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 3

post #81 of 262
Quote:
Originally Posted by kharvel View Post

Actually, Samsung did.  Look here:

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

 

No sir, Samsung did not require cross-licensing.

 

That excerpt from the Commissioner's statement has to be read in context.

All that Samsung as a SEP holder is required to do, is offer a cash price that anyone can pay.  Any other deal is gravy for both sides, and as the Commissioner pointed out, is perfectly legal.

Samsung made several offers to Apple, including the 2.4% cash price, AND another offer to lower rates through cross-licensing non-FRAND patents.

The Commissioner was not saying that Samsung was wrong to make such an offer. On the contrary, he said it was okay if consensual.  The Commissioner was simply stating that he didn't think it should qualify to be listed as a FRAND offer with any other FRAND offers.

In other words, he was asking, if you ignore that particular offer, do the remaining offer(s) count as FRAND offer(s)?

Mueller's article made it sound like it was the only offer. It was not.

post #82 of 262
It doesn't really matter.

In principle, in the interest of the consumers and the industry, SEPs should never ever be used as a legal weapon to ban imports.

The engineers and scientists can always pick alternative technologies to build their standards.

The industry is willing to incorporate SEPs into standards because they are promised and used as a neutral foundation for common interests. They should not be used as a bargain chip. Period.
post #83 of 262
Quote:
Originally Posted by kharvel View Post

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:

 

Umm.  I don't read it that way, but then, I've read almost all 800 pages of the evidence and ruling, as background.  (I wonder if this brand new Trade Commissioner did so, or if his staff did it for him.)

 

Neither Apple nor Samsung kept good records.

 

In light of that, the paragraph you quoted seemed to be telling the ITC to lean on the parties involved to come up with better records in the future... not that the ITC itself was sloppy, since it could only work with what info the parties had.

 

As for the phrase in it about wanting "explicit findings" to "the maximum extent", the ITC ruling was like 700 pages.  That's really detailed for a decision involving a single patent.

 

Thanks for the interesting discussion!

 

As I've said many times before, I don't believe in software patent bans.  It's interesting though that this one didn't have to go to appeals court like all the others before it.  This just shows how opinions are changing recently.


Edited by KDarling - 8/6/13 at 5:45pm
post #84 of 262

To: Mr. President Obama,

 

Thank You, Sir.

....the lack of properly optimized apps is one of the reasons "why the experience on Android tablets is so crappy".

Tim Cook ~ The Wall Street Journal - February 7, 2014

Inside Google! 

Reply

....the lack of properly optimized apps is one of the reasons "why the experience on Android tablets is so crappy".

Tim Cook ~ The Wall Street Journal - February 7, 2014

Inside Google! 

Reply
post #85 of 262
You're welcome Apple fans.
post #86 of 262

Looks like several ignoramuses from The Verge can't handle the fact they know less than nothing of the powers and laws of The US Constitution and the duties therein each branch entails.

post #87 of 262
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rob55 View Post

 

Sounds like the DOJ in the eBook case.  

 

 

Exactly, the Department of Justice should be ashamed of itself in the eBook case. Never before has a party such as Apple that had no market power entering a market against an established  party that had a monopoly ever get accused of anti-competitive behaviour. Why wasn't Barnes and Noble accused of the same thing, since it was  clear it was working out the same deal Apple had even before Apple? 

post #88 of 262
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post


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.

 

 

It is BS that Motorola Mobility is independently run. Maybe in day to day operations, but all litigation and large decisions are approved and or planned by Google. That is why when Microsoft and Google were suing each other, Microsoft had to bring Google into the lawsuit because Motorola kept saying it needed Google to make decisions. 

 

Large companies like Google, and even Apple, have many wholly owned supposedly independent companies. This is for tax reasons and liability purposes. Both Google and Apple control their subsidiaries. You do not see File Maker making an Android App, or Motorola adding a skin to Android as opposed to using stock Android. 

post #89 of 262
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

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.

Your efforts to protect Google's reputation are admirable, but the fact is that Google owns Motorola Motability and so it is in Google's power to have prevented this.

The reason that FOSS Patents keeps making these Google reference is so that people don't forget who is behind this: Google.

'Do no evil.'

Mmmm.

I'm afraid your 'one degree of separation' argument remains unconvincing.
post #90 of 262

How much is Samesung paying you?

post #91 of 262
What would the comments be like here if it were the Korean government overturning a ban on Samsung products?

Oh, please! Don't mob me-- just give it a rest.
post #92 of 262
Quote:
Originally Posted by justbobf View Post

What would the comments be like here if it were the Korean government overturning a ban on Samsung products?

Oh, please! Don't mob me-- just give it a rest.

It will depend on the case. No one can give a reasonable answer to your question without knowing the specifics.
post #93 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' .

 

A) ITC rulings always enter a presidential review period

B) ITC is not a court

 

The rest of your stuff Verges on Samsung-Strategy Analytics propaganda. 

post #94 of 262
Quote:
Originally Posted by justbobf View Post

What would the comments be like here if it were the Korean government overturning a ban on Samsung products?

Oh, please! Don't mob me-- just give it a rest.

 

Samsung is pretty much immune to Korean law

 

http://www.engadget.com/2009/12/29/samsungs-former-chairman-pardoned-again/

 

So it's unlikely that such a ban would ever be on the table in the first place.

post #95 of 262
Quote:
Originally Posted by justbobf View Post

What would the comments be like here if it were the Korean government overturning a ban on Samsung products?

Oh, please! Don't mob me-- just give it a rest.

It's about time.

I've been waiting for some fool to play the racist card.

What took you so long?

Running on Korean Standard Time?

1wink.gif
Android: pitting every phone company in the world against one, getting a higher number, and considering it a major achievement.
Reply
Android: pitting every phone company in the world against one, getting a higher number, and considering it a major achievement.
Reply
post #96 of 262
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frood View Post

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 1smile.gif  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

Of course there will be incentive to pursue SEP. Getting a small piece of everyone's pie can result in big pay days and a great revenue steam. Consider that without promoting their tech under sep, it wouldn't be used by anyone. To then turn around after agreeing to Sep and try to extort high prices is ridiculous. I hope Samsung and google keep it up. SEP standard setters will start bypassing their techs completely.
post #97 of 262
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

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.

I don't think it is as much confusion as it is reading between the lines. If I own a company 100% and decide to fire people I am for all practical purposes firing people even though "it's the company doing the firing". Not legally, but for all practical purposes, Apple is totally responsible for the layoffs at the independent company as Apple determines whether they act independently. Likewise, for practical purposes, not legal, giggle is responsible for anything motorola does or has done since purchasing them. The fact they are independent because giggle wants it that way or that it started pre giggle is irrelevant.
post #98 of 262
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

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.

I am not confused at all. I believe I am seeing the Google/Motorola group clearly.

Once Google purchased Motorola, Motorola had to get Google's permission to continue pursuing SEP bans and/or charging exhorbitant fees on competitor products. Google did not withhold its permission. At that moment, Google became THE company pursuing these very bad deals.

Sure, many people will try to keep Google out of the SEP mess, but they cannot. Google chose to spend $12.5 billion to purchase Motorola and knew exactly what was going on.

Losses cannot be attributed to Motorola while wins are attributed to Google. All goes to Google
post #99 of 262

Using FRAND patents against the competitors is dishonorableness. Obama's rejection is neither good or bad. It is fair in terms of the valid rules of the patent system.

post #100 of 262
Quote:
Originally Posted by superdx View Post

 

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.

 

You wanted a fair, reasable, unbiased review on an Apple related news from Engadget?

 

Verge and ARS Technica is better but lately they are also re-printing press releases from stupids like Strategy ANALytics without checking facts. Fact checking or thinking or original report is a thing of past. Except for AI and a handful of sites.

post #101 of 262


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' .
 

Last time I checked this is AppleInsider, wrong site matey

post #102 of 262
All I have to say is: Yes! In your face! Well done!
post #103 of 262
Quote:
Originally Posted by leavingthebigG View Post


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.

 

That's the danger of making SEP patents worthless.  One possible outcome is both Samsung and Google are working on wireless technologies for the next generation of phones that are several hundred times faster than LTE.  With no incentive or advantage to license under SEP, they'll simply keep it proprietary.

 

Apple users would be stuck with 'dial-up' speed phones relative to the zippy Google and Samsung phones.  That may not be an entirely bad thing as it would prompt Apple to develop its own wireless technologies and now compete to come up with an even faster or better Apple proprietary wireless solution (Apple is historically very bad at coming up with these type of techs though).  With the small market share in some countries outside the US it would likely not be worth the cost of deploying, but in their established markets they could try to gain a competitive edge with it.

 

My personal view is that while standards generally promote slower 'change' and innovation, they have a very useful purpose.  I like the fact that I can call my friends regardless of if they prefer Apple, Android, Windows, or landline phones.

 

In a world where there were 50 cell phone competitors, SEPs would actually be essential.  In a world where there are only two, its a very real possibility they could go their own way since both iOS and Android have enough users to be a 'standard' in and of themselves.

post #104 of 262
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frood View Post

That's the danger of making SEP patents worthless.  One possible outcome is both Samsung and Google are working on wireless technologies for the next generation of phones that are several hundred times faster than LTE.  With no incentive or advantage to license under SEP, they'll simply keep it proprietary.

Apple users would be stuck with 'dial-up' speed phones relative to the zippy Google and Samsung phones.  That may not be an entirely bad thing as it would prompt Apple to develop its own wireless technologies and now compete to come up with an even faster or better Apple proprietary wireless solution (Apple is historically very bad at coming up with these type of techs though).  With the small market share in some countries outside the US it would likely not be worth the cost of deploying, but in their established markets they could try to gain a competitive edge with it.

My personal view is that while standards generally promote slower 'change' and innovation, they have a very useful purpose.  I like the fact that I can call my friends regardless of if they prefer Apple, Android, Windows, or landline phones.

In a world where there were 50 cell phone competitors, SEPs would actually be essential.  In a world where there are only two, its a very real possibility they could go their own way since both iOS and Android have enough users to be a 'standard' in and of themselves.

Not likely any carrier would invest in tech that only worked with one carriers phone
post #105 of 262
Quote:
Originally Posted by drblank View Post

hahahahahahahahahahaha............

Yet they so often derail a thread because so may answer them. Personally I think the mods should be more aggressive in removing them.
From Apple ][ - to new Mac Pro I've used them all.
Long on AAPL so biased
"Google doesn't sell you anything, they just sell you!"
Reply
From Apple ][ - to new Mac Pro I've used them all.
Long on AAPL so biased
"Google doesn't sell you anything, they just sell you!"
Reply
post #106 of 262
Quote:
Originally Posted by herbapou View Post

Due to the political nature of this news, there are restrictions on other Apple sites regarding comments. So some trolls came here.

Exactly! … And that tells us something. Come on mods, remove political posts immediately. Of course by definition this post has a political connection and no doubt makes it harder to separate a sensible post from a hysterical, biased rant.
From Apple ][ - to new Mac Pro I've used them all.
Long on AAPL so biased
"Google doesn't sell you anything, they just sell you!"
Reply
From Apple ][ - to new Mac Pro I've used them all.
Long on AAPL so biased
"Google doesn't sell you anything, they just sell you!"
Reply
post #107 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.


Yet another Sameshit loving Fandroid... lol.gif

 

hint: Go to macrumors! That site seems to be crawling with fandroids...

post #108 of 262
At last, a visible positive action by Obama for business ... better late than never.
post #109 of 262
Quote:
Originally Posted by architecton View Post


Yet another Sameshit loving Fandroid... lol.gif

hint: Go to macrumors! That site seems to be crawling with fandroids...

Heck, Macrumors seems to be RUN BY fandroids. You can get banned there for simply pointing out all the errors in the trolls' posts.

Quote:
Originally Posted by CustomTB View Post

Not likely any carrier would invest in tech that only worked with one carriers phone

That's too strong a statement. Let's just say that it's harder for a carrier to justify a technology used in a single phone. There are exceptions - such as AT&T's use of Apple's visual voicemail. At the time, AT&T was the only carrier to offer the technology and had to spend the money solely for one phone.

Your statement is, however, the common justification for SEP technology and it does apply, but don't ignore the exceptions.

Quote:
Originally Posted by leavingthebigG View Post

I am not confused at all. I believe I am seeing the Google/Motorola group clearly.

Once Google purchased Motorola, Motorola had to get Google's permission to continue pursuing SEP bans and/or charging exhorbitant fees on competitor products. Google did not withhold its permission. At that moment, Google became THE company pursuing these very bad deals.

Sure, many people will try to keep Google out of the SEP mess, but they cannot. Google chose to spend $12.5 billion to purchase Motorola and knew exactly what was going on.

Losses cannot be attributed to Motorola while wins are attributed to Google. All goes to Google

Of course. Any rational person who has even the slightest understanding of multinational businesses sees that. Unfortunately, several of the Samsung/Google shills refuse to acknowledge simple fact.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

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. .

How did you make the leap from "in part based on..." to "overturned MORE over..."?
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
post #110 of 262
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post


Heck, Macrumors seems to be RUN BY fandroids. You can get banned there for simply pointing out all the errors in the trolls' posts.
 

 

I was... and I had been a member there since 2004!! I think the whole forum section of that site is run by Google / Samsung.

 

...on the up side I discovered AI! ...and boy am I glad I did!! 1biggrin.gif

post #111 of 262
Quote:
Originally Posted by architecton View Post

I was... and I had been a member there since 2004!! I think the whole forum section of that site is run by Google / Samsung.

...on the up side I discovered AI! ...and boy am I glad I did!! 1biggrin.gif

Welcome 1smile.gif I almost never go to MR these days for all the reasons given above, but many moons ago it was my site of choice too.

I wear my (short i should add) MR ban as a badge of honor. 1biggrin.gif
From Apple ][ - to new Mac Pro I've used them all.
Long on AAPL so biased
"Google doesn't sell you anything, they just sell you!"
Reply
From Apple ][ - to new Mac Pro I've used them all.
Long on AAPL so biased
"Google doesn't sell you anything, they just sell you!"
Reply
post #112 of 262
Finally, something I agree with!
post #113 of 262

I don't like many things Apple does but I think this is the right thing. Apple should also drop those stupid trials. When I had for a short time an Android phone I missed the rubber band from the iPhone. Simple things like this or the pinch to zoom or Samsung's 3G patents shouldn't be patents. It's clear that here Obama is protecting Apple because it's an american company, but good for him. He's the president of USA so, he should protect american companies.

post #114 of 262
Quote:
Originally Posted by NelsonX View Post

I don't like many things Apple does but I think this is the right thing. Apple should also drop those stupid trials. When I had for a short time an Android phone I missed the rubber band from the iPhone. Simple things like this or the pinch to zoom or Samsung's 3G patents shouldn't be patents. It's clear that here Obama is protecting Apple because it's an american company, but good for him. He's the president of USA so, he should protect american companies.

The message is not protecting an American company. Its use of SEP (Standard Essential Patents) under FRAND, and not use it as a weapon to halt competition.

post #115 of 262
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post


How did you make the leap from "in part based on..." to "overturned MORE over..."?
What was the first item cited in his writen notice to the FTC? Pay more attention to public interest issues both before and after findings. What did his quote to the press cite? Public interest concerns. Hardly a leap..
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #116 of 262
Way to go Obama. Now change those patent laws so others who copy Apple's innovation can't get away with it.
post #117 of 262
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

What was the first item cited in his writen notice to the FTC? Pay more attention to public interest issues both before and after findings. What did his quote to the press cite? Public interest concerns. Hardly a leap..

IOW, you pulled it out of your a**.

There's nothing in his letter that suggests that it was primarily due to public interest. "In part" does not equal "Primarily due to".

Your trolling is getting lamer every day.
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
post #118 of 262
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post

IOW, you pulled it out of your a**.

There's nothing in his letter that suggests that it was primarily due to public interest. "In part" does not equal "Primarily due to".

Your trolling is getting lamer every day.

LOL. Since the trade representative made it clear that SEP injunctions might be appropriate in certain circumstances and the number one thing he wanted the ITC to pay attention to in future rulings was the public interest concerns and then noting his press quote cited the same public interest concerns too it's pretty obvious sir. 1rolleyes.gif

EDIT: Just peruse the letter AI linked for you in the article itself. Page three, paragraph three if you're not a great reader or simply impatient.

Hmmmm. . .

"This decision is based on... the effect on competitive conditions in the U.S. economy and the effect on U.S. consumers". Huh. Public interest concerns just as I said.

Egregious trolling isn't a great start on a Sunday morning. Maybe you could tone it down at least one day a week.
Edited by Gatorguy - 8/14/13 at 5:13am
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #119 of 262
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

LOL. Since the trade representative made it clear that SEP injunctions might be appropriate in certain circumstances and the number one thing he wanted the ITC to pay attention to in future rulings was the public interest concerns and then noting his press quote cited the same public interest concerns too it's pretty obvious sir. The fact you have problems seeing it isn't terribly surprising to me. Perhaps you could ask a mathematician for a formula that might lead you to the answer. 1rolleyes.gif

EDIT: If you have a good understanding of English you won't even need a mathematician to show you how to arrive at the right answer. Just peruse the letter AI linked for you in the article itself. Page three, paragraph three if you're not a great reader or simply impatient.

Hmmmm. . .

"This decision is based on... the effect on competitive conditions in the U.S. economy and the effect on U.S. consumers". Huh. Public interest concerns just as I said.

Egregious trolling isn't a great start for you on a Sunday morning. Maybe you could tone it down at least one day a week.

I guess if you're paid by Google and Samsung to misread everything that opposes you, you might read it that way.

The decision was based IN PART on public interest concerns - including the public interest in not having a bully misuse SEP patents. It is clear from the formal letter that the largest part of their concern is to prevent SEP abuse.

Of course, if you want to consider that 'public interest concerns', feel free. However, that paints your employers in a bad light.
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
post #120 of 262
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frood View Post

That's the danger of making SEP patents worthless.  One possible outcome is both Samsung and Google are working on wireless technologies for the next generation of phones that are several hundred times faster than LTE.  With no incentive or advantage to license under SEP, they'll simply keep it proprietary.

Apple users would be stuck with 'dial-up' speed phones relative to the zippy Google and Samsung phones.  That may not be an entirely bad thing as it would prompt Apple to develop its own wireless technologies and now compete to come up with an even faster or better Apple proprietary wireless solution (Apple is historically very bad at coming up with these type of techs though).  With the small market share in some countries outside the US it would likely not be worth the cost of deploying, but in their established markets they could try to gain a competitive edge with it.

My personal view is that while standards generally promote slower 'change' and innovation, they have a very useful purpose.  I like the fact that I can call my friends regardless of if they prefer Apple, Android, Windows, or landline phones.

In a world where there were 50 cell phone competitors, SEPs would actually be essential.  In a world where there are only two, its a very real possibility they could go their own way since both iOS and Android have enough users to be a 'standard' in and of themselves.

They can do that even without this veto. If they want to go there, giving up this veto won't stop them.

Google already went back against their words in Net Neutrality. Public interests is no longer their concern in this case.

Also, Apple is said to be doing wireless research. If no one offer a standard, they will; just like WebKit, HTTP Live Streaming.
Edited by patsu - 8/4/13 at 9:03am
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