or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › Presidential veto in favor of Apple expected to alter future patent litigation strategies
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Presidential veto in favor of Apple expected to alter future patent litigation strategies

post #1 of 44
Thread Starter 
Patent disputes in the U.S. could change significantly, with the International Trade Commission playing a less important role, following a veto from President Barack Obama's administration in the ongoing Apple-Samsung litigation.

iPhone 4


A statement accompanying the presidential ruling made over the weekend declared that the ITC should take "public interest" into account in its decisions, which will guide future judgements from the commission. While the ITC has, in the past, been a way for companies to secure a relatively quick injunction against competing products, analyst Maynard Um of Wells Fargo said the commission will likely become less of a venue for companies to gain leverage in patent disputes.

"This weekend's ruling may alter the strategy of some companies and potentially change (or prolong) dispute outcomes if the ITC becomes more constrictive in handing down cease and desist orders," Um wrote in a note to investors provided to AppleInsider on Monday.

The rare ruling handed down over the weekend marks the first time the executive branch has stepped in to veto a decision from the ITC since the late 1980s. The veto will allow Apple to continue selling the iPhone 4 on AT&T.

In addition to altering the larger patent litigation landscape, Um believes the veto will also have implications in the ongoing intellectual property disputes between Samsung and Apple. In particular, he said Samsung will likely have less leverage to negotiate the compensation rates it originally wanted, and the veto could also reduce the perceived value of some patents.

"While this does not devalue patents and patents will still be necessary as a form of offense and defense (particularly those that are standards essential patents), companies may think twice about acquiring portfolios at any cost, given the potentially reduced chance of being awarded a cease and desist order," Um said.
post #2 of 44
Proof reading must be a lost art.

"This weekend's ruling may later the strategy of some companies and potentially change (or prolong) dispute outcomes if the ITC becomes more constrictive in handing down cease and desist orders," Um wrote in a note to investors provided to AppleInsider on Monday.
post #3 of 44
Does the author note the difference between a Standards Essential Patent, SEP, and other patents? This is what the FTC and European agencies are all fired up about. Again clueless reporting without addressing the enormous difference in value and competition between SEP and non-SEP. This is not a fine point.
post #4 of 44
As much as I bleed in seven colors, having the president veto this is simple wrong.

Lob some cash onto a "leader" and poof, all laws go away. Sad.
post #5 of 44
Things are going to get more interesting for a little while. I admit no knowledge of the legal issues on both sides but I have learned a lot. Still, it's awfully frustrating to hear so much news about the battle for supremacy in international courts instead of just about the amazing products that both are developing. I wonder what choice Sammie has for next moves.
post #6 of 44
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimijon View Post

As much as I bleed in seven colors, having the president veto this is simple wrong.

Lob some cash onto a "leader" and poof, all laws go away. Sad.

If by cash you mean international commerce I get it but there's no evidence anyone has lobbed cash toward any leader. I'm seeing this more like an adult stepping into the room to stop the fight.

 

Hopefully we'll get some signs that the squabble will be over soon. I know there will be animosity and grudges for a while to come but let's let the fighting end.

post #7 of 44

So Apple can say No, I don't want to pay what everyone else does for this technology that lets us actually sell a phone as a phone. Then, they get away without paying a dime. 

 

 

What a scumbag company.

post #8 of 44
Quote:
Originally Posted by ddawson100 View Post

...I wonder what choice Sammie has for next moves.

 

If you are referring to the '384 patent, then the only obvious move is to actually offer a fair and reasonable licensing deal. On the other hand, if the "infringing" devices get EOL'ed with the new refresh, then I guess it'll be a moot point.

post #9 of 44
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimijon View Post

As much as I bleed in seven colors, having the president veto this is simple wrong.

Lob some cash onto a "leader" and poof, all laws go away. Sad.

Standard MO, for any company. Apple doesn't really contribute much; last year was a mere 4M:

Apple on pace to double lobbying spending on taxes, other issues

"Even should Apple double its lobbying to $4 million in 2013, its spending is nowhere near that of other tech giants. Four million would put Apple at about the level that Facebook spent last year. By comparison, Oracle spent more than 50 percent more than that, while Microsoft spent twice that amount. The largest tech lobbying spender in 2012 was Google, which spent $18.2 million lobbying Washington."
"Fibonacci: As easy as 1, 1, 2, 3..."
Reply
"Fibonacci: As easy as 1, 1, 2, 3..."
Reply
post #10 of 44
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rob55 View Post

 

If you are referring to the '384 patent, then the only obvious move is to actually offer a fair and reasonable licensing deal. On the other hand, if the "infringing" devices get EOL'ed with the new refresh, then I guess it'll be a moot point.

 

I am talking about the court strategy in general but yeah, both of these issues in particular. It wouldn't be moot entirely would they? I don't know how it works but I assume that even if the models in question aren't sold any longer, they would still be fair game in eventually determining fees. That seems fair although I have no idea how the law works in this case.

post #11 of 44
Quote:
Originally Posted by harharhar View Post

So Apple can say No, I don't want to pay what everyone else does for this technology that lets us actually sell a phone as a phone. Then, they get away without paying a dime. 

 

 

What a scumbag company.

 

Maybe you should catch up with the facts before calling anyone a scumbag. Samesung making a verbal offer to license the '384 patent with the added requirement that Apple license some of their non-essential patents does not equate to a fair and reasonable offer. Apple made a clear and reasonable offer but Samesung refused. So, if Samesung doesn't get a dime, it'll be their own fault.


Edited by Rob55 - 8/5/13 at 7:44am
post #12 of 44
Quote:
Originally Posted by harharhar View Post

So Apple can say No, I don't want to pay what everyone else does for this technology that lets us actually sell a phone as a phone. Then, they get away without paying a dime. 


What a scumbag company.

It's not as simple as that. The component manufacturer already paid Samsung the license fee so Apple shouldn't really have to.
post #13 of 44
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimijon View Post

As much as I bleed in seven colors, having the president veto this is simple wrong.

Lob some cash onto a "leader" and poof, all laws go away. Sad.

Samsung expected Apple to pay fee of 2.7% on the full iPhone/iPad price for a single patent. Note, that the 3G standard includes almost 8,000 patents. Obviously, Apple had all the other patents covered except this one. Expert's opinion is that Samsung's share in the UTMS patents is 0.000375%, but they expect 2.7% out of the full device price. Note, that an iPhone is not just a 3G communications chip.

So, you expect the president to tolerate, even more, reward the extreme greed of a Korean company at the expense of an American one? Great.
post #14 of 44
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimijon View Post

As much as I bleed in seven colors, having the president veto this is simple wrong.

Lob some cash onto a "leader" and poof, all laws go away. Sad.

It has always been that way and will always be that way. Though the point about SEP and non-SEPs is more of what this veto is about than all patents in general and the fair and non-discriminatory licensing that goes with the SEPs.
post #15 of 44
Quote:
Originally Posted by ddawson100 View Post

 

I am talking about the court strategy in general but yeah, both of these issues in particular. It wouldn't be moot entirely would they? I don't know how it works but I assume that even if the models in question aren't sold any longer, they would still be fair game in eventually determining fees. That seems fair although I have no idea how the law works in this case.

 

I'm certainly no expert either, but I imagine Samesung may be due some royalties if it is decided that Apple didn't already pay licensing when they bought the chips from Infineon. Also, as is clearly evident in the Teksler-Kim letter from April 30th of last year, Apple was more than willing to license the patent on FRAND terms, but Samesung flatly refused. They later made a verbal offer that Apple then had no choice but to refuse as it was obviously unfair and discriminatory.

post #16 of 44
Quote:
Originally Posted by harharhar View Post

So Apple can say No, I don't want to pay what everyone else does for this technology that lets us actually sell a phone as a phone. Then, they get away without paying a dime. 


What a scumbag company.

The point is that they wanted Apple to pay several times more than what everyone else was paying.
post #17 of 44
Uninformed "reporting" leads to uninformed commentary.

Just do everyone a favor and seek out Philip Elmer DeWitt's story from this morning, which goes into careful detail about the reality of what has happened.

Rely on "notes" passed to a rumor site by analysts attempting to manipulate Apple's stock price up or down and you'll miss the truth by a country mile every time.

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply
post #18 of 44
post #19 of 44
Quote:
Originally Posted by iSteelers View Post


The point is that they wanted Apple to pay several times more than what everyone else was paying.

 

And they wouldn't even disclose any evidence to support the exorbitant rates they are trying to get out of Apple.


Edited by Rob55 - 8/5/13 at 7:43am
post #20 of 44

The reason Samsung got away with the ITC ban for a minor part of the 3G patent is because most people refuse to read and attempt to understand what Samsung was trying to do. This obviously included the majority of the ITC judges (I use that term loosely). If the people who posted above would have read Daniel's earlier article, they would have had a much better understanding of what was going on. Samsung was trying to kill Apple in the court of public opinion. They had nothing to sue Apple over but it was easier to take them to the ITC (monkey) court and let all the anti-Apple media sites crucify them for doing things they weren't doing than to go to a legitimate court let all the facts be presented. (Even this tactic didn't work when the equally bogus DOJ would not accept Apple testimony, making their judgment basis on their own opinions of what happened in the eBook trial). 

 

All of you who blindly feel everything Apple does is wrong need to take responsibility for your actions and understand what's going on before you spout out garbage you know nothing about. (This is not directed at capasicum, Solomon, or Rob55 who obviously know how to read.)

 

Hopefully, the Obama administration will begin an investigation of the ITC (and DOJ) to determine how these supposed judges came up with the obviously tainted decisions they did. Something is going on behind the scenes that needs to be investigated because the law is not being address properly.

post #21 of 44
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimijon View Post

As much as I bleed in seven colors, having the president veto this is simple wrong.

Lob some cash onto a "leader" and poof, all laws go away. Sad.

The issue is so clear (read previous article about this), that if any cash was involved, it was at IFC people, not to your "leader". The alternative is that IFC guys are simply morons.

With the logic of Samsung and IFC, trying to collect money for a second time from IP already sold to the chip maker that Apple is using; why stop charging only Apple? They could cash a third time, now from the carriers selling and using the phone in their networks; and a fourth, from you for using a phone that has that chip. Wait, they could also charge a fifth, to the people you are calling, just for answering using that technology. And we are still not talking of the subject being a FRAND issue. And Samsung pretends to charge Apple for that IP to Apple 150% of the value of the whole chip, that has several other features besides Samsung IP... still, when Apple (trying to avoid public discussion of this technical issue) offered exchange of FRAND's of their own -even without a need to pay a penny-, Samsung valued them at a fraction, making it clear they had no intention to be paid for this patent in the first place. C'mon, don't be naif, this was a dirty (yet one more) move of Samsung to level the field on public's opinion regarding the copyright trials...

post #22 of 44
Quote:
Originally Posted by Larry Doyle View Post

Before anyone comments on this, they should read this:

http://appleinsider.com/articles/13/08/05/samsungs-vetoed-push-for-an-itc-ban-against-apple-inc-in-pictures
 

 

I meant to link to this too in my earlier comment (#16). Wholeheartedly agree, it should be required reading.


Edited by Rob55 - 8/5/13 at 6:50pm
post #23 of 44
Quote:
Originally Posted by harharhar View Post

So Apple can say No, I don't want to pay what everyone else does for this technology that lets us actually sell a phone as a phone. Then, they get away without paying a dime. 

 

 

What a scumbag company.

 

Perhaps, you should educate yourself before making posts. All Samsung is entitled to, if anything, is money. The parties disagree over the rate Apple should pay, if anything. A court will decide this matter without a gun in the form of an injunction forcing Apple to pay more than is required under FRAND terms. 

post #24 of 44
Link to the in-depth Philip Elmer DeWitt reporting (worth your time to read): http://tech.fortune.cnn.com/2013/08/05/apple-samsung-itc-pinkert/

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply
post #25 of 44
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimijon View Post

As much as I bleed in seven colors, having the president veto this is simple wrong.

Lob some cash onto a "leader" and poof, all laws go away. Sad.

 

On the contrary, Apple has always been criticized for not lobbying enough in Washington. Apple spends a pittance on lobbying compared to other tech companies like Microsoft, Google, and Samsung. Your entire premise is simply trash talk with no basis in reality.

post #26 of 44
Of course he would veto any ban, it's returning the favour for Apple joining the PRISM program.

All's fair in love and war and the US will use any means in their war against international companies, including illegal surveillance and wiretapping. It's all proven.
post #27 of 44
Quote:
Originally Posted by TBell View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by harharhar View Post

So Apple can say No, I don't want to pay what everyone else does for this technology that lets us actually sell a phone as a phone. Then, they get away without paying a dime. 

 

 

What a scumbag company.

 

Perhaps, you should educate yourself before making posts. All Samsung is entitled to, if anything, is money. The parties disagree over the rate Apple should pay, if anything. A court will decide this matter without a gun in the form of an injunction forcing Apple to pay more than is required under FRAND terms. 

"Educate yourself" and "Samsung user" are probably contradictory phrases...

post #28 of 44
Quote:
Originally Posted by harharhar View Post

So Apple can say No, I don't want to pay what everyone else does for this technology that lets us actually sell a phone as a phone. Then, they get away without paying a dime. 

 

 

What a scumbag company.

What an asinine remark. Apple is agreeable to paying FRAND rates but samsung wants 2.7% of the selling price of the entire product which is neither FRAND nor reasonable. No company pays 2.7% of the selling price of the finished product for FRAND rate.

"A common mistake that people make when trying to design something completely foolproof is to underestimate the ingenuity of complete fools." Douglas Adams

Reply

"A common mistake that people make when trying to design something completely foolproof is to underestimate the ingenuity of complete fools." Douglas Adams

Reply
post #29 of 44
Quote:
Originally Posted by harharhar View Post

So Apple can say No, I don't want to pay what everyone else does for this technology that lets us actually sell a phone as a phone. Then, they get away without paying a dime.

 

If I'm understanding this correctly, Apple has said they do "want to pay what everyone else does for this technology that lets us actually sell a phone as a phone". 

 

Which is how standards-essential patents (SEP) were meant to work, prior to Motorola/Samsung using them as a tool to try to "get back" at Apple for not wanting to license their non-SEP portfolio.

 

http://tech.fortune.cnn.com/2013/08/05/apple-samsung-itc-pinkert/

   Apple develops an improved programming language.  Google copied Java.  Everything you need to know, right there.

 

  MA497LL/A FB463LL/A MC572LL/A FC060LL/A MD481LL/A MD388LL/A ME344LL/A

Reply

   Apple develops an improved programming language.  Google copied Java.  Everything you need to know, right there.

 

  MA497LL/A FB463LL/A MC572LL/A FC060LL/A MD481LL/A MD388LL/A ME344LL/A

Reply
post #30 of 44
Quote:
Originally Posted by harharhar View Post

So Apple can say No, I don't want to pay what everyone else does for this technology that lets us actually sell a phone as a phone. Then, they get away without paying a dime. 

 

 

What a scumbag company.

Except Samsung was asking for substantially MORE (approx. $16 per) then the purchase price of the chip itself (approx. $11 per) which was being purchased by Apple from a company that had already licensed the patent from Samsung.

 

Samsung was asking to be paid twice for the same license, and an exhorbitant amount for that second go-round given it was for more than the entire chip was priced at that contained  that sliver of samsung tech.

post #31 of 44
Originally Posted by AppleInsider View Post

... companies may think twice about acquiring portfolios at any cost, given the potentially reduced chance of being awarded a cease and desist order ...

 

Google and Motorola Mobility immediately springs to mind here.

Google acquired MM's portfolio for $12.5 billion and got what?

A feeble has-been of a hardware maker plus thousands of FRAND-encumbered patents.

Sent from my iPhone Simulator

Reply

Sent from my iPhone Simulator

Reply
post #32 of 44
Quote:
Originally Posted by jfc1138 View Post

Except Samsung was asking for substantially MORE (approx. $16 per) then the purchase price of the chip itself (approx. $11 per) which was being purchased by Apple from a company that had already licensed the patent from Samsung.

 

Not debating that the starting negotiation rate was high, but that aside...

 

The physical chip price is totally irrelevant to licensing.  It could cost $150 to make at first, and a few years later cost only $15 to make.  Price drops happen all the time as production gets better.

 

Instead, what matters for licensing is the value of the related IP.

 

This is why Apple (and everyone else) pays Qualcomm twice.  Once for the stock (or custom) chipset that they will solder into the device, and then separately for related IP they will use on that device.  (They will not necessarily be the same thing.  E.g. why pay for LTE chip capability. if you have no LTE amps or antennas.)

 

AFAIK, Infineon did not have a license for the patent in question.   Intel did, but they didn't buy Infineon until Jan 2011.

post #33 of 44
Quote:
Originally Posted by harharhar View Post

So Apple can say No, I don't want to pay what everyone else does for this technology that lets us actually sell a phone as a phone. Then, they get away without paying a dime. 


What a scumbag company.

No, they probably end up paying a FRAND rate. In a similar hold up case from Motorola (Google), with a similar demand of 2.4%, the federal court awarded Moto an estimate of 0.006 cent per unit instead of $15
post #34 of 44
Quote:
Originally Posted by AppleInsider View Post


"While this does not devalue patents and patents will still be necessary as a form of offense and defense (particularly those that are standards essential patents), companies may think twice about acquiring portfolios at any cost, given the potentially reduced chance of being awarded a cease and desist order," Um said.

Um? Sorta making heavy weather sense til the last para.

Ummn no...SEPs have lost value in both offense and defence with this veto...severely so.
post #35 of 44
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimijon View Post

As much as I bleed in seven colors, having the president veto this is simple wrong.

Lob some cash onto a "leader" and poof, all laws go away. Sad.

well you sure what you mean but Apple spend very little on Lobbing the US government. However, I would say this is more like a perfect example of what is mean when you say you got friend in high places. Apple and it leadership has always befriend the white house unlike other companies out there. More time than not who you know helps more than who you pay.

post #36 of 44
Quote:
Originally Posted by harharhar View Post

So Apple can say No, I don't want to pay what everyone else does for this technology that lets us actually sell a phone as a phone. Then, they get away without paying a dime. 

 

 

What a scumbag company.

 

After reading the history from Samsung's vetoed push for an ITC ban against Apple, Inc., in pictures, I feel "scumbag" more easily describes the other company.

post #37 of 44
Quote:
Originally Posted by KDarling View Post

 

Not debating that the starting negotiation rate was high, but that aside...

 

The physical chip price is totally irrelevant to licensing.  It could cost $150 to make at first, and a few years later cost only $15 to make.  Price drops happen all the time as production gets better.

 

Instead, what matters for licensing is the value of the related IP.

 

This is why Apple (and everyone else) pays Qualcomm twice.  Once for the stock (or custom) chipset that they will solder into the device, and then separately for related IP they will use on that device.  (They will not necessarily be the same thing.  E.g. why pay for LTE chip capability. if you have no LTE amps or antennas.)

 

AFAIK, Infineon did not have a license for the patent in question.   Intel did, but they didn't buy Infineon until Jan 2011.

 

So if Samsung wants to licence an SEP from Apple, it's fair and reasonable for Apple to demand cross-licensing of Samsung's non-FRAND encumbered patents on top of monetary compensation, even when it doesn't ask the same of other licensees?

"We're Apple. We don't wear suits. We don't even own suits."
Reply
"We're Apple. We don't wear suits. We don't even own suits."
Reply
post #38 of 44
Quote:
Originally Posted by harharhar View Post

So Apple can say No, I don't want to pay what everyone else does for this technology that lets us actually sell a phone as a phone. Then, they get away without paying a dime. 

 

 

What a scumbag company.

Judging from your 6 posts and your comment you have no clue what your talking about.  If you actually did some intelligent reading instead of being a troll, you might learn that the company your defending has just about the worst moral compass a company can have.  Samsung is run by a cartel of convicted felons including there CEO.  What there doing with FRAND SEP's will hurt every company including Apple that has legitimate patents.  Its call Patent Hold Up.  Go read and get a clue.

post #39 of 44
Quote:
Originally Posted by 2old4fun View Post

Proof reading must be a lost art.

"This weekend's ruling may later the strategy of some companies and potentially change (or prolong) dispute outcomes if the ITC becomes more constrictive in handing down cease and desist orders," Um wrote in a note to investors provided to AppleInsider on Monday.

 

Not to be a noodge, but the very first words of your post, "proof reading" are properly written as one word. Otherwise, I agree with you . . .

 

It's just funny how it always seems to work work out that way on proofreading complaint posts.   ;-)

post #40 of 44
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rob55 View Post

And they wouldn't even disclose any evidence to support the exorbitant rates they are trying to get out of Apple.

"Your Honor, we just lost over a billion dollars to Apple in a patent suit; we have to make that up somehow."

Originally posted by Marvin

Even if [the 5.5” iPhone exists], it doesn’t deserve to.
Reply

Originally posted by Marvin

Even if [the 5.5” iPhone exists], it doesn’t deserve to.
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: General Discussion
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › Presidential veto in favor of Apple expected to alter future patent litigation strategies