ITC delays determination in Samsung patent row against Apple

Posted:
in General Discussion edited January 2014
On the day it was due to issue a final determination on a Samsung patent suit leveraged against Apple, the US International Trade Commission pushed back the deadline to June 4, delaying what could be a significant decision for issues relating to FRAND licensing.

ITC


Friday's extension is the second such delay for the determination, which will be the final ruling on a case involving Samsung's declared standard essential patents for UMTS cellular communications.

The Korean company first accused Apple of infringing on its patents in June 2011, seeking an embargo on the iPhone, iPad and iPod touch. It was later discovered that only older iOS devices would be affected by an ITC ban, as Apple is a third-party beneficiary of an existing Samsung licensing agreement for certain Qualcomm baseband chips, which Apple started using with the iPhone 4.

In September of 2012, ITC Administrative Law Judge James Gildea issued an initial determination clearing Apple of infringement, but the trade body chose to review the decision in November. The full Commission was slated to issue a ruling in March, but delayed judgment to May 31.

«1

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 27
    tallest skiltallest skil Posts: 43,252member


    So what's the problem? Too few people to preside over cases? Too many cases? How about rating the cases on a scale of importance and actually getting to the important ones?

  • Reply 2 of 27
    anantksundaramanantksundaram Posts: 18,515member


    I don't know why we even bother to pay these people....

  • Reply 3 of 27
    jungmarkjungmark Posts: 6,545member
    Must be a misprint. It says Sammy was suing Apple. We all know only Apple files lawsuits. /s

    @TS who gets to decide what's important.
  • Reply 4 of 27
    starbird73starbird73 Posts: 538member
    Here is the thing. Like TS said, there is a problem (I vote for too much of these cases). It also sounds like a 'win' for Apple does exactly nothing. Same thing if Samsung 'wins' since it appears these products are no longer made.

    Glad all these highly paid lawyers got paid, though.
  • Reply 5 of 27
    softekysofteky Posts: 129member
    It's not the fact that the devices are no longer made that is important here. It's the fact that the F and R in FRAND stand for Fair and Reasonable. If you want your patents to be included in a standard (effectively forcing everyone to use them), you must not be able to ban their use in an arbitrary and self serving manner. This is a strategy too often executed and it must be stopped.

    Industry-wide acceptance as a standard should entail industry-wide publication and application of patent conditions.

    I do not understand how this cannot be a slam-dunk decision for the ITC.
  • Reply 6 of 27
    gatorguygatorguy Posts: 18,740member
    Apparently other posters are unaware that Apple is likely guilty of infringement. If not the ITC wouldn't be asking these questions at this stage. The problem the ITC is having now is whether to issue an injunction despite the recent pressure from other agencies not to.

    In a nutshell the ITC already knows Apple is guilty but now what are they gonna do about it? It sets the stage for several other cases to come. If they don't issue an injunction on some Apple products they become a toothless tiger is some respects since that's the only cure they can offer. On the other hand if they do order one they're inviting an intervention and perhaps rewrite of the section 337 rules that gave them that power in the first place.
  • Reply 7 of 27

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post



    Apparently other posters are unaware that Apple is likely guilty of infringement. If not the ITC wouldn't be asking these questions at this stage. The problem the ITC is having now is whether to issue an injunction despite the recent pressure from other agencies not to.



    In a nutshell the ITC already knows Apple is guilty but now what are they gonna do about it? It sets the stage for several other cases to come. If they don't issue an injunction on some Apple products they become a toothless tiger is some respects since that's the only cure they can offer. On the other hand if they do order one they're inviting an intervention and perhaps rewrite of the section 337 rules that gave them that power in the first place.


     


    A two business day delay in coming out with their decision means Apple is likely to be found to have infringed?  I don't get that.  And you know this how?


     


    It's like your inside the rooms where they're deliberating with all this inside knowledge you seem to have about the decisions and ramifications of those decisions that they're dealing with.  Why don't you just hook us up with the recordings or video.  No reason to hold out on us now is there?

  • Reply 8 of 27
    suddenly newtonsuddenly newton Posts: 13,714member
    A two business day delay in coming out with their decision means Apple is likely to be found to have infringed?  I don't get that.  And you know this how?

    It's like your inside the rooms where they're deliberating with all this inside knowledge you seem to have about the decisions and ramifications of those decisions that they're dealing with.  Why don't you just hook us up with the recordings or video.  No reason to hold out on us now is there?

    It fits his worldview that Apple infringes on poor helpless little companies like Samsung. No further evidence need be presented. Apple is evil.
  • Reply 9 of 27
    anonymouseanonymouse Posts: 6,558member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post



    Apparently other posters are unaware that Apple is likely guilty of infringement. If not the ITC wouldn't be asking these questions at this stage. The problem the ITC is having now is whether to issue an injunction despite the recent pressure from other agencies not to.



    In a nutshell the ITC already knows Apple is guilty but now what are they gonna do about it? It sets the stage for several other cases to come. If they don't issue an injunction on some Apple products they become a toothless tiger is some respects since that's the only cure they can offer. On the other hand if they do order one they're inviting an intervention and perhaps rewrite of the section 337 rules that gave them that power in the first place.


     


    Classic attempt at disinformation from GG. You can't be "guilty of infringement" in a meaningful sense with SE/FRAND patents. Of course anyone following the standard will be using the "inventions" described in these patents, that's more or less a tautology. The issues are a) can SE/FRAND patents be used to enjoin products in any instance, and b) if they can, was FRAND licensing actually offered and refused. Those are the issues here. Not whether, "Apple is likely guilty of infringement."


     


    In a nutshell, Samsung will be about as successful in this line of attack as in other instances of FRAND patent abuse, which is turning out to be a bag of hurt for Samsung, Motorola, Google, et al., worldwide.


     


    Frankly, I have more respect for trolls than people like GG. They at least deserve compassion for the mental illness that compels them to engage in antisocial behavior. GG deserves none.

  • Reply 10 of 27
    nealgnealg Posts: 132member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post



    Apparently other posters are unaware that Apple is likely guilty of infringement. If not the ITC wouldn't be asking these questions at this stage. The problem the ITC is having now is whether to issue an injunction despite the recent pressure from other agencies not to.



    In a nutshell the ITC already knows Apple is guilty but now what are they gonna do about it? It sets the stage for several other cases to come. If they don't issue an injunction on some Apple products they become a toothless tiger is some respects since that's the only cure they can offer. On the other hand if they do order one they're inviting an intervention and perhaps rewrite of the section 337 rules that gave them that power in the first place.


    GG,


     


    You always seem to take the anti-Apple slant to things without talking about the negative impact on any other parties. Also, I am not sure how you come your opinion based on the information presented. You would have to explain your opinion better to not come off as purely trolling.


     


    My basis of understanding of FRAND is this


     


    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reasonable_and_non-discriminatory_licensing


     


    Based on my what I am reading, as a reasonable person, seeing what has happened in Europe with Mot/Goog Frand patents, the more likely scenario is that Samsung tried to apply unfair and unreasonable fees as applied to this/these patents to try to stick it to Apple.  Or maybe Samsung tried to double dip on this patent, licensing it to the chip company so people who bought the chip should be covered in the ability to use the patent but trying to collect an extra fee from Apple, unreasonably. This second scenario is more likely since Apple was cleared of infringement on first look by the ITC judge. It is likely that Samsung then threw something else into the fray to get the ITC to review the decision. Not being an attorney and not being a patent attorney, this is all speculation on my part. An issue for Samsung is that if they are trying to collect an unreasonable fee, could they be sanctioned and fined by the ITC for this?


     


    Reason for the additional delay could be several besides finding Apple guilty of infringement. Some new documents related to the case came to the commission late. Maybe the sides are close to an agreement that would put off any reason for the ITC to rule. Or maybe they are trying to decide how much to fine Samsung if they think they were trying to double dip. A hefty fine could put a stop to companies trying to double dip or hold up other companies for using FRAND patents.


     


    At least this is my non lawyer interpretation of all of this. YMMV. Apple isn't always right but they aren't usually always wrong.

  • Reply 11 of 27
    gatorguygatorguy Posts: 18,740member
    A two business day delay in coming out with their decision means Apple is likely to be found to have infringed?  I don't get that.  And you know this how?

    It's like your inside the rooms where they're deliberating with all this inside knowledge you seem to have about the decisions and ramifications of those decisions that they're dealing with.  Why don't you just hook us up with the recordings or video.  No reason to hold out on us now is there?

    It does seem like magic doesn't it? Almost as if I teleported my way into the judge's chambers. . .

    Or perhaps I just did a little background reading and research before commenting on the article. You should try it. The obvious first stop for some here would be FossPatents since Florian was probably the source for the AI article.
    http://www.fosspatents.com/2013/05/itc-extends-target-date-for-samsung.html

    Your second stop if you have any real interest in knowing what's going on is the ITC themselves. Visit edis.usitc.gov and you can register to view ITC documents for yourself. The relevant case number is 337-794

    EDIT: To be perfectly clear I'm no fan of Samsung's business practices in case some regular here missed the last dozen times I've complained about Samsung. It is what it is tho. The likely reason for the ITC's delay is how exactly to respond to Apple's infringement of Samsung's IP according to court-watchers. For a handful of posters to jump in to claim I'm wrong is pretty silly when they didn't even bother to check for themselves.
  • Reply 12 of 27
    tallest skiltallest skil Posts: 43,252member


    Originally Posted by jungmark View Post

    @TS who gets to decide what's important.


     


    A panel of people who actually understand the case, apparently unlike the people who preside over them.





    Originally Posted by starbird73 View Post

    It also sounds like a 'win' for Apple does exactly nothing.


     


    That's the greatest crime. Sure, Apple can "lose" thanks to complete idiots, but when they win you feel as though they should have lost because absolutely nothing happens. 




    Samsung's mobile division needs shut down, period. Who cares what happens to the people? But will that happen? Not unless we find e-mails or letters where they talk about what they've done outright.

  • Reply 13 of 27
    charlitunacharlituna Posts: 7,175member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by starbird73 View Post



    Here is the thing. Like TS said, there is a problem (I vote for too much of these cases). It also sounds like a 'win' for Apple does exactly nothing. Same thing if Samsung 'wins' since it appears these products are no longer made.



    Glad all these highly paid lawyers got paid, though.


     


    Thing is this this case it's not a win kind of a situation. It's an SEP so Apple should have gotten a license because Samsung was required to license it. But then again perhaps the terms weren't, in Apple's opinion, fair and reasonable. So even if Samsung wins all they might get is the money they asked for originally. No one is keen to use injunctions when SEP are involved whether the products are still around or not. On the flip, if Apple wins they may still have to pay just at less than what Samsung wanted (but is determined by ITC to be fair)

  • Reply 14 of 27
    gatorguygatorguy Posts: 18,740member
    charlituna wrote: »
    Thing is this this case it's not a win kind of a situation. It's an SEP so Apple should have gotten a license because Samsung was required to license it. But then again perhaps the terms weren't, in Apple's opinion, fair and reasonable. So even if Samsung wins all they might get is the money they asked for originally. No one is keen to use injunctions when SEP are involved whether the products are still around or not. On the flip, if Apple wins they may still have to pay just at less than what Samsung wanted (but is determined by ITC to be fair)

    The ITC doesn't have the power to order a monetary award. If they identify IP infringement the only cure available to them is an injunction. In this case the economic harm to Apple would be none for the most part anyway. The case took so long to meander thru the ITC that the Apple products subject to an import ban are set to retire anyway. The only thing left besides "bragging rights" is an indication of whether SEP holders can avail themselves of ITC courts in the future and if so under what scenarios. That's the important part.
  • Reply 15 of 27
    bushman4bushman4 Posts: 791member
    By the time the ITC makes a ruling the impact on Samsung will be minimal. Unfortunately the system stinks and needs to be revamped
  • Reply 16 of 27
    loptimistloptimist Posts: 113member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by anonymouse View Post


     


    Classic attempt at disinformation from GG. You can't be "guilty of infringement" in a meaningful sense with SE/FRAND patents. Of course anyone following the standard will be using the "inventions" described in these patents, that's more or less a tautology. The issues are a) can SE/FRAND patents be used to enjoin products in any instance, and b) if they can, was FRAND licensing actually offered and refused. Those are the issues here. Not whether, "Apple is likely guilty of infringement."


     


    In a nutshell, Samsung will be about as successful in this line of attack as in other instances of FRAND patent abuse, which is turning out to be a bag of hurt for Samsung, Motorola, Google, et al., worldwide.


     


    Frankly, I have more respect for trolls than people like GG. They at least deserve compassion for the mental illness that compels them to engage in antisocial behavior. GG deserves none.



     


    I highly doubt that ITC would end up saying 'we cannot enjoin products infringing on SEP' because then they are pretty much saying 'we don't have power to do a shit about SEP.'


     


    Also, yes you can be guilty of infringement for SEP in a "meaningful sense."  Not paying royalty for a patent you are using is an infringement, period.  Only difference for SEP is, as you probably already know, that patentee must license out at "reasonable" terms.


     


    Edit.  Reading through what GG said, I think he has some valid points but perhaps concluding that ITC already found Apple to be liable and for that they delayed the ruling for 2 days seems tenuous.

  • Reply 17 of 27
    ITC:
    Judge #1: "Guys, do we really have to make a decision here? All of this publicity is actually pretty cool. We're ITC for God's sake! How many times to do we get to make a decision that really makes a difference?!"
    Judge #2: "I agree... Chicks dig me."
    Judge #3: "Hey, let's throw in one more delay!"
    Judge #4: "Yeah, just one more delay. Let's milk this sucker!"
    Judge #1: "Okay, but do you guys think we should read the documentation on the case, at least?"
    Judge #2: "Nah, we'll just read AppleInsider, pick out the biggest moron, and rule against his comments."
  • Reply 18 of 27
    anantksundaramanantksundaram Posts: 18,515member
    gatorguy wrote: »
    Apparently other posters are unaware that Apple is likely guilty of infringement. If not the ITC wouldn't be asking these questions at this stage. The problem the ITC is having now is whether to issue an injunction despite the recent pressure from other agencies not to.


    In a nutshell the ITC already knows Apple is guilty but now what are they gonna do about it? It sets the stage for several other cases to come. If they don't issue an injunction on some Apple products they become a toothless tiger is some respects since that's the only cure they can offer. On the other hand if they do order one they're inviting an intervention and perhaps rewrite of the section 337 rules that gave them that power in the first place.

    A two business day delay in coming out with their decision means Apple is likely to be found to have infringed?  I don't get that.  And you know this how?

    It's like your inside the rooms where they're deliberating with all this inside knowledge you seem to have about the decisions and ramifications of those decisions that they're dealing with.  Why don't you just hook us up with the recordings or video.  No reason to hold out on us now is there?

    He's just relentlessly anti-Apple. In the most passive-aggressive way.

    Just ignore him.....

    Add: Oops, I see it's too late.
  • Reply 19 of 27
    anonymouseanonymouse Posts: 6,558member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by anantksundaram View Post





    He's just relentlessly anti-Apple. In the most passive-aggressive way.



    Just ignore him.....



    Add: Oops, I see it's too late.


     


    The problem with propaganda is that, even though it's nine parts lies, with a dash of truth thrown in to make it seem plausible, if it isn't countered, people start to believe it, simply from repetition. So, yes, although it would be nice to be able to just ignore this nonsense, and actually be able to have meaningful discussions, as long as people are paid to come here (along with the many, transient fools who stop by from time to time) and spread disinformation, the choices are a) ignore them and allow them to shape people's views of reality or b) waste time and opportunity to counter their propaganda. It's unfortunately a sad fact of life that people like GG, on the pretense of "just providing information", make it more and more difficult to actually have rational, meaningful discussion. 

  • Reply 20 of 27
    anonymouseanonymouse Posts: 6,558member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Loptimist View Post


     


    I highly doubt that ITC would end up saying 'we cannot enjoin products infringing on SEP' because then they are pretty much saying 'we don't have power to do a shit about SEP.'


     


    Also, yes you can be guilty of infringement for SEP in a "meaningful sense."  Not paying royalty for a patent you are using is an infringement, period.  Only difference for SEP is, as you probably already know, that patentee must license out at "reasonable" terms.


     


    Edit.  Reading through what GG said, I think he has some valid points but perhaps concluding that ITC already found Apple to be liable and for that they delayed the ruling for 2 days seems tenuous.



     


    And you're another one. And, no, the difference for SEP is that to implement the standard, you must use the patented "invention". That's the point, and we all know that all these "controversies" are from companies like Samsung and Google trying to either "double-dip" or violating their FRAND obligations. No one, including Apple, is refusing to license these patents under FRAND terms, but FRAND terms, in violation of the commitments made, aren't being offered by these companies. Instead, they are reneging on their promises and trying to use them as offensive weapons.


     


    What GG and you have said is complete and utter nonsense.

Sign In or Register to comment.