or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPhone › Samsung's vetoed push for an ITC ban against Apple, Inc., in pictures
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Samsung's vetoed push for an ITC ban against Apple, Inc., in pictures - Page 2

post #41 of 130
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post


This article is an amazing compilation of how badly messed up the ITC decision was. It also handily refutes about 98% of the arguments made by the shills and trolls here - if they would bother to read it.
That's not even remotely true.
 

 

I am amazed that the only "negotiating" Samesung did was in the form of an oral offer tied to cross-licensing of some of Apple's non-essential patents. As Pinkert points out in his dissension, "Although licenses to non-FRAND-encumbered patents may certainly be included in a consensual resolution of a dispute over a FRAND-encumbered patent, it is neither fair nor non-discriminatory for the holder of the FRAND-encumbered patent to require licenses to non-FRAND-encumbercd patents as a condition for licensing its patent." It is quite clear that Samsung, did not, in fact, negotiate fairly to license the '348  patent to Apple. How the ITC did not see this is mind boggling.

post #42 of 130
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post

There are a number of Android fan sites - yet they still come here to attack Apple users.

I'm convinced it's a form of narcissistic personality disorder. They feel like they're the only ones entitled to an opinion and if someone has a different opinion than Android fans, the contrary opinion must be wrong.

Classic defensive attitude that turns into an attack that you see from those that feel guilty.
Use duckduckgo.com with Safari, not Google Search
Been using Apples since 1978 and Macs since 1984
Long on AAPL so biased. Strong advocate for separation of technology and politics on AI.
Reply
Use duckduckgo.com with Safari, not Google Search
Been using Apples since 1978 and Macs since 1984
Long on AAPL so biased. Strong advocate for separation of technology and politics on AI.
Reply
post #43 of 130
Quote:
Originally Posted by Relic View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post


Most of your information is incorrect. It is not a court - and the executive branch is not able to overrule a court decision (with very few minor exceptions).

Read the article. It is clear that ITC messed up. Also, read the response from one of the ITC officials who agrees that the decision was wrong. Unfortunately, it is not that unusual for bureaucrats to make incorrect decisions. That's why the system is set up to allow a higher level official to veto it. If that fails, the court system is there to correct the error.

Yeah, I really don't know anything about American laws, I thought the ITC was some kind of court. I understand there is a system in place to look over judgments and then overturn them if deemed necessary, my problem is it can be undone by just one guy.

 

That is why people bitch and moan about the president and want to hold the President accountable. The President actually has power even if they squander it most the time. When the President is engaged in running the country and leading the people it can be a really good thing. When they get caught up in politics, it doesn't go anywhere and they can easily waste a whole term in office. The buck stops with the President with all things of the Executive Branch. 

post #44 of 130
Quote:
Originally Posted by Quadra 610 View Post

Did you miss the iPhone Keynote? It was sort of a massive friggin deal for the entire industry.

Made possible partly due to Samsung's tech and components.
post #45 of 130
Quote:
Originally Posted by Relic View Post

Nice write up but the fact still remains the ITC found Apple guilty of infringing on the patent. So did the ITC not have all of the facts listed? I would really hate too believe a governing body like the ITC acted Willy Nilly. I also really don't like to see the leader of a country overturning it's own courts, what's the use of having them when all it takes is a veto to overturn them. I don't know, I'm just asking, is this normal in America? When Apple and Samsung tried to sue each other in our court systems both were denied. That and it's really not worth suing here as we cap the damages to 200,000 for suffering and payment of property for individuals and I think 1,000,000 for damages plus the amount of proven revenue lost for company's. Big reason why Swiss Rail would have sued in America if not for the settlement.

 

 

The original Judge found Apple to not have infringed the patent I believe twice. Under review, the full ITC disagreed. 

post #46 of 130
Quote:
Originally Posted by Soloman View Post


Made possible partly due to Samsung's tech and components.

 

Again, irrelevant.

 

Your car is made possible by Goodyear tires (or some other make, it doesn't matter). Do you want the maker of your tires to come and charge you 5% of the purchase price of your car every time you buy a new set of tires?

 

If you do, you're remarkably generous (and rich)!

post #47 of 130
Quote:
Originally Posted by CogitoDexter View Post

Irrelevant.

The fact is, Samsung has tried to pursue a patent beyond its limit of 'exhaustion'. I.e. Apple already had an indirect license to use the patent by virtue of purchasing a product from a company that had the legal right to sell it, patent included.

Patents and their licenses cross fertilise the entire IT industry. Microsoft wouldn't exist today in the form that it does without licensing agreed by Apple - i.e. the deal many years ago that allowed MS to use all sorts of different design patents in Windows (you know, that deal that all the 'fandroids' hold that MS 'saved' Apple somehow out of the goodness of its own heart, rather than having been forced to cough up as a result of a court case Apple brought against MS)...

What matters in this instance is the effective perjury by Samsung that somehow succeeded in convincing an ITC judge that a license to sell something only applies until such time as that something is supplied to someone the original licensor doesn't like, some time later after the license had been signed. Samsung is being deeply disingenuous in this instance and it's only to the good of the industry that the President's administration has seen through it and struck down an entirely unjust ban. It fires a warning shot over the bows of Samsung and, indeed, anyone else trying to double-dip in a similar way. If it were to be allowed, where would it stop? Would Goodyear tires require a 5% royalty on the sale price of my car every time I needed a new set? The whole idea is ridiculous.

Irrelevant to this case? Absolutely but it is still true.
post #48 of 130
Quote:
Originally Posted by Soloman View Post


Made possible partly due to Samsung's tech and components.

 

 

LOL. It is kindof like Corning with its Gorilla Glass. It was sitting around not being used at all. Apple saw the potential in the technology and put it to use. Further, Samsung steals much more than it contributes. It operates the same in every industry. Some people might also forget Apple invested heavily in Samsung in the nineties giving its display business 100 million dollars

post #49 of 130
Quote:
Originally Posted by Soloman View Post


Irrelevant to this case? Absolutely [...].

 

I'm glad you agree it is irrelevant. So what on earth was the point in mentioning it then? Or are you just trying to stir?

post #50 of 130
Well, can't agree more IF the case is as it is presented.

Side remark: we all know about double dipping. Reminds me of Apple asking 30% of in-app purchases.
post #51 of 130
Incredibly good article. The best ever here, imo. Many thanks.
post #52 of 130
Samsung's made its fortune by playing dirty tricks at every level you can imagine.
Be it legal or retail, everyone knows this.
post #53 of 130
Quote:
Originally Posted by Blitz1 View Post

Well, can't agree more IF the case is as it is presented.

Side remark: we all know about double dipping. Reminds me of Apple asking 30% of in-app purchases.

 

In what sense is Apple's cut of in-app purchases double dipping?

post #54 of 130
Quote:
Originally Posted by Blitz1 View Post

Well, can't agree more IF the case is as it is presented.

Side remark: we all know about double dipping. Reminds me of Apple asking 30% of in-app purchases.

Do tell how 30% is double dipping?
post #55 of 130
Quote:
Originally Posted by Relic View Post


You don't become one of the wealthiest companies in the world from ripping off others. They have one of largest R&D centres in the world, is this all for show? What about their absolutely huge Semiconductor department, their monitors, TV's, ect. It's not all stolen is it? Last time I looked most Apple products include a whole lot of Samsung built chips.What about those fabricating machines built by Samsung to build things like the Apple Arm CPU. Yes Apple is using less chips made by Samsung but did you know those company's are probably using equipment made by Samsung to fabricate those chips as well.

Fairly naive statement that about not becoming one of the wealthiest companies in the world fro ripping off others! And yes, Samsung allways ripped off the design from others, the TV monitors you mention was a rip off of Sony and their cellphones allways has been a rip off of whatever cellphone was popular. Whatever good they undoubtedly are in manufacturing, their design and user interfaces largely are based on ripping off other.

post #56 of 130
Quote:
Originally Posted by CogitoDexter View Post

I'm glad you agree it is irrelevant. So what on earth was the point in mentioning it then? Or are you just trying to stir?

No I'm not trying to stir. There's a lot of hate for Samsung and rightly so but at the same time their tech and parts made it possible for Apple to make the iPhone. Did they then turn around and copy it? Yes they did and shame on them for that but their phones didn't truly take off until they went away from copying and offered customers something different. That picture of smartphones could be done with just about anything. I can show you what Sony TVs looked like before Philips introduced flat panel TVs to consumers and what Sony TVs looked afterwards. Did they copy or did they recognize what the future of TVs was going to look like and made TVs accordingly?
post #57 of 130
Quote:
Originally Posted by Relic View Post

Nice write up but the fact still remains the ITC found Apple guilty of infringing on the patent. So did the ITC not have all of the facts listed? I would really hate too believe a governing body like the ITC acted Willy Nilly. I also really don't like to see the leader of a country overturning it's own courts, what's the use of having them when all it takes is a veto to overturn them. I don't know, I'm just asking, is this normal in America? When Apple and Samsung tried to sue each other in our court systems both were denied. That and it's really not worth suing here as we cap the damages to 200,000 for suffering and payment of property for individuals and I think 1,000,000 for damages plus the amount of proven revenue lost for company's. Big reason why Swiss Rail would have sued in America if not for the settlement.

You get it right, ITC is a governing body, not a court of law, still you manage to claim that the administration is overturning it's courts ! 

post #58 of 130
Quote:
Originally Posted by Soloman View Post

... I can show you what Sony TVs looked like before Philips introduced flat panel TVs to consumers and what Sony TVs looked afterwards. Did they copy or did they recognize what the future of TVs was going to look like and made TVs accordingly?

It's understandable with one or two details but Sammy copied the shape, the GUI, the packaging, the charger, the icons, etc...
post #59 of 130

Hey Gatorguy (alias Techstud ?) isn't it about now you come in to argue that black is white?

post #60 of 130
Quote:
Originally Posted by Relic View Post

Nice write up but the fact still remains the ITC found Apple guilty of infringing on the patent. So did the ITC not have all of the facts listed? I would really hate too believe a governing body like the ITC acted Willy Nilly. I also really don't like to see the leader of a country overturning it's own courts, what's the use of having them when all it takes is a veto to overturn them. I don't know, I'm just asking, is this normal in America? ...

From what has been reported previously, the ITC took what facts it wanted to use and only those to come to its judgment. After reading the above letter, I can't help but wonder how long it will be before there's an inspection of the ITC to determine how they could have come up with the decision they dod. They had no basis for it. As the president (actually his assigned investigator) vetoed of a non-court-based decision, you need to reform your question. The president has always had the ability to pardon people who were found guilty by a legitimate court. This usually happens when the president is leaving office. I'm sure this happens much more in other countries, including Switzerland. 

post #61 of 130

Regardless of whether Apple was infringing, the point was that even if they were, Samsung's terms were completely unreasonable for a SEP.  I think the reasoning was specious and that Infineon's license should have covered Apple but regardless, 2.4% of the retail price of the phone is idiotic. 
 

post #62 of 130
Quote:
Originally Posted by rob53 View Post

From what has been reported previously, the ITC took what facts it wanted to use and only those to come to its judgment. After reading the above letter, I can't help but wonder how long it will be before there's an inspection of the ITC to determine how they could have come up with the decision they dod. They had no basis for it. As the president (actually his assigned investigator) vetoed of a non-court-based decision, you need to reform your question. The president has always had the ability to pardon people who were found guilty by a legitimate court. This usually happens when the president is leaving office. I'm sure this happens much more in other countries, including Switzerland. 

It's very easy to believe that the ITC finding may be related to the amounts Samsung spend on lobbying in DC. Buy obviously that couldn't be the case because of the high moral standard of the people in DC profiting from the lobbying.

post #63 of 130
Quote:
Originally Posted by Relic View Post

I also really don't like to see the leader of a country overturning it's own courts, what's the use of having them when all it takes is a veto to overturn them. 

Er... what 'courts' are you talking about?

post #64 of 130

Every time I read a long article on Samsung, I get this overpowering urge to wash my hands.

post #65 of 130
Quote:
Originally Posted by Relic View Post
....my problem is it can be undone by just one guy.

This is, with all due respect, nonsense.

 

Nothing was 'undone' by 'one guy'. It was the office of USTR that made the decision, announced by its head.

post #66 of 130

I am never buying anything that has a Samsung label on it. Not even a broom !

post #67 of 130
Quote:
Originally Posted by Relic View Post

 I also really don't like to see the leader of a country overturning it's own courts, what's the use of having them when all it takes is a veto to overturn them. 

 

Then you need to have a quiet word with the South Korean leadership.

 

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

post #68 of 130
Quote:
Originally Posted by TitanTiger View Post

I think the reasoning was specious and that Infineon's license should have covered Apple but regardless, 2.4% of the retail price of the phone is idiotic. 
 

 

It is beyond idiotic. It is greed, plain and simple.

post #69 of 130
A couple of historical notes:
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by AppleInsider View Post
 
Samsung somehow managed to convince the ITC that Intel's license was only valid in the United States, and that Intel's American sales of Infineon chips to Apple in California was not a transaction it recognized to be in the United States.

 

Right, the patent exhaustion defense is only applicable to sales conducted INSIDE the US.

 

Apple has bent over backwards to make sure most of its business is legally done OUTSIDE the US, in order to avoid paying US taxes.

 

Unfortunately, a company cannot always eat its cake, and keep it too.  Saying that sales are based overseas in places like Ireland, comes with both pros and cons.

 

Quote:

Most egregiously, however, Samsung wasn't just demanding a double-dipping royalty for questionable patent claims on the baseband chip. It was demanding a royalty percentage of the full retail price of the finished product. 

 

As noted many times before, that rate method has long been standard for ETSI patents, has some good reasons behind it, and was even approved by the US DOJ back in 2002:

 

 

So no, that was hardly "egregious". It's quite common.  For example, Qualcomm's market value is greatly based upon what their current per-device percentage rates are.

 

Many things that might not make sense to the layman, have been policy for decades.

 

That's why it's not been fair to either side, that rule changes are being applied in the middle of cases.

 

The good thing that's coming out of all this, is that various agencies might just finally get their act together, and come up with a modern, cohesive set of rules that everyone will know ahead of time, and be applied across the board.


Edited by KDarling - 8/5/13 at 8:24am
post #70 of 130
Quote:
Originally Posted by RPT View Post

Hey Gatorguy (alias Techstud ?) isn't it about now you come in to argue that black is white?

Can't agree with this one. There is no way Gatorguy is Techstud, Gatorguy is way smarter and much more openminded.

Why does Apple bashing and trolling make people feel so good?

Reply

Why does Apple bashing and trolling make people feel so good?

Reply
post #71 of 130
Quote:
Originally Posted by RPT View Post

...the TV monitors you mention was a rip off of Sony .....

That's interesting, can you show where this resulted in litigation or any other proof that this happened?
When I looked up "Ninjas" in Thesaurus.com, it said "Ninja's can't be found" Well played Ninjas, well played.
Reply
When I looked up "Ninjas" in Thesaurus.com, it said "Ninja's can't be found" Well played Ninjas, well played.
Reply
post #72 of 130
Quote:
Originally Posted by KDarling View Post

Right, the patent exhaustion defense is only applicable to sales conducted INSIDE the US.


Apple has bent over backwards to make sure most of its business is legally done OUTSIDE the US, in order to avoid paying US taxes.


Unfortunately, a company cannot always eat its cake, and keep it too.  Saying that sales are based overseas in places like Ireland, comes with both pros and cons.

I wondered what kind of bizarre argument you'd come up with. You didn't disappoint - that it truly bizarre.

Have you seen Intel's license? Or ANY of the licenses, for that matter?

If Intel has a license for the US patent, that covers uses in the US. If the chip is manufactured by Intel in China and then shipped to the US, it would normally be covered unless the agreement says otherwise, but that would be very rare.

And shipments outside the US would be irrelevant to a US patent. Since Ireland is not involved in an iPhone which is manufactured in China and shipped to the US, you're simply throwing out ridiculous red herring arguments.
"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 #73 of 130
Quote:
Originally Posted by Relic View Post




That's interesting, can you show where this resulted in litigation or any other proof that this happened?

 

Actually, Sony and Samesung entered into a cross-licensing deal back in '04. http://www.sony.net/SonyInfo/News/Press_Archive/200412/04-1214E/

 

It may have resulted from them seeing "the writing on the wall" and making the decision to avoid something like what Apple and Samesung are now mired in.

post #74 of 130
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rayz View Post

Then you need to have a quiet word with the South Korean leadership.

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

I don't approve of that either, once a group of appointed representatives have made a decision, that should be it until another hearing overseeing a appeals can be seen. Mark my words, I have zero bias over any one particular company. Apple, Samsung, Sony, Nokia, Microsoft, etc. are all equal in my eyes, I have no favorites. I buy a product based on features, design and most importantly usefulness. If it seems like I'm favoring Samsung here, then it's my lack of English skills because I'm not. I'm just trying to figure out what's going on.
When I looked up "Ninjas" in Thesaurus.com, it said "Ninja's can't be found" Well played Ninjas, well played.
Reply
When I looked up "Ninjas" in Thesaurus.com, it said "Ninja's can't be found" Well played Ninjas, well played.
Reply
post #75 of 130

Another priceless article. Bravo indeed. Thank You, AI.

 

Samsung, good faith? Samsung?!!!!!

 

Those copycat idiots are busy pushing S. Korean gov. to start the WWIII!

....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 #76 of 130
Quote:
Originally Posted by Disturbia View Post

Those copycat idiots are busy pushing S. Korean gov. to start the WWIII!

Over a 3G patent? These are luxury goods, not warheads being snuck into North Korea.
When I looked up "Ninjas" in Thesaurus.com, it said "Ninja's can't be found" Well played Ninjas, well played.
Reply
When I looked up "Ninjas" in Thesaurus.com, it said "Ninja's can't be found" Well played Ninjas, well played.
Reply
post #77 of 130
Quote:
Originally Posted by Relic View Post

I don't approve of that either, once a group of appointed representatives have made a decision, that should be it until another hearing overseeing a appeals can be seen. Mark my words, I have zero bias over any one particular company. Apple, Samsung, Sony, Nokia, Microsoft, etc. are all equal in my eyes, I have no favorites. I buy a product based on features, design and most importantly usefulness. If it seems like I'm favoring Samsung here, then it's my lack of English skills because I'm not. I'm just trying to figure out what's going on.

ITC is not a court and our laws allow for the president to overturn an ITC decision. If this was a court decision, the Supreme Court has the final say if the case makes it that far.
post #78 of 130
Quote:
Originally Posted by Relic View Post


...I have zero bias over any one particular company. Apple, Samsung, Sony, Nokia, Microsoft, etc. are all equal in my eyes, I have no favorites. I buy a product based on features, design and most importantly usefulness.

 

I, on the other, find that certain preferential features are tied to specific manufacturers and as such, I prefer doing business with those companies. Samesung, in my opinion, has repeatedly shown itself to be an unscrupulous company and I find that I would rather not do any business with them. Yes, I obviously realize that many of their components are in the products I buy, and that cannot be helped, but when I can help it, I avoid them like the plague. I guess what I'm trying to say is that I find certain qualities to be endemic to certain brands and when you buy a product, you are, in a way, buying into the company. Put another way, Samsung may slavishly copy Apple, but they will never be Apple.

post #79 of 130

Samsung and Motorola both have worthless patent portfolios. Sure they have a large number of patents, but they are almost all part of some standard, and therefore are useless in court as a weapon (though this hasn't stopped Samsung and Motorola from trying). With Samsung a large portion of their patent portfolio also includes all their IP to manufacture LCDS's and semiconductors. Again, useless patents in court against someone like Apple who doesn't make these components.

 

Here's a quote from Samsung: "In this spirit, Samsung has decided to withdraw our injunction requests against Apple on the basis of our standard essential patents pending in European courts, in the interest of protecting consumer choice."

 

Anyone remember when this happened? The timing of it is very interesting. Perhaps one of the shills here would like to explain why Samsung suddenly dropped all injunction requests against Apple and instead decided to go through the courts to get a settlement on license fees. Or more importantly, why Samsung dropped all the European injunction requests but kept up with the US case?

Author of The Fuel Injection Bible

Reply

Author of The Fuel Injection Bible

Reply
post #80 of 130
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rob55 View Post

 

I, on the other, find that certain preferential features are tied to specific manufacturers and as such, I prefer doing business with those companies. Samesung, in my opinion, has repeatedly shown itself to be an unscrupulous company and I find that I would rather not do any business with them. Yes, I obviously realize that many of their components are in the products I buy, and that cannot be helped, but when I can help it, I avoid them like the plague. I guess what I'm trying to say is that I find certain qualities to be endemic to certain brands and when you buy a product, you are, in a way, buying into the company. Put another way, Samsung may slavishly copy Apple, but they will never be Apple.

I agree with you a 100%.

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: iPhone
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPhone › Samsung's vetoed push for an ITC ban against Apple, Inc., in pictures