Normally a product is not considered an import in a multinational companies home country. Lawyers always try to spin things, but the ITC probably doesn't really have the ability to ban the iPhone in the US... It might be able to ban one of the chips inside the iPhone though...
What would be nice is if USITC threatened to ban Nokia for violations to give the EU a taste of tech economy saber rattling they are so fond of vs US companies.
Doesn't matter where he's from. He has a point. (I had also said this in a post a few days ago).
Anti-dumping charges can be brought if products are sold at less than cost, and that can be shown to adversely affect a firm or industry in the US. GPS nav cannot cost zero to produce and distribute. Thus, if Nokia and Google are giving it away for free, it must be, by definition, below cost.
The affected firms may have a real case. And, the US government will be bound to investigate.
Normally a product is not considered an import in a multinational companies home country. Lawyers always try to spin things, but the ITC probably doesn't really have the ability to ban the iPhone in the US... It might be able to ban one of the chips inside the iPhone though...
It does have that ability, have a search for Qualcomm, and Broadcom
Doesn't matter where he's from. He has a point. (I had also said this in a post a few days ago).
It does, why is it no okay for a European company to make money using a commerical advantage, over an American company?
Quote:
Originally Posted by anantksundaram
Anti-dumping charges can be brought if products are sold at less than cost, and that can be shown to adversely affect a firm or industry in the US. GPS nav cannot cost zero to produce and distribute. Thus, if Nokia and Google are giving it away for free, it must be, by definition, below cost.
The affected firms may have a real case. And, the US government will be bound to investigate.
They are not selling it for less than cost, as you need to buy the damn phone in the first place. No different than buying a stand along GPS unit.
How hard would it have been to actually go to the ITC site to see what the heck they say about this rather than parroting some analyst?
"By instituting this investigation (337-TA-701), the USITC has not yet made any decision on the merits of the case. The USITC's Chief Administrative Law Judge will assign the case to one of the USITC's six administrative law judges (ALJ), who will schedule and hold an evidentiary hearing. The ALJ will make an initial determination as to whether there is a violation of section 337; that initial determination is subject to review by the Commission."
Good point. Being a rumor site I think we expect these postings to be inaccurate, but it would be nice to see more people do their homework (unless you want to lose readers). That is why I stopped reading Slashdot. Too many postings that were bogus because they were not researched.
This is insane, Nokia cannot build a quality product anymore so instead of trying and doing things the way capitalism is supposed to work you sue the person you are losing market share to. What a bunch of bs, the USA should not allow Finnish companies to sue our companies, Nokia is a bunch of morons in my opinion who are just making the world worse for everyone else, companies should compete with one another and if one cannot make a better product than the other one they should close down their business because they failed, Nokia sees they are going to have to do that and then some idiot lawyer says hey lets sue the big guy now who is Apple and maybe we can get some money. Nokia = Scam Artists!!!
What ever happened to Trolltech and QT. I thought that was Nokia's way forward for smart phones... Speaking of Trolltech... maybe Nokia should change their name. Sounds like the perfect name for a Patent Troll.
Doesn't matter where he's from. He has a point. (I had also said this in a post a few days ago).
Anti-dumping charges can be brought if products are sold at less than cost, and that can be shown to adversely affect a firm or industry in the US. GPS nav cannot cost zero to produce and distribute. Thus, if Nokia and Google are giving it away for free, it must be, by definition, below cost.
The affected firms may have a real case. And, the US government will be bound to investigate.
They are definitely not selling below cost. Apple just reported 40% margins. You seem to be looking at this backwards. BTW, free is not by definition below cost. There are other ways to make money on a product. In Googles case, they are funded by advertising. They are not using anticompetitive practices to run someone out of business just to raise prices later.
What ever happened to Trolltech and QT. I thought that was Nokia's way forward for smart phones... Speaking of Trolltech... maybe Nokia should change their name. Sounds like the perfect name for a Patent Troll.
Maybe you should look at some tech sites outside of Apple.
And, just to make sure I have this correct, if you have some patents, and you are not Apple, you are a patent troll?
They're both probably infringing on each other's patents and simply can't agree who's infringing more on who's patent or whether they are equally infringing on each other's patent. Ie. they can't agree who should pay who. So they're fighting about it, and the one who fights best will probably win.
Maybe you should look at some tech sites outside of Apple.
And, just to make sure I have this correct, if you have some patents, and you are not Apple, you are a patent troll?
Well, it kind of depends how this things has played out behind closed doors. None of us really know. But say it played out like this:
1) Apple tried to license the usual Nokia tech at whatever price everybody else pays.
2) Nokia said they want to cross-license.
3) Apple (who has been burned before with cross-licensing, which licensed wholesale theft), said no, just give us your usual rates.
4) Nokia names a egregious price.
5) Apple said fine, we'll do our own clean-room version and bypass your patents.
6) Now Apple thinks they have a clean-room version, Nokia believes it still infringes.
If that's how it played out, then there is a certain kind of patent-trollishness going on.
The problem is, even after the lawsuit begins, it's not like any of us will have been edified. All we'll be able to do is hear two sides, and make arbitrary decisions about where the truth is (like: the truth is probably in the middle... which is not the case if one side flat-out lies and the other tells the truth... SCO, for an example of that).
One thing, though. Apple does not have a reputation for just outright stealing other people's tech and trying to get away with it. Mainly because they know how badly that would fail. I suspect my scenario above is pretty close to how it played out up to this point. How it plays out from here is anybody's guess. The lawyers will make money, and there will be some people who feel robbed. That's all we know for sure.
They are definitely not selling below cost. Apple just reported 40% margins. You seem to be looking at this backwards. BTW, free is not by definition below cost. There are other ways to make money on a product. In Googles case, they are funded by advertising. They are not using anticompetitive practices to run someone out of business just to raise prices later.
I have absolutely no idea what you mean. Apple has nothing to do with this.
Also, you may be confusing 'dumping' with 'predatory pricing.'
Comments
Normally a product is not considered an import in a multinational companies home country. Lawyers always try to spin things, but the ITC probably doesn't really have the ability to ban the iPhone in the US... It might be able to ban one of the chips inside the iPhone though...
What would be nice is if USITC threatened to ban Nokia for violations to give the EU a taste of tech economy saber rattling they are so fond of vs US companies.
Not too likely though.
You're an Australian, what is your point?
Doesn't matter where he's from. He has a point. (I had also said this in a post a few days ago).
Anti-dumping charges can be brought if products are sold at less than cost, and that can be shown to adversely affect a firm or industry in the US. GPS nav cannot cost zero to produce and distribute. Thus, if Nokia and Google are giving it away for free, it must be, by definition, below cost.
The affected firms may have a real case. And, the US government will be bound to investigate.
Normally a product is not considered an import in a multinational companies home country. Lawyers always try to spin things, but the ITC probably doesn't really have the ability to ban the iPhone in the US... It might be able to ban one of the chips inside the iPhone though...
It does have that ability, have a search for Qualcomm, and Broadcom
Doesn't matter where he's from. He has a point. (I had also said this in a post a few days ago).
It does, why is it no okay for a European company to make money using a commerical advantage, over an American company?
Anti-dumping charges can be brought if products are sold at less than cost, and that can be shown to adversely affect a firm or industry in the US. GPS nav cannot cost zero to produce and distribute. Thus, if Nokia and Google are giving it away for free, it must be, by definition, below cost.
The affected firms may have a real case. And, the US government will be bound to investigate.
They are not selling it for less than cost, as you need to buy the damn phone in the first place. No different than buying a stand along GPS unit.
How hard would it have been to actually go to the ITC site to see what the heck they say about this rather than parroting some analyst?
"By instituting this investigation (337-TA-701), the USITC has not yet made any decision on the merits of the case. The USITC's Chief Administrative Law Judge will assign the case to one of the USITC's six administrative law judges (ALJ), who will schedule and hold an evidentiary hearing. The ALJ will make an initial determination as to whether there is a violation of section 337; that initial determination is subject to review by the Commission."
http://www.usitc.gov/press_room/news.../er0125hh2.htm
Good point. Being a rumor site I think we expect these postings to be inaccurate, but it would be nice to see more people do their homework (unless you want to lose readers). That is why I stopped reading Slashdot. Too many postings that were bogus because they were not researched.
It does have that ability, have a search for Qualcomm, and Broadcom
If only government law was as inflexible as laws of nature...
This is insane, Nokia cannot build a quality product anymore so instead of trying and doing things the way capitalism is supposed to work you sue the person you are losing market share to. What a bunch of bs, the USA should not allow Finnish companies to sue our companies, Nokia is a bunch of morons in my opinion who are just making the world worse for everyone else, companies should compete with one another and if one cannot make a better product than the other one they should close down their business because they failed, Nokia sees they are going to have to do that and then some idiot lawyer says hey lets sue the big guy now who is Apple and maybe we can get some money. Nokia = Scam Artists!!!
What ever happened to Trolltech and QT. I thought that was Nokia's way forward for smart phones... Speaking of Trolltech... maybe Nokia should change their name. Sounds like the perfect name for a Patent Troll.
the USA should not allow Finnish companies to sue our companies,
You are kidding, right?
Doesn't matter where he's from. He has a point. (I had also said this in a post a few days ago).
Anti-dumping charges can be brought if products are sold at less than cost, and that can be shown to adversely affect a firm or industry in the US. GPS nav cannot cost zero to produce and distribute. Thus, if Nokia and Google are giving it away for free, it must be, by definition, below cost.
The affected firms may have a real case. And, the US government will be bound to investigate.
They are definitely not selling below cost. Apple just reported 40% margins. You seem to be looking at this backwards. BTW, free is not by definition below cost. There are other ways to make money on a product. In Googles case, they are funded by advertising. They are not using anticompetitive practices to run someone out of business just to raise prices later.
What ever happened to Trolltech and QT. I thought that was Nokia's way forward for smart phones... Speaking of Trolltech... maybe Nokia should change their name. Sounds like the perfect name for a Patent Troll.
Maybe you should look at some tech sites outside of Apple.
And, just to make sure I have this correct, if you have some patents, and you are not Apple, you are a patent troll?
Analcyst more like!
Those patents are virtually locking all competition out of the upcoming smartphone innovation/tablet/touch screen areas of computer advancement.
Nokia wants exorbitant retribution fees for licensing their pooled patents knowing they are screwed in the upcoming battle of innovation.
over at PatentlyApple.com.
Yeah, that sounds like a neutral site...
Yeah, that sounds like a neutral site...
What does being neutral have anything to do with it?
It's a site that reports on Apple's latest patent applications and granted patents.
What does being neutral have anything to do with it?
Going by most of your posts, nothing at all.
Maybe you should look at some tech sites outside of Apple.
And, just to make sure I have this correct, if you have some patents, and you are not Apple, you are a patent troll?
Well, it kind of depends how this things has played out behind closed doors. None of us really know. But say it played out like this:
1) Apple tried to license the usual Nokia tech at whatever price everybody else pays.
2) Nokia said they want to cross-license.
3) Apple (who has been burned before with cross-licensing, which licensed wholesale theft), said no, just give us your usual rates.
4) Nokia names a egregious price.
5) Apple said fine, we'll do our own clean-room version and bypass your patents.
6) Now Apple thinks they have a clean-room version, Nokia believes it still infringes.
If that's how it played out, then there is a certain kind of patent-trollishness going on.
The problem is, even after the lawsuit begins, it's not like any of us will have been edified. All we'll be able to do is hear two sides, and make arbitrary decisions about where the truth is (like: the truth is probably in the middle... which is not the case if one side flat-out lies and the other tells the truth... SCO, for an example of that).
One thing, though. Apple does not have a reputation for just outright stealing other people's tech and trying to get away with it. Mainly because they know how badly that would fail. I suspect my scenario above is pretty close to how it played out up to this point. How it plays out from here is anybody's guess. The lawyers will make money, and there will be some people who feel robbed. That's all we know for sure.
They are definitely not selling below cost. Apple just reported 40% margins. You seem to be looking at this backwards. BTW, free is not by definition below cost. There are other ways to make money on a product. In Googles case, they are funded by advertising. They are not using anticompetitive practices to run someone out of business just to raise prices later.
I have absolutely no idea what you mean. Apple has nothing to do with this.
Also, you may be confusing 'dumping' with 'predatory pricing.'