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 2

post #41 of 262
Quote:
Originally Posted by lkrupp View Post

I'm still unclear about what this is actually all about. So Samsung has a patent on something related to 3G GSM technology that Apple used in early versions of the iPhone and iPad. Did Apple refuse to pay royalties on this patent or did Samsung refuse to license it? Did Samsung offer to license to Apple but at rates far higher than other licensees were paying? Is this patent really subject to FRAND or not? Why has this gotten to this point? Who's really the bad guy here? Apple or Samsung? 

 

From what I see, as long as the courts refuse to define 'Fair and Reasonable' its a big lawyer fest.  If Samsung owns the SEP patent it thinks a high price is 'fair and reasonable.'  Apple doesn't think that's fair at all and proposes its own low price as 'fair and reasonable.'  Samsung of course does not agree with that.  Vice versa if its Apple that owns the SEP patent

 

Neither side budges.

 

Who is right?

 

It depends on what your definition of 'fair and reasonable' is

 

Apparantly the ITC reacts much quicker than the courts, but it is not actually a court- it cant impose any penalties other than either banning, or not banning.

 

It strikes me a little bit like a court where the only option the judge has is to listen to both sides for 10 minutes and then either shoot someone or not shoot them.  So if someone commits a minor crime, or even a medium one, is the punishment too severe for the crime?

 

It sounds to me like there was a lot of merit in overturning this one.  Did Apple skimp out on Samsung and not negotiate in full faith?  Probably a little bit, they tend to know what they can get away with :)  But does the punishment of banning them fit the crime?  A lot of prior rulings seem to indicate that it did not and was excessive on the ITC's part.

 

In that sense it is a good overturn.  If the general sentiment is true that it can start a 'tit for tat' war between nations and the ITC as well as generally promoting the notion that SEP patents are worth less than non SEP patents there's a danger there as there will be little incentive to pursue SEP


Edited by Frood - 8/3/13 at 4:18pm
post #42 of 262
Quote:
Originally Posted by jungmark View Post


It is legal for the president to overturn an ITC decision.
Sammy wanted Apple's first born or a relatively large licensing fee.

 

Specifically, 1000x-2000x what Microsoft was paying for those exact same patents. According to the Samsung shills here, Apple should have just taken it up the ass and complied with that blatant extortion. 

post #43 of 262
Quote:
Originally Posted by lkrupp View Post

I'm still unclear about what this is actually all about. So Samsung has a patent on something related to 3G GSM technology that Apple used in early versions of the iPhone and iPad. Did Apple refuse to pay royalties on this patent or did Samsung refuse to license it? Did Samsung offer to license to Apple but at rates far higher than other licensees were paying? Is this patent really subject to FRAND or not? Why has this gotten to this point? Who's really the bad guy here? Apple or Samsung? 

 

When companies say Apple "refused to take a license" for their FRAND patent, it means Apple said it wouldn't write them a blank check for the +1200%-more any anyone else type fees that Google's Motorola is trying to extort from Apple and Microsoft. Apple pays all sorts of licensing fees, from H.264 to licensing the swiss train station clocks represented in pixels. Apple isn't saying it won't pay, it's saying it won't be ripped off.

 

Samsung was trying to use an ITC import ban to force Apple's hand, but given that Apple could have survived without this AT&T model of the iPhone 4 (although it would have been an annoying complication), it fought and the veto means Samsung will have to negotiate fees in front of a judge, where its efforts to extort an order of magnitude more than is FRAND will not stand, just as it didn't for Google's FRAND patent abuse. 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by mrrodriguez View Post

The President sent a clear message

"Don't pay FRAND patents, it's fine. The amount of R&D that went into creating the patent is irrelevant. Just continue using other people IP without compensating the inventor"

That's what this forum would sound like if Apple actually created any technology that would be worth FRAND status.

 

This isn't true. The reverse is: had Samsung been allowed to block sales over a FRAND shakedown, everyone in the industry would start getting held up at ban-point but patent trolls, and rather than having to argue anything in court, all they'd have to do is give the ITC officials a secret handshake to cause major import hassles to anyone doing legitimate business unless they agreed to pay the trolls whatever they had the balls to demand.

 

It's actually in Samsung's own interest to not have such egregious BS happening at the ITC, because it would eventually come back to bite it in the ass too.

post #44 of 262
In a news update Reuters reports that the Obama administration overturned the ITC ruling because of "public interest ramifications" rather than concerns over the fact the involved patents included at least one that was standards-essential.
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #45 of 262
Quote:
Originally Posted by msimpson View Post

That is great news.  Now my ObamaPhone does not have to be Android.  Woo hoo !

"Obamaphone?" Really? How many times does it have to be pointed out that is from a program started LONG before Obama was elected?
post #46 of 262

 


Edited by GTR - 8/3/13 at 6:56pm
post #47 of 262
Quote:
Originally Posted by Slurpy View Post

Do some basic research into how these things work. Yes, completely legal.  It wasn't a court ruling. Obama really had little to do with it. It was a decision fully within the powers of the U.S. Trade Representative, who overruled the US International Trade Commission.

The title say the opposite of what the article implies, is all.

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

what a shameful act of injustice.
You are right. It should have never got this far.
The ITC is obviously blind when it comes to SEP/FRAND and Samsung should have never been granted the ban in the first place.
post #49 of 262
Quote:
Originally Posted by kharvel View Post

 

The bad guy was ITC and the enabler of the bad guy was Samsung.  

 

Samsung offered license to Apple on non-FRAND terms.  Specifically, Samsung demanded that Apple license non-SEP Apple patents to Samsung in exchange for Samsung licensing SEP patents to Apple on presumably FRAND terms.  This is known as "tying" in the antitrust world.  Apple refused to this non-FRAND arrangement and in response, Samsung asked ITC to ban Apple products.  ITC decided that it doesn't matter what terms Samsung offered as long as Samsung offered something and proceeded to ban Apple products on that basis alone.  President smacked down ITC for being an idiot and specifically said that it does matter what the terms were and those terms have to be FRAND.  

 

Now, the only option available to Samsung is to take Apple to court.  That is exactly what Samsung doesn't want because the courts have already ruled in a separate Motorola vs. Microsoft case (Judge Robart) that Microsoft was obligated to pay only FRAND licensing fees to Motorola which asked for non-FRAND licensing fees.  In Samsung's case, the court will determine what the FRAND licensing fees will be and will force both Apple and Samsung to accept those court terms.  

 

Thanks for this clear explanation. Been on The Verge, Engadget, Slashdot, Ars Technica and everyone seems bent on bashing Obama rather than digging through what the legal details of what happened.

post #50 of 262
Quote:
Originally Posted by Corrections View Post

When companies say Apple "refused to take a license" for their FRAND patent, it means Apple said it wouldn't write them a blank check for the +1200%-more any anyone else type fees that Google's Motorola is trying to extort from Apple and Microsoft. Apple pays all sorts of licensing fees, from H.264 to licensing the swiss train station clocks represented in pixels. Apple isn't saying it won't pay, it's saying it won't be ripped off.

Samsung was trying to use an ITC import ban to force Apple's hand, but given that Apple could have survived without this AT&T model of the iPhone 4 (although it would have been an annoying complication), it fought and the veto means Samsung will have to negotiate fees in front of a judge, where its efforts to extort an order of magnitude more than is FRAND will not stand, just as it didn't for Google's FRAND patent abuse. 


This isn't true. The reverse is: had Samsung been allowed to block sales over a FRAND shakedown, everyone in the industry would start getting held up at ban-point but patent trolls, and rather than having to argue anything in court, all they'd have to do is give the ITC officials a secret handshake to cause major import hassles to anyone doing legitimate business unless they agreed to pay the trolls whatever they had the balls to demand.

It's actually in Samsung's own interest to not have such egregious BS happening at the ITC, because it would eventually come back to bite it in the ass too.

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' .
post #51 of 262
Hopefully the administration will step up and scold the DOJ next for its ridiculous witch hunt regarding iBooks.

It's almost like the DOJ is saying, "Apple worked with others in the publishing industry to break Amazon's debilitating monopoly and restore 'fair trade' pricing practices to the e-book market. Since we are only capable of seeing "increased prices to the consumer", we therefore believe that Amazon's monopoly should be restored."

Come on. Seriously?

It seems like somewhere inside the government is a small, conspiratorial consortium going after Apple, leveraging the somewhat disingenuous perception that they are "avoiding taxes", and using DOJ and ITC rulings to exact unfair 'punishments'.

I say, let the scoldings begin! 1wink.gif
post #52 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.

 

Wait, where's the "shameful" here? What about unfairly leveraging FRAND patents? And in case you didn't comprehend or read the article, it wasn't Apple that "ran to the President", it was a consortium of Apple's COMPETITORS, and Senators from multiple states, among others...

 

And in addition, which you also apparently chose to ignore or didn't understand, the veto is mostly about one thing, and one thing only:

 

"it's all about protecting the industry standard-setting system against the abusive pursuit of injunctive relief by certain players."

 

The "certain player" they are referring to in this case is SAMSUNG. 

 

 

But, since you clearly with or work for Samsung, I don't expect my rational response to make a difference to you.

post #53 of 262

Florian, I thought you were a girl and made some not-very-nice comments about your knickers. I apologise and withdraw my comments. You are my Newfoundhero for the day.

 

Warning, FloDo not stray from the Apple way.

When I find time to rewrite the laws of Physics, there'll Finally be some changes made round here!

I am not crazy! Three out of five court appointed psychiatrists said so.

Reply

When I find time to rewrite the laws of Physics, there'll Finally be some changes made round here!

I am not crazy! Three out of five court appointed psychiatrists said so.

Reply
post #54 of 262
Quote:
Originally Posted by lkrupp View Post

 

And yet another sock puppet signs up. Hey Stevel, get thee over to C|net where you can run around in circles of rage with the other iHaters, hair on fire, flailing arms and shrieks of outrage. Really funny scene over there.

 

Cnet forums are pretty much owned by fandroids and Samsung trolls anymore… Samsung has made it a central suppository (sic) for their "paid shill" marketing.

post #55 of 262
Quote:
Originally Posted by tribalogical View Post

Hopefully the administration will step up and scold the DOJ next for its ridiculous witch hunt regarding iBooks.

It's almost like the DOJ is saying, "Apple worked with others in the publishing industry to break Amazon's debilitating monopoly and restore 'fair trade' pricing practices to the e-book market. Since we are only capable of seeing "increased prices to the consumer", we therefore believe that Amazon's monopoly should be restored."

Come on. Seriously?

Amazon did not have a monopoly, they might have established one, they might not have provided this did not happen.

Apple's actions caused the price of Ebooks to spike over 18% on average when implemented.  It took about 2 years for the price to fall down.  Consumers bought 12-17% (depending on which large publisher it is) less books after this happened.  NTY bestseller books rose over 42%, amazingly, Amazon's average prices rose over 14%.

Quote: TidBITS http://tidbits.com/article/13912

Again, there is nothing inherently illegal with the agency model, price tiers, or an MFN clause. And there isn’t even anything wrong with combining them in negotiation with a single company. The problem comes when they’re combined in negotiation with six publishers that between them control nearly 50 percent of the book market, and over 90 percent of the New York Times bestsellers.

After five of the Big Six publishers signed Apple’s deal, they immediately went to Amazon to switch their wholesale pricing agreements to the agency model. Amazon was understandably upset about this, due to the loss of pricing control, but had no choice but to accept in the end. Subsequently, the publishers also negotiated an agency model with Google, which was similarly unhappy.

Once the agency model was in place, ebook prices from those publishers rose immediately. Roughly two weeks after the move, prices at Amazon rose 14.2 percent for new releases, 42.7 percent for New York Times bestsellers, and 18.6 percent overall. Publishers raised prices for their hardcovers as well, to bump them into higher price tiers, and increased prices for their backlist books, older titles that sell relatively few copies each, but which form the long tail of book sales.

Simultaneously, and in a win for the basic economic rule that higher prices result in lower sales, the number of sales dropped by 12 to 17 percent per publisher. In short, customers bought fewer books and paid more per book.

In Judge Cote’s opinion, the combination of Apple working with all the publishers simultaneously to fix ebook prices in such a way as to cause them to rise was where Apple violated the Sherman Antitrust Act. Whether the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals upholds or strikes down Cote’s ruling remains to be seen.

Now, Apple and other companies do sell against Amazon.  If Apple does not want to compete with Amazon that is there choice.  There could only be a monopoly if that happened.

I fail to see what the side against what Apple did is.  Especially when 5 of the large publishers settles with the DOJ.

Apple is a great company, every great companies make mistakes.

-QAMF

Active on S}A forums.  S|A student level subscriber.  Don't claim to know what is in the articles.

Reply

Active on S}A forums.  S|A student level subscriber.  Don't claim to know what is in the articles.

Reply
post #56 of 262
Quote:
Originally Posted by DroidFTW View Post

Glad to hear this. Banning devices is too extreme a punishment that mostly hurts consumers. Getting a third party mediator to assess a monetary agreement seems like a much more sound option. Hopefully something gets worked out.

 

Unless the case is about blatant infringement of IP, e.g. when a company contests even the existence of a licensable patent, and goes to market using someone else's invention/design to profit from. We've already seen Samsung doing this pretty clearly with their iPhone and iPad 'clones'. Thus the $1 billion dollar fine + limited ban against Samsung.

 

When a patent falls under FRAND rules, a company must license the tech and do so without discrimination. Samsung attempted to leverage certain FRAND patents to get "more for less" out of Apple. They refused to give them non-discriminitory licensing of those FRAND patents, and then moved to get a ban in place too. This is why the ITC is getting scolded, and why the ban is not going to happen.

 

Of course, bans are never a good thing, but sometimes necessary to prevent companies doing exactly the kind of thing Samsung has done with their iPhone copies.

post #57 of 262
This is the right thing to do.

SEPs should never ever be used as a legal weapon. Otherwise all standards will become trojan overnight.
post #58 of 262
Quote:
Originally Posted by QAMF View Post

Amazon did not have a monopoly, they might have established one, they might not have provided this did not happen.

Apple's actions caused the price of Ebooks to spike over 18% on average when implemented.  It took about 2 years for the price to fall down.  Consumers bought 12-17% (depending on which large publisher it is) less books after this happened.  NTY bestseller books rose over 42%, amazingly, Amazon's average prices rose over 14%.

Now, Apple and other companies do sell against Amazon.  If Apple does not want to compete with Amazon that is there choice.  There could only be a monopoly if that happened.

I fail to see what the side against what Apple did is.  Especially when 5 of the large publishers settles with the DOJ.

Apple is a great company, every great companies make mistakes.

-QAMF

 

The irony here is that Amazon DID in fact have a near-monopoly on ebooks, and their pricing was often "below cost" on books… so that "spike" you refer to is actually the price of books "normalizing", returning to where they should be, rather than riding at the "artifically lowered" prices set EXCLUSIVELY by Amazon.

 

Another big difference in the picture that includes Apple is that, in Apple's iBooks world, the PUBLISHER sets the prices, not Apple, since Apple isn't actually in the role of the traditional Retailer/Reseller (whereas, Amazon IS in the role of retailer and controls the selling price). Apple simply said to the Publishers, our agreement is this:

 

- You set your own pricing. We get "X" (whatever 30% comes out to). 

 

- You can't sell your product to someone else for LESS (meaning, don't undercut our bookstore in your pricing to others).

 

Apple is more like a big digital Mall, where vendors setup 'shop' and sell their product wares. Music, Movies, Apps, Books, whatever. Apple's singular condition is, if you resell this elsewhere at a lower price, you have to sell it here at that lower price as well.

 

Perhaps that's where they got into trouble with the "price fixing" concept? Except that it isn't really. More like demanding "low price matching" which, well, seems like a commerce standard to me. Everywhere I look companies announce "We'll meet any low price!". If that equals "price fixing" the DOJ has a lot of work to do to prosecute them all.

post #59 of 262

Where is KDarling? Didn't he quote the ITC decision in other threads to show that Apple is actually in the wrong here?

post #60 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.

 

Oh... Don't tell me... Let me guess....

 

You are a stock trader who took a position based on this band taking effect...

 

Well, c'est la vie...

post #61 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.

You obviously didn't read or comprehend the article and what Samscum was doing and how the ITC made a dumb ruling. Oh well.

 

Apple wasn't price fixing. that's total BS. All they wanted was to have an equal playing field between all resellers of ebooks and have a standard LIST Price and 30% margin and then each reseller can then resell the books at whatever price they want to.  The way Amazon does business is they had complely unfair pricing than what they wanted to charge Apple. Apple just wanted an equal playing field like ANY company would want.  The only way to do that is to have a CONSISTENT retail pricing/discounting structure that created an equal playing field, much like how MOST companies on the planet work.  Apple has to have 30% margin because when a user downloads content from iTunes and the app store, they have to pay Akamai a large chunk of that 30% for content delivery.  And Apple felt it would be best to consider a CONSISTENT pricing structure to make it fair for all. I read Jobs email that he sent.

 

Just in case you didn't know, Apple spends the least amount of money lobbying and campaign contributions than MOST high tech companies, and Samsung is amongst the highest that lobby in this country.  So if you want to accuse anyone of trying to pay off politicians, look at Samsung. 

post #62 of 262
Quote:
Originally Posted by QAMF View Post

Amazon did not have a monopoly, they might have established one, they might not have provided this did not happen.

Apple's actions caused the price of Ebooks to spike over 18% on average when implemented.  It took about 2 years for the price to fall down.  Consumers bought 12-17% (depending on which large publisher it is) less books after this happened.  NTY bestseller books rose over 42%, amazingly, Amazon's average prices rose over 14%.

Now, Apple and other companies do sell against Amazon.  If Apple does not want to compete with Amazon that is there choice.  There could only be a monopoly if that happened.

I fail to see what the side against what Apple did is.  Especially when 5 of the large publishers settles with the DOJ.

Apple is a great company, every great companies make mistakes.

-QAMF

Amazon had cheaper pricing because of what they were charging Apple.  There was no RETAIL LIST price standard and a WHOLESALE pricing model that's consistent.

 

Amazon was undercutting Apple tremendously as they had unfair pricing.  What Apple suggested is to have a RETAIL LIST PRICE, a UNIFIED WHOLESALE cost and that Apple needed 30% because that's REASONABLE mark up.  So, yes, in order for the publishers to make decent money they raised the RETAIL LIST price up in order to make an EQUAL playing field.

 

If you go to any retail store, they have a retail list price and a wholesale price. Unless the mfg has a discount structure for large resellers that buy bigger quantity, they usually charge the same wholesale cost.  I know those that have little background in this have a tough time understanding what was going on, but I wouldn't call it unfair at all.  It's just getting these guys to understand how to set their pricing structure so it's fair for the biggest download resellers, which is Apple and Amazon, among others.  What they actually sell something for is different.

 

I think it's how the media, the judge and readers interpret this stuff since most of the people (media, judge and readers) don't comprehend this situation.  I think they should have had a consistent pricing model to begin with but the publishers didn't get it and they didn't understand the digital download industry, much like the music industry didn't understand the digital download industry either at first.

post #63 of 262
Quote:
Originally Posted by matrix07 View Post

Where is KDarling? Didn't he quote the ITC decision in other threads to show that Apple is actually in the wrong here?

LOL, he will be rewriting his CV by now.
Enjoying the new Mac Pro ... it's smokin'
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.
Reply
Enjoying the new Mac Pro ... it's smokin'
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.
Reply
post #64 of 262
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frood View Post

In that sense it is a good overturn.  If the general sentiment is true that it can start a 'tit for tat' war between nations and the ITC as well as generally promoting the notion that SEP patents are worth less than non SEP patents there's a danger there as there will be little incentive to pursue SEP

 

 

It is an ACCEPTED FACT by all SEP patent holders and SEP implementers that all SEP patents are worth far less than non-SEP patents for the following reasons:

 

1) Almost all SEP patent themselves were worthless prior to being incorporated into the standard and becoming SEP.  This gives the SEP patent holders an economic incentive to pledge the patents for standardization (see #3 below).  

 

2) To be accepted into the standard, the SEP patent holder must pledge FRAND terms.  This action alone devalues the SEP patent to the extent that the SEP patent holder can no longer license SEP patents for more than FRAND rates. 

 

3) The primary driver for patent holders to pledge patents to SEP was because the FRAND royalties they may capture from SEP patents can be far greater than the royalties they would capture if the patent wasn't part of the standards because of #1 above and because there are so many other non-infringing methods/technologies that makes the patent worthless on its own merits.  

 

If Samsung thought so highly of its 3G wireless patents which are center of the ITC dispute and thought that it could get more than FRAND rates for these patents, it had the option NOT to pledge these patents to the standards and instead try to capture non-FRAND royalties for these patents.  But of course it didn't precisely because the 3G wireless patents weren't worth that much on their own merits alone.  So Samsung pledged these patents to SEP and agreed to charge only FRAND royalties.

 

The Presidential veto has, if anything, strengthened the SEP regime in the sense that those who think their patents are more valuable than what FRAND royalties would justify will not pledge their patents to the standards while those who think their patents are less valuable than what FRAND royalties would justify will be more than happy to pledge their patents to the standards and follow all the rules.  in the end, the SEP abusers and trolls will voluntarily stay away from the standards process which is a GOOD THING.  

post #65 of 262

I've been waiting for this decision one way or the other, and so has Apple. 

 

Guess what?  I think we get a notice of an upcoming product announcement within a week of this happening this Monday, so by August 12.  First this is the correct decision, as the story states.  Apple was waiting for this to shake out for two very good reasons.  First, if they announced a product before this decison (or rather non-decision if not vetoed), it would be easy for intellectually dishonest people to advance this argument:

 

what is the harm - the product is or soon will be replaced. 

 

Now this is not correct logic; principle is important.  So they waited so as to not set in play future slippery slope type events.  Secondly whether the product is banned or not most likely plays in to just what they plan to do with iPhone 4 availability in the USA.  I think they should keep selling them.  Anyone more than the most casual user will really need to replace far sooner than than if they were to buy something not about to become iOS Obsolete.  Now the ultra casual user won't be bothered by this, they just wanted an iPhone, and the cheaper the better.  When they eventually replace, they probably buy another "cheaper" iPhone. 

 

Anyone other than an ultra casual user, (and some that start out that way don't stay that way - they dive deeper into the ecosystem) will want to replace sooner rather than later and will upgrade to if not the latest and greatest iPhone, something more upscale than iPhone 4 is currently in the Apple product line.  Are they out anything?  Not really.  Cost zero on contract and sell the phone for now, close to $200 and whenever their sale date rolls around, probably a hundred bucks, and the phone goes to India or Brazil or whatever they do with them.  I traded in an iPhone 4 just this week.  It had been kicking around since October because of difficulty unlocking with AT&T, and then I got busy and just put it off for a while.  I figured I better sell it before the product announcement, so I did.  I was shocked what Amazon was willing to give me for something I was ready to toss out of frustration with unlocking.

 

Oh and speaking of conversion to Apple, that is me.  I used to be an anything but Apple.  Wife had an iPod, but her first iPhone was the iPhone 4 we just sold.  I told her why not get the evo, or the galaxy whatever at that time.  She was insistent.  Needless to say 10 months later I got the 4S on release day, she got iPad for christmas, I bought one last summer, and got one for my father.  Wife got her retina Mac Book Pro last summer too.  Oh and I didn't tell you but I also traded the 4S at the same time as the 4. for an extra hundred bucks or whatever.  Why did I trade that newish phone?  Cause on release day last year this former anything but Apple bought 5 thats FIVE iPhone 5.  Wife, myself, parents and brother.  And that 4S, Well, I got back every penny I paid for it, plus the early termination fee when I sold it.  :)

 

It will be an Apple world people, and this decision is the tip off to something exciting coming up.

post #66 of 262
Quote:
Originally Posted by Slurpy View Post

Do some basic research into how these things work. Yes, completely legal.  It wasn't a court ruling. Obama really had little to do with it. It was a decision fully within the powers of the U.S. Trade Representative, who overruled the US International Trade Commission.

TS asked a civil question and most AIrs in the know kindly answer.
I have asked some pretty rudimentary questions and one AI long-tooth answered my simple question so kindly I quickly forgot he was sometimes a might heavy with a few of my vacant points. The dude has standards yet was willing to help someone who needed a point to follow the discussion. I now see him in a totally different light, a more whole and complete person who does want honest discussion to take place at AI; and should he jump on one of my 'out of touch with reality' comments again, then, what the heck—we learn by our mistakes.

fixed dud to dude
Edited by mhikl - 8/3/13 at 8:23pm

When I find time to rewrite the laws of Physics, there'll Finally be some changes made round here!

I am not crazy! Three out of five court appointed psychiatrists said so.

Reply

When I find time to rewrite the laws of Physics, there'll Finally be some changes made round here!

I am not crazy! Three out of five court appointed psychiatrists said so.

Reply
post #67 of 262
Quote:
Originally Posted by lkrupp View Post

Don't you just love these one post wonders. They drive by, deposit a giant, smelly turd on the carpet, and then just disappear.

I treated them like spam when I was a mod. We see a fair few more now than we did then.

That's part of the reason I never want dedicated forums (in the traditional Internet definition) to die. Imagine a world where our conversations here are in, say, WordPress or Vanilla or LiveFyre or any of those other idiotic cross-website comment services. 1eek.gif
Quote:
Originally Posted by mhikl View Post

TS asked a civil question and most Airs in the know kindly answer.

Hey, it's not a big deal. I'm chill about just about everything, or so I'm told. It's just that right here, in this specific instance, my desire to see the foundation of what this country represents upheld, my desire to see Apple succeed, and my interest in nothing other than absolute Truth slammed right together. There's a good quote; I forget what it's from. "My country right or wrong; if right, to be kept right, if wrong, to be set right." I wouldn't want Apple saved from anything they did wrong by my country going against its own laws and principles, and I wouldn't want Apple to win a court battle with lies.

Fortunately, neither of those happened here, and Apple should never have lost in the first place. lol.gif
Edited by Tallest Skil - 8/3/13 at 7:05pm

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 #68 of 262
Quote:
Originally Posted by kharvel View Post


It is an ACCEPTED FACT by all SEP patent holders and SEP implementers that all SEP patents are worth far less than non-SEP patents for the following reasons:

1) Almost all SEP patent themselves were worthless prior to being incorporated into the standard and becoming SEP.  This gives the SEP patent holders an economic incentive to pledge the patents for standardization (see #3 below).  

2) To be accepted into the standard, the SEP patent holder must pledge FRAND terms.  This action alone devalues the SEP patent to the extent that the SEP patent holder can no longer license SEP patents for more than FRAND rates. 

3) The primary driver for patent holders to pledge patents to SEP was because the FRAND royalties they may capture from SEP patents can be far greater than the royalties they would capture if the patent wasn't part of the standards because of #1 above and because there are so many other non-infringing methods/technologies that makes the patent worthless on its own merits.  

If Samsung thought so highly of its 3G wireless patents which are center of the ITC dispute and thought that it could get more than FRAND rates for these patents, it had the option NOT to pledge these patents to the standards and instead try to capture non-FRAND royalties for these patents.  But of course it didn't precisely because the 3G wireless patents weren't worth that much on their own merits alone.  So Samsung pledged these patents to SEP and agreed to charge only FRAND royalties.

The Presidential veto has, if anything, strengthened the SEP regime in the sense that those who think their patents are more valuable than what FRAND royalties would justify will not pledge their patents to the standards while those who think their patents are less valuable than what FRAND royalties would justify will be more than happy to pledge their patents to the standards and follow all the rules.  in the end, the SEP abusers and trolls will voluntarily stay away from the standards process which is a GOOD THING.  

Thanks I have learned a lot reading your posts today, it all makes sense now.
Enjoying the new Mac Pro ... it's smokin'
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.
Reply
Enjoying the new Mac Pro ... it's smokin'
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.
Reply
post #69 of 262

President Obama raised the FRAND issue over a year ago. Then he was openly warning the patent courts and ITC how they needed to rule on FRAND patents. This decision was written in stone months ago. 

post #70 of 262

Quote:
Originally Posted by lkrupp View Post

I'm still unclear about what this is actually all about. So Samsung has a patent on something related to 3G GSM technology that Apple used in early versions of the iPhone and iPad. Did Apple refuse to pay royalties on this patent or did Samsung refuse to license it? Did Samsung offer to license to Apple but at rates far higher than other licensees were paying? Is this patent really subject to FRAND or not? Why has this gotten to this point? Who's really the bad guy here? Apple or Samsung? 

 

The details have been fully explained multiple times in my previous posts on the topic.  Here's the most recent explanation, which will answer all your questions:

 

http://forums.appleinsider.com/t/158812/senators-allude-support-for-presidential-veto-of-imminent-itc-iphone-and-ipad-ban#post_2371761

 
Quote:
Originally Posted by kharvel View Post

Samsung offered license to Apple on non-FRAND terms.  Specifically, Samsung demanded that Apple license non-SEP Apple patents to Samsung in exchange for Samsung licensing SEP patents to Apple on presumably FRAND terms.  

 

No.  Samsung did not "demand that Apple license non-SEP Apple patents".    They did offer it as an option.

 

Quote:
 President smacked down ITC for being an idiot and specifically said that it does matter what the terms were and those terms have to be FRAND.  

 

While the letter emphasized a concern over FRAND, it also specifically noted that:

 

1) Bans over FRAND patents were still an option under certain circumstances (including the reason the ITC gave in its ruling, which was Apple's lack of negotiations):

 

 

2) They did not overturn the ITC decision itself.

 

 


Edited by KDarling - 8/3/13 at 8:25pm
post #71 of 262
From Reuters: "Froman on Saturday said the ITC should thoroughly examine the public interest ramifications of its rulings in disputes over standard essential patents."
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

In a news update Reuters reports that the Obama administration overturned the ITC ruling because of "public interest ramifications" rather than concerns over the fact the involved patents included at least one that was standards-essential.

So...... Clearly means something entirely different from your interpretation.
post #72 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.

The patents are both exhausted and FRAND. They should not be able to collect twice (both from the chip maker and from Apple).  If they should be paid a second time it should be at the same rate others are charged as they are FRAND patents.  So far Samsung has asked for 50x the normal rate they charge others in violation of Samsung's FRAND obligations. 

post #73 of 262
Quote:
Originally Posted by piot View Post

From Reuters: "Froman on Saturday said the ITC should thoroughly examine the public interest ramifications of its rulings in disputes over standard essential patents."
So...... Clearly means something entirely different from your interpretation.

I'm not exactly sure what you just said or if it's a question you have 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." He said Samsung could continue to pursue its case through the courts."

In essence the ban was overturned more over public interest concerns rather than as a statement on the merits of SEP injunction requests. In any event tho I think the lifting of the injunction had to be done to give weight to the President's proposals for reining in software patents.

Of course if there's consistency on the potential economic harm from some ITC injunctions it may not be the only one that gets overruled by the trade representative in the future.
Edited by Gatorguy - 8/3/13 at 8:12pm
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #74 of 262
After learning the President overturned the import ban, I decided to respond to the emails for signing his birthday card! The distaste for all of the government's recent attacks on Apple was making me sense there was a concerted effort being made to force Apple to payoff politicians similar to Google, Amazon and Samsung.

Google has been slapped for using SEPs to ban imports and for charging exhorbitant fees.

Now Samsung and others have been put on notice for the same thing.

All of this has me wondering what the postponed Apple vs. Samsung non-SEP ban decision will be by the ITC. The decision was supposed to be made last week, but was delayed without explanation on the day the decision was to be announced.

I hope the ITC does not purposefully allow Samsung off the hook because of today's overturn.

IF Samsung is as innovative as it claims to be then it should be willing to spend its money and time designing and developing its own non-SEP technology that is so compelling that it makes Apple want to copy it.
post #75 of 262
Quote:
Originally Posted by BeltsBear View Post

The patents are both exhausted and FRAND. They should not be able to collect twice (both from the chip maker and from Apple).  

 

Please read the link in Post #78 to get some background facts.

 

The patent was not exhausted because Infineon never had a license for it.

 

--

 

The ITC has almost always issued bans after finding violations.  The last time the ITC did NOT implement a ban was in 1984, when it decided that blocking the import of special burn victim beds would be against public welfare.

 

Interestingly, the last time an Administration overturned a ban was with Reagan back in 1987 in order to allow Samsung parts to come in.

 

OTOH, a ban over almost all Verizon new cell phone imports back in 2007 wasn't overturned by Bush.  While it was a blow to Qualcomm and Verizon's customers, it wasn't deemed critical enough to the public welfare.  (It was later overturned by the appeals court.)


Edited by KDarling - 8/4/13 at 2:02pm
post #76 of 262
Quote:
Originally Posted by KDarling View Post

False.  Samsung did not "demand that Apple license non-SEP Apple patents". 

 

Actually, Samsung did.  Look here:

http://www.fosspatents.com/2013/07/wheres-doj-samsung-takes-extortionate.html

 

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by KDarling View Post

While the letter emphasized the concern over FRAND, it also bent over backwards to note two things:

 

1) That bans over FRAND patents were still an option under certain circumstances (including the reason the ITC gave, which was a refusal to negotiate):

 

 

While the letter did say that, it also said that the ITC was sloppy and incomprehensive in its investigation of whether there was indeed a refusal to negotiate, whether a real FRAND offer was indeed made by Samsung, and whether the ITC considered all the facts associated with the FRAND nature of the offer made by Samsung (i.e. did Samsung make similar offers to other parties?).  Look at the second to the last paragraph of the letter.  Here's the relevant text:

 

 

Quote:
I would like to underscore that in any future cases involving SEPs that are subject to voluntary FRAND commitments, the Commission should be certain to (1) to examine thoroughly and carefully on its own initiative the public interest issues presented both at the outset of its proceeding and when determining whether a particular remedy is in the public interest and (2) seek proactively to have the parties develop a comprehensive factual record related to these issues in the proceedings before the Administrative Law Judge and during the formal remedy phase of the investigation before the Commission, including information on the standards-essential nature of the patent at issue if contested by the patent holder and the presence or absence of patent hold-up or reverse hold-up. In addition, the Commission should make explicit findings on these issues to the maximum extent possible. I will look for these elements in any future decisions involving FRAND-encumbered SEPs that are presented for policy review. The Commission is well-positioned to consider these issues in its public interest determinations

 

 

 

 

 

 

post #77 of 262
Quote:
Originally Posted by leavingthebigG View Post


Google has been slapped for using SEPs to ban imports and for charging exhorbitant fees.

Google hasn't ever asserted any SEP's and so hasn't been "slapped" for seeking a ban with or charging exorbitant fees for them. You're confusing them with their independently operated subsidiary Motorola Mobility. IIRC these cases started before Motorola had even spun off MM. and long before Google got involved. It's just like saying Apple is in the midst of layoffs when it's really their independent subsidiary Filemaker who decided it had to let some folks go to stay in business.

Of course there's those that will continue to mix and match Google and Motorola as tho they're one and the same. It's a favorite tactic of FOSSPatents so the confusion by some here might be understandable.
Edited by Gatorguy - 8/3/13 at 8:45pm
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #78 of 262
Quote:
Originally Posted by MacVicta View Post

Hillary will wipe the floor with whichever one of these Rethugs who thinks he's ready to take her on. They won't know what hit em. Looking forward to another Karl Rove meltdown on Fox News.

Sad what the Tea Baggers have done to my Republican Party, I voted for Obama in 08, only reason I voted for Romney in 2012 was I thought he would be better for my $AAPL & other stock holdings. Good thing about Hillary is we also get Bill again & be nice to see a deserving woman be POTUS.

As far as Apple stock goes seems momentum is finally coming back, either way as a consumer I am winning. Now where is my big damn iPhone? 1smile.gif
post #79 of 262
Quote:
Originally Posted by kharvel View Post

Look at the second to the last paragraph of the letter.  Here's the relevant text

He never want to look at that. If he wanted to he would have seen it by now. LOL.
post #80 of 262
Hangin' is too good for em . I suggest piano wire like Mussolini
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