Samsung: "I've done far worse than kill you: I've hurt you. And I wish to go on...hurting you. I shall leave you as you left her. Marooned for all eternity at the center of a dead planet... buried alive... buried alive...."
Perhaps the financial impact of sales ban is minimal. But do we know for sure the overall financial impact will be "minimal" when they still have to negotiate a settlement for units already sold (assuming Apple's appeal does not succeed)?
This may be a precursor of the future. Product cycles outpace court proceedings. So sales bans will almost never be imposed early enough. All that's left to do is determination of damages. The companies would have served themselves better to have negotiated and settled amongst themselves in the first place.
Perhaps the financial impact of sales ban is minimal. But do we know for sure the overall financial impact will be "minimal" when they still have to negotiate a settlement for units already sold (assuming Apple's appeal does not succeed)?
This may be a precursor of the future. Product cycles outpace court proceedings. So sales bans will almost never be imposed early enough. All that's left to do is determination of damages. The companies would have served themselves better to have negotiated and settled amongst themselves in the first place.
The ITC doesn't involve itself with past infringement or any related monetary compensation for it.
This is bad for Apple in terms of PR, whether the effect on sales will be measurable or not. The general public doesn't recognize a distinction between FRAND patents and the rest. I'd wager that the ITC didn't fully take into account FRAND licensing practices, but the ITC just gave some number of people reason to believe Samsung has at least as legitimate (or illegitimate) a business as Apple.
Samsung: "I've done far worse than kill you: I've hurt you. And I wish to go on...hurting you. I shall leave you as you left her. Marooned for all eternity at the center of a dead planet... buried alive... buried alive...."
You sir have won this thread.
Of course, Steve Jobs basically said: "He tasks me, he tasks me!" so I'm really confused on who's who.
There is more to development of these cases than just ITC rulings. But you already knew that. So what's your point?
No idea what you're referring to. Are you saying that Samsung has also filed a civil suit to collect back-royalties based on those same patent claims? That Samsung's intent was just to collect money? That's seemed to me the question the OP had. If so it obviously wasn't going to be via the ITC which he perhaps didn't realize..
If that's not what you're getting at then just what's YOUR point? I've never been good at riddles and suck at charades.
The fact that the ITC eventually issued a ban with no economic harm to the infringer (since it took two years to decide) isn't nearly as newsworthy as the fact the ITC has chosen to allow injunctions based on SEP claims to continue. THAT'S the big news.
This is what I find interesting.
The import ban along with the cease and desist ( which HTC didn't get ) over FRAND SEPs is one of the most extreme decisions yet by the ITC in the mobile wars.
Considering this goes against the FTC/Google agreement, congress calls for reform, and Obama's new opinions.
I can't figure out if this is:
1. The ITC sticking a flag in the ground to maintain their power and relavance ~ politics
2. The ITC deciding to take an extreme stance in order to force Congress to legislate and clean up the rules so that they use.
Comments
Am I missing something or is another route possible. Couldn't Apple just pay Samsung the licensing fees and be done with it?
Perhaps the financial impact of sales ban is minimal. But do we know for sure the overall financial impact will be "minimal" when they still have to negotiate a settlement for units already sold (assuming Apple's appeal does not succeed)?
This may be a precursor of the future. Product cycles outpace court proceedings. So sales bans will almost never be imposed early enough. All that's left to do is determination of damages. The companies would have served themselves better to have negotiated and settled amongst themselves in the first place.
The ITC doesn't involve itself with past infringement or any related monetary compensation for it.
So we can expect another Sammy lawsuit? Joy!
IMHO it's not about money for either company.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy
The ITC doesn't involve itself with past infringement or any related monetary compensation for it.
There is more to development of these cases than just ITC rulings. But you already knew that. So what's your point?
Samsung especially and Apple are keeping ITC employees in a job, you never hear of cut backs in that government organisation
This is bad for Apple in terms of PR, whether the effect on sales will be measurable or not. The general public doesn't recognize a distinction between FRAND patents and the rest. I'd wager that the ITC didn't fully take into account FRAND licensing practices, but the ITC just gave some number of people reason to believe Samsung has at least as legitimate (or illegitimate) a business as Apple.
Quote:
Originally Posted by souliisoul
Samsung especially and Apple are keeping ITC employees in a job, you never hear of cut backs in that government organisation
Off-topic: Outside of the military, when have you ever heard of the federal government cutting employees other than through attrition?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Suddenly Newton
Samsung: "I've done far worse than kill you: I've hurt you. And I wish to go on...hurting you. I shall leave you as you left her. Marooned for all eternity at the center of a dead planet... buried alive... buried alive...."
You sir have won this thread.
Of course, Steve Jobs basically said: "He tasks me, he tasks me!" so I'm really confused on who's who.
I believe the answer to that is yes.
No idea what you're referring to. Are you saying that Samsung has also filed a civil suit to collect back-royalties based on those same patent claims? That Samsung's intent was just to collect money? That's seemed to me the question the OP had. If so it obviously wasn't going to be via the ITC which he perhaps didn't realize..
If that's not what you're getting at then just what's YOUR point? I've never been good at riddles and suck at charades.
This is what I find interesting.
The import ban along with the cease and desist ( which HTC didn't get ) over FRAND SEPs is one of the most extreme decisions yet by the ITC in the mobile wars.
Considering this goes against the FTC/Google agreement, congress calls for reform, and Obama's new opinions.
I can't figure out if this is:
1. The ITC sticking a flag in the ground to maintain their power and relavance ~ politics
2. The ITC deciding to take an extreme stance in order to force Congress to legislate and clean up the rules so that they use.
Hmmmm