally Posted by patsu View Post

The rep doesn't have to argue anything. That's not his job, at least not at that point. He only has to issue his statement in terms that laypeople can understand in a short time. .

If you were correct then it would be a fail on his part. The written opinion he offered certainly cited a reason for the veto and that reason appears to have gone right over your head and a few other too, another fail if it was supposed to be in "terms that laypeople can understand", which is not a requirement in the first place AFAIK unless you have something to point to that says otherwise.
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #171 of 262
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

If you were correct then it would be a fail on his part. The written opinion he offered certainly cited a reason for the veto and that reason appears to have gone right over your head and a few other too, another fail if it was supposed to be in "terms that laypeople can understand", which is not a requirement in the first place AFAIK unless you have something to point to that says otherwise.

Of course he has to cite a reason. But it is naive to expect the rep to argue over the details in public.

We will see more public statements when things move along behind the scene.

As for things going over our head, that's your opinion. I can't help you there.
Edited by patsu - 8/4/13 at 12:01pm
post #172 of 262
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post


Huddler actually hosts the site on their own servers. But do you see it? It's that Jurassic Park clip.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-JFfN5pKzFU

 

I only see the embedded video when I click the "quote" button; the video appears fine in the reply editor window, but not on the forum page. That's a scripting problem, right? I still find the code used in the forums to be half-baked and problematic. Can I lay blame for that on Huddler Tech?

"Apple should pull the plug on the iPhone."

John C. Dvorak, 2007
Reply

"Apple should pull the plug on the iPhone."

John C. Dvorak, 2007
Reply
post #173 of 262
Quote:
Originally Posted by Suddenly Newton View Post

Can I lay blame for that on Huddler Tech?

Probably, since it works fine with the Huddler editor but not the BBCode editor, which I'm forced to use right now due to Mavericks.

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 #174 of 262
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stevel View Post

what a shameful act of injustice. If you can't beat them with innovation in the market place, and if you can't beat them with litigation in the courtroom, then go running to your President for the hope you paid him enough to do the deed. What about the price fixing Apple? You think Obama will help you out with that as well? Pathetic. Guaranteed to have some backlash with markets outside of the US.

Not to merely jump on a bandwagon to bash one user, but some facts to get straight. Samsung's Chairman has been convicted of bribery/tax evasion/etc. and pardoned... TWICE by the South Korean government:

 

http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/983c3922-f423-11de-ac55-00144feab49a.html#axzz2TjPLeSJJ

 

http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/44a717e2-8910-11de-b50f-00144feabdc0.html#axzz2b2DJ608W

 

http://articles.latimes.com/1996-08-27/news/mn-38054_1_south-korean-tycoons

 

And in case you don't want to bother creating free accounts on ft.com to read those full articles:

http://tech.fortune.cnn.com/2013/05/19/apple-cook-samsung-lee/

post #175 of 262

I know this guy.

His real name is Steve Choi.

He work for Samsteal.

That's why all the negative comments from him.

post #176 of 262

Sunday and I'm still happy about this.

 

Ban Samsung!

post #177 of 262
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post


I'm not exactly sure what you just said or if it's a question you have........ 

 

Your original post quoted "public interest ramifications" from a Reuters article. You then stated that these public interest concerns.... were, somehow, independent of SEPs.

 

I simply quoted the FULL sentence from Reuters that states QUITE CLEARLY how the "public interest ramifications" were directly related to SEPs. Here it is again... if you missed it.

 

From Reuters: "Froman on Saturday said the ITC should thoroughly examine the public interest ramifications of its rulings in disputes over standard essential patents."

 

 

 

 

Your next post contains a different and more extensive quote:

 

 

Quote:
so here's a link to the Reuters update. :
http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/08/03/usa-apple-patents-idUSL1N0G40EJ20130803

"U.S. Trade Representative Michael Froman on Saturday vetoed the ban, saying his decision was in part based on its "effect on competitive conditions in the U.S. economy and the effect on U.S. consumers." 

 

Fine. 

 

 

 

Quote:
In essence the ban was overturned more over public interest concerns rather than as a statement on the merits of SEP injunction requests.

 

Not fine! A really strange interpretation, on your part, of the written word. Of course Froman has to give cogent reasons for the veto. He's not going to come out with "Obama uses an iPad and..... we hate SEPs" The TWO main reasons appear to be competition in the US and, consequently, the "effect on US consumers" Obvious. Aren't those a couple of fundamental considerations in any (US) patent dispute?

 

 

 

This whole case, or at least the controversial part of the case is all about SEPs. Fromer's official letter makes frequent references  to SEP's and FRAND commitments. The DOJ and US Patent office issued a policy statement, back in January.... all about SEPs. Also mentioned in Fromer's letter. This was all about SEPs. 

 

I'm not sure why (although I can hazard a guess) you are hell bent on downplaying the Standards Essential Patents angle... and pushing "the public interest" to the fore.

post #178 of 262
I think I know this guy "Stevel".
His real name is Steve Choi.
Maybe he work for Samsteal.
All of his comments are very negative for Apple.
Thats why.
post #179 of 262

Fair call for protecting American companies.  

 

But, I am a bit confused.  I believe that the reason for the ban was directly come from Apple's refusal to negotiate on fair term.  Are SEP or FRAND really relevant here?

post #180 of 262
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post


You're really resisting reading the legal opinion issued to the ITC aren't you? The trade rep doesn't argue that any of the facts the ITC based it's judgement on were flawed or not applicable. He doesn't dispute that Samsung's request for an injunction for SEP infringement may have been proper, say SEP injunctions are always wrong, nor disagree with the ITC finding that Samsung did try to negotiate a license with Apple. He doesn't say that the ITC determination of reverse hold-up on Apple's part was incorrect or say that Apple acted properly in the negotiations. None of those were cited as his reason behind the ITC being overruled does he?

What he did say, and the only reason directly and explicitly cited, was that the public interest concerns demanded that the injunction could not stand. FWIW I agree with that too. The President had already taken a public stand.

Your back and forth with me started when you asked how I was making the leap to say the ITC was overturned primarily over public interest concerns. That's not be be read as only over public interest concerns. I've explained my reasoning pretty darn well and pointed you to actual statements (or lack of them). You on the other hand don't appear able to rationally explain how I'm wrong tho you keep saying so.

If you disagree with anything I just said it's easy to dispute it. Simply show some actual evidence, something better than "I know you're wrong because I said so" like you often do. Use your Ivy League education for something more than a doc to cover the hole in the wall: Research, read and post something more that an arrogant ad-hom. You can do it.

I have to disagree with you as well, I have read the statement and it is very clear that it says on page two that Mr. Froman states quoting from the DOJ and US Patent office statement of policy on FRAND that he agrees with.  

 

To quote Florian Mueller at FOSS Patents:

 

Quote:
The reason for the veto is the Administration's concern over the implications of exclusion orders over SEPs except "in some circumstances, such as where the putative licensee is unable or refuses to take a FRAND license and is acting outside the scope of the patent holder's commitment to license on FRAND terms" or "if a putative licensee is not subject to the jurisdiction of a court that could award damages" (these quotes are from a joint policy paper of the Department of Justice and United States Patent and Trademark Office on SEPs and injunctive relief).

Florian quotes directly from the Statement from the DOJ and Patent office on FRAND Policy.  Which Mr. Froman stated in the letter to the ITC he agrees with it, and he quotes in large portions on page 2 of his veto letter to the ITC.

Basically the above quote means to me and most reasonable people is that Exclusion orders should never be used with a willing licensee like Apple and should be settled on a damages only reward.  They should never be used either by the Patent holder (hold up) or the licensee (reverse hold up(licensee unwilling to pay)).  They should be settled in court for money rather than exclusion orders.  This is the core reason that this becomes public interest.  Because if allowed to continue it sets a dangerous precedence not only for Apple but for any company.  Basically being extorted by the ITC on behalf of Standards essential patent holders like Samsung.


Edited by Mechanic - 8/4/13 at 2:54pm
post #181 of 262
Quote:
Originally Posted by patsu View Post


Given that this is the first time since a long time ago, and SEP is the central issue highlighted by Apple, Microsoft, Intel, Oracle and others. Yes (this time):
http://betanews.com/2013/07/30/microsoft-oracle-and-others-side-with-apple-over-us-iphone-4-ban/

 

Humongous multinational corporations who almost always throw their IP towards proprietary solutions instead of contributing to community standards are arguing against SEP...SHOCKING!

post #182 of 262
Quote:
Originally Posted by piot View Post

Your original post quoted "public interest ramifications" from a Reuters article. You then stated that these public interest concerns.... were, somehow, independent of SEPs.

I simply quoted the FULL sentence from Reuters that states QUITE CLEARLY how the "public interest ramifications" were directly related to SEPs. Here it is again... if you missed it.

From Reuters: "Froman on Saturday said the ITC should thoroughly examine the public interest ramifications of its rulings in disputes over standard essential patents."

Your next post contains a different and more extensive quote:


Fine. 

Not fine! A really strange interpretation, on your part, of the written word. Of course Froman has to give cogent reasons for the veto. He's not going to come out with "Obama uses an iPad and..... we hate SEPs" The TWO main reasons appear to be competition in the US and, consequently, the "effect on US consumers" Obvious. Aren't those a couple of fundamental considerations in any (US) patent dispute?



This whole case, or at least the controversial part of the case is all about SEPs. Fromer's official letter makes frequent references  to SEP's and FRAND commitments. The DOJ and US Patent office issued a policy statement, back in January.... all about SEPs. Also mentioned in Fromer's letter. This was all about SEPs. 

I'm not sure why (although I can hazard a guess) you are hell bent on downplaying the Standards Essential Patents angle... and pushing "the public interest" to the fore.

I don't think I missed a thing thank you. I believe I had it correctly interpreted from the get-go.

I'm pretty sure why you and a couple of others would be pushing the "SEP injunctions aren't permitted" angle despite the fact the Mr. Fromer said otherwise in his letter to the ITC.

Yes he speaks about the potential harm from holders of Standards-essential tech "gaining undue leverage" and "engaging in patent hold-up" (Samsung?). But he also notes, just as the ITC did, that there's also a danger from some "technology implementers who engage in reverse holdup ("hold-out"). . . by constructive refusal to negotiate a FRAND license" (Apple?) which is what the ITC found Apple to be doing in this specific case. Rather than come out on either side of those two problems and throw either Apple or Samsung under the bus he simply acknowledged them and instead overturned on public interest grounds. It's darn easy to see, so I would have to assume you're purposefully ignoring what he actually said and arriving at your own conclusion, but one not stated in the letter to the ITC.

You should really read Mr Fromer's letter in it's entirety, paying attention to what he actually says and doesn't say. It's obvious where he stops short of declaring that SEP's shouldn't enjoy the same protections from infringement as any other patent, and too avoids directly agreeing with the ITC that Apple was engaging in reverse holdup. The public interest concern becomes the safe landing pad and avoids setting any legal precedent, new rule-making for the ITC, or likewise make a break with a large influential American corporation, that the administration then needs to defend.
Edited by Gatorguy - 8/4/13 at 3:05pm
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #183 of 262
Quote:
Originally Posted by e_veritas View Post

Humongous multinational corporations who almost always throw their IP towards proprietary solutions instead of contributing to community standards are arguing against SEP...SHOCKING!

Perhaps not as shocking as why Google, the open and do no evil company, doesn't argue against SEP abuse.

I see Apple on open standards fora like W3C, ITU, IETF all the time. WebKit, HTML5, H.264, Bonjour, OpenCL, OpenGL, etc.

EDIT: Heck, Apple even voted for and help vetted the Blu-ray specs even though they are not interested in rolling out Blu-ray products.
Edited by patsu - 8/4/13 at 3:27pm
post #184 of 262
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

I'm pretty sure why you and a couple of others would be pushing the "SEP injunctions aren't permitted" angle despite the fact the Mr Fromer said otherwise in his letter to the ITC. Yes he speaks about the potential harm from holders of Standards-essential tech "gaining undue leverage" and "engaging in patent hold-up" . But he also notes, just as the ITC did, that there's also a danger from some "technology implementers who engage in reverse holdup ("hold-out"). . . by constructive refusal to negotiate a FRAND license" which is what the ITC found Apple to be doing in this specific case. Rather than come out on either side of those two problems and throw either Apple or Samsung under the bus he simply acknowledged them and instead overturned on public interest grounds. It's darn easy to see, so I would have to assume you're purposefully ignoring what he actually said and arriving at your own conclusion, but one not stated in the letter to the ITC.

You should really read Mr Fromer's letter in it's entirety, paying attention to what he actually says and doesn't say. It's obvious where he stops short of declaring that SEP's shouldn't enjoy the same protections from infringement as any other patent, and too avoids directly agreeing with the ITC that Apple was engaging in reverse holdup. The public interest concern becomes the safe landing pad and avoids setting any legal precedent, new rule-making for the ITC, or likewise a break with a large influential American corporation, that the administration then needs to defend.

The administrator veto'ed the ban based on their stand on the SEP abuse. The rep simply layout their broad stroke position.

Companies should not accept any terms based on SEP abuse before the fundamental principles are settled. Accept the terms would imply that the current SEP abuse is acceptable to the signing parties.

The SEP abuse caused public concerns. That's why people are debating everywhere. And other companies are lining up to object to the ban.
Edited by patsu - 8/4/13 at 3:16pm
post #185 of 262
Even Apple has never taken the position that injunctions involving SEP's are never an appropriate remedy.

Perhaps there's a reason for that too. Rockstar, the Apple led consortium that purchased the Nortel patent portfolio including extensive SEP's has placed some number of patents with a new "Patent assertion entity" ( ie patent troll) with the first lawsuits announced to begin within 60 days. It should be exciting.

As a bonus guess who invested in that new "Patent Assertion Entity" just to be sure those patents are properly pointed in the right directions yet still claim clean hands?

Fortunately the President also has taken a stand on that too as it applies to the ITC. He proposes that ITC injunction orders be tied to the same 4-factor "eBay test" used in District courts. The effect should be that injunction requests from patent holders who don't actually practice the patent would be denied. I don't know how practically effective it would be but it's still a good suggestion IMO.
Edited by Gatorguy - 8/4/13 at 3:23pm
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #186 of 262
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

Even Apple has never taken the position that injunctions involving SEP's are never an appropriate remedy.

Perhaps there's a reason for that too. Rockstar, the Apple led consortium that purchased the Nortel patent portfolio including extensive SEP's has placed some number of patents with a new "Patent assertion entity" ( ie patent troll) with the first lawsuits announced to begin within 60 days. It should be exciting.

As a bonus guess who invested in that new "Patent Assertion Entity" just to be sure those patents are properly pointed in the right directions?

As long as they don't abuse the SEPs, who cares how they manage the patents ? Last I heard they have also transferred some of these patents to themselves, but we have seen no action yet.

At this point, before the abuse issues get settled, it is wise for Apple to not agree to anything yet. Otherwise, they will be bound by what they sign. The rest becomes rhetoric.
post #187 of 262
Quote:
Originally Posted by patsu View Post

As long as they don't abuse the SEPs, who cares how they manage the patents ?

Perhaps the FTC or DoJ might care. Too early to tell. With the current wave of concern over software patent issues in the tech industry the public statements from Rockstar Consortium's CEO are a potential problem. During an SEP-centric hearing in Washington a few months back some of those concerns over his statements were raised and it appears that there's at least a couple of issues at hand.

One is that RC suggests that they do not have to honor the licensing agreements attached to those transferred Nortel patents, SEP or not. That raised some eyebrows and suggestions that the government needs to address it in any SEP rule-making.

Secondly he claims he's not bound by the agreement Apple, MS, et.al. made with the government to get their approval to bid on the patents in the first place. Even tho Apple and company made promises not to use those patents to aggressively attack rivals, stating they would fairly license them to competitors, CEO Veschi claims those promises don't apply to anything he decides to do with them. Only the companies that made the promises in the first place have to keep their agreement, not Rockstar Consortium.

Might get interesting.
Edited by Gatorguy - 8/4/13 at 4:05pm
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #188 of 262
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

Perhaps the FTC or DoJ might care. Too early to tell. With the current wave of concern over software patent issues in the tech industry the public statements from Rockstar Consortium's CEO are a potential problem. During an SEP-centric hearing in Washington a few months back some of those concerns over his statements were raised and it appears that there's at least a couple of issues at hand.

One is that RC suggests that they do not have to honor the licensing agreements attached to those transferred Nortel patents, SEP or not. That raised some eyebrows and suggestions that the government needs to address it in any SEP rule-making.

Secondly he claims he's not bound by the agreement Apple, MS, et.al. made with the government to get their approval to bid on the patents in the first place. Even tho Apple and company made promises not to use those patents to aggressively attack rivals, stating they would fairly license them to competitors, CEO Veschi claims those promises don't apply to anything he decides to do with them. Only the companies that made the promises in the first place have to keep their agreement, not Rockstar Consortium.

Might get interesting.

As long as the principles are established and accepted, it is not uncommon for companies to update their licensing terms for new or renewing licensees. There is nothing to act on at this point though.
post #189 of 262
Quote:
Originally Posted by patsu View Post

As long as the principles are established and accepted, it is not uncommon for companies to update their licensing terms for new or renewing licensees. There is nothing to act on at this point though.

Not sure what mean. What principles are you referencing? The principle that existing patent license agreements and FRAND commitments should transfer with the patents?
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #190 of 262
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

1smoking.giflol.gif Can't say you're not quick!

Hey I used to love Google, you know … back before the knife in the back.
Been using Apple since Apple ][ - Long on AAPL so biased
nMac Pro 6 Core, MacBookPro i7, MacBookPro i5, iPhones 5 and 5s, iPad Air, 2013 Mac mini, SE30, IIFx, Towers; G4 & G3.
Reply
Been using Apple since Apple ][ - Long on AAPL so biased
nMac Pro 6 Core, MacBookPro i7, MacBookPro i5, iPhones 5 and 5s, iPad Air, 2013 Mac mini, SE30, IIFx, Towers; G4 & G3.
Reply
post #191 of 262
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

Not sure what mean. What principles are you referencing? The principle that existing patent license agreements and FRAND commitments should transfer with the patents?

e.g., The principle that they won't abuse the SEPs.

As for the agreements, companies update them from time to time based on the latest cost structure, business model, usage etc.
Typically, new and renewing licensees will be subjected to the new terms. Old licensees stay put as long as the agreements remain valid (e.g., have not expired).

It's a non-news.
Edited by patsu - 8/4/13 at 4:39pm
post #192 of 262
Quote:
Originally Posted by patsu View Post

The administrator veto'ed the ban based on their stand on the SEP abuse. The rep simply layout their broad stroke position.

Companies should not accept any terms based on SEP abuse before the fundamental principles are settled. Accept the terms would imply that the current SEP abuse is acceptable to the signing parties.

The SEP abuse caused public concerns. That's why people are debating everywhere. And other companies are lining up to object to the ban.

Look hard, but you wont' find any assertion by either the US Trade Representative nor the ITC that Samsung was abusing FRAND commitments in this particular case. (Doesn't mean I like Samsung any better) On the contrary the only company found to be abusing the FRAND process was Apple, thus the original ITC injunction order. In his letter overturning the order Mr Fromer never suggests that Samsung abused it's FRAND obligations in the case against Apple. That seems to arise from a few folk, including Mr Mueller, who wished he had said that.

In any event overturning the ITC order was the proper move IMHO, and for exactly the reasons stated in the order. The public interest was not served by letting it go into effect.
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #193 of 262
Quote:
Originally Posted by patsu View Post

e.g., The principle that they won't abuse the SEPs.

As for the agreements, companies update them from time to time based on the latest cost structure, business model, usage etc.
Typically, new and renewing licensees will be subjected to the new terms. Old licensees stay put as long as the agreements remain valid (e.g., have not expired).

It's a non-news.

On the contrary, the RC CEO suggests that existing, current, non-expired agreements can be tossed. It's not about normally scheduled renewals or new licensees and I think you knew that.

Do you personally feel that if a patent is committed to FRAND, included in standard-essential agreements and licensed as such, that any purchaser of that patent should be bound to honor that commitment? How about patents in general, SEP or not. If a company has an existing license to a set of patents that end up sold to another company does that mean the license should no longer be valid? I'll wait for your answer. Take your time to think about it.
Edited by Gatorguy - 8/4/13 at 4:52pm
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #194 of 262
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

Look hard, but you wont' find any assertion by either the US Trade Representative nor the ITC that Samsung was abusing FRAND commitments in this particular case. (Doesn't mean I like Samsung any better) On the contrary the only company found to be abusing the FRAND process was Apple, thus the original ITC injunction order. In his letter overturning the order Mr Fromer never suggests that Samsung abused it's FRAND obligations in the case against Apple. That seems to arise from a few folk, including Mr Mueller, who wished he had said that.

In any event overturning the ITC order was the proper move IMHO, and for exactly the reasons stated in the order. The public interest was not served by letting it go into effect.

As long as the SEPs are abused, I don't think Apple will agree to sign anything.

ITC may want to think about their position, when and how to enforce so-called FRAND. At the moment, it looks like the Whitehouse and the supporting companies agree with Apple. If/when the import ban threat becomes ineffective, the negotiation may happen differently. I don't know what Samsung and Apple will do next. May be fight it out in the courts, may be settle. But it would be nice if ITC review their position on SEPs.
post #195 of 262
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

On the contrary, the RC CEO suggests that existing, current, non-expired agreements can be tossed. It's not about normally scheduled renewals or new licensees and I think you knew that. Do you personally feel that if a patent is committed to FRAND, included in standard-essential agreements and licensed as such, that any purchaser of that patent should be bound to honor that commitment?

If the companies are suing each other, then there may be clauses that the agreements may be terminated. In fact, there are usually termination clauses in agreements. It would be case by case.
post #196 of 262
Quote:
Originally Posted by patsu View Post

As long as the SEPs are abused, I don't think Apple will agree to sign anything. .
Neither Mr Fromer or the ITC said that Samsung abused the FRAND patent process with Apple in this specific case. That's why the trade rep said each case would have to be decided on it's own merits. On the other hand Apple was found to abuse it.
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #197 of 262
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

Neither Mr Fromer or the ITC said that Samsung abused the FRAND patent process with Apple in this specific case. That's why the trade rep said each case would have to be decided on it's own merits. On the other hand Apple was found to abuse it.

Under the current framework perhaps. But the opposite side are saying the framework (and ITC's thinking) is flawed. The negotiation will work differently if the SEPs cannot be abused to impose import ban at this point.
Edited by patsu - 8/4/13 at 5:06pm
post #198 of 262
Quote:
Originally Posted by patsu View Post

If the companies are suing each other, then there may be clauses that the agreements may be terminated. In fact, there are usually termination clauses in agreements. It would be case by case.

I didn't suggest that you assume that a licensee was suing a patent holder. You're referring to a specific and somewhat rare situation where "defensive suspension" might apply.

You seem to be avoiding an answer to either question I asked, perhaps thinking it might be an "inconvenient" one. Here's the questions again in case you forgot what they were:

"Do you personally feel that if a patent is committed to FRAND, included in standard-essential agreements and licensed as such, that any purchaser of that patent should be bound to honor that commitment? "

"How about patents in general, SEP or not. If a company has an existing and binding license to a set of patents that end up sold to another company does that mean the license should no longer be valid?"
Edited by Gatorguy - 8/4/13 at 5:05pm
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #199 of 262
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

I didn't suggest that you assume that a licensee was suing a patent holder. Your're referring to a specific situation where "defensive suspension" might apply. You seem to be avoiding an answer to what I asked, perhaps thinking it might be an "inconvenient" one.

I already answered. The agreements will be handled on a case by case basis. The RS guy won't be able to guarantee they all stay the same under this hostile environment. If he wants to change, he will need to look at the termination clauses in these agreements.
post #200 of 262
Quote:
Originally Posted by patsu View Post

I already answered. The agreements will be handled on a case by case basis. The RS guy won't be able to guarantee they all stay the same under this hostile environment. If he wants to change, he will need to look at the termination clauses in these agreements.

Change the players. Samsung sells a set of FRAND-pledged patents, properly licensed by Apple, to a 3rd party PAE for patent enforcement. The new owner of those patents decides that Apple no longer has a license and demands new negotiations with Apple or they sue for infringement. To top it off Samsung invests in that PAE and receives income from the new licensing activity. OK with you?
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: iPhone
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPhone › President Obama vetoes Samsung ban on Apple, Inc. iPhones, iPads