Apple files for stay on ITC ban for legacy iPhones and iPads

Posted:
in General Discussion edited January 2014
In a filing with the U.S. International Trade Commission on Monday, Apple requested the body stay an import ban against older model iPhones and iPads while a court considers an appeal on the ruling.

ITC


Apple's motion, which comes less than four weeks before the sales ban is scheduled to into effect on August 5, says the ban would "sweep away an entire segment of Apple's product offerings" and negatively impact the company's partner carriers.

As noted by GigaOm, the motion claims Apple will lose out on sales of GSM versions of the iPhone 4 and iPad 2 with cellular, which would hinder the company's efforts in garnering new customers from the entry-level devices. Since the iPhone 5 was released in September of 2012, the 8GB iPhone 4 became Apple's free-on-contract offering, an important product that allows the company to introduce a wider range of consumers to the iPhone ecosystem.

The ITC's ban was handed down in June after the six-member Commission determined Apple had infringed on certain 3G wireless patents held by Samsung. The limited import ban affects GSM versions of the iPhone 4, 3GS and 3G, as well as versions of the iPad 2 and original iPad.

According to Apple, GSM network operators will cede a competitive advantage if the products are taken off the market. Although the names of the telecoms were redacted from the public version of the filing, Apple is most likely referring to AT&T and T-Mobile, two of the nation's largest wireless providers.

Apple is a little over half way through a 60-day Presidential Review period in which the White House can veto the ITC order. If no action is taken, as is usually the case, the import ban becomes effective.

In arguing for a stay, Apple notes that an appeal has already been lodged with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, and believes the outcome of that case will be an invalidation of Samsung's asserted patent. If the CAFC rules in favor of Samsung, the Korean company can collect damages in another suit pending in Delaware, Apple says.

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 11
    chris_cachris_ca Posts: 2,543member
    Apple to ITC - "At least let us sell off our remaining stock on hand of these older units."
  • Reply 2 of 11
    relicrelic Posts: 4,735member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Chris_CA View Post



    Apple to ITC - "At least let us sell off our remaining stock on hand of these older units."


    ITC to Apple - "We would then have to extend Samsung the same courtesy."

  • Reply 3 of 11
    adonissmuadonissmu Posts: 1,774member
    Wait but isnt Samsung violating their contract terms? Why shouldapple be responsible for that? Everyone has to use 3g patents,
  • Reply 4 of 11
    relicrelic Posts: 4,735member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by AdonisSMU View Post



    Wait but isnt Samsung violating their contract terms? Why shouldapple be responsible for that? Everyone has to use 3g patents,


    According to the lawsuit Apple copied the 3G patent and didn't license the technology from Samsung so there was no contract. This lawsuit must have some validity or the trade commission wouldn't have banned the importing of the iPhone 4 and iPad 2 3G. The iPad 2 3G and iPhone 4 is still a big seller and this could affect Apple's bottom line and stock price. I'm sure Obama will overturn the decision though so this won't be such a big deal but if he doesn't, well, Apple might have to pull these products.

  • Reply 5 of 11
    kdarlingkdarling Posts: 1,640member



    Quote:

    Originally Posted by AdonisSMU View Post



    Wait but isnt Samsung violating their contract terms? 


     


    Not according to the ITC.  


     


    Samsung did what was required, which was to negotiate rates.  


     


    Samsung started off with a high rate.   Apple responded with a low rate.  All normal so far.


     


    Samsung continued to make offers, going lower each time.  Apple refused to talk after their first response.   This made them an unwilling licensee in the eyes of the ITC.


     


    Quote:



    Why should apple be responsible for that? Everyone has to use 3g patents,



     


    Thus everyone has to pay for them.  (That's one reason why companies contribute them towards the standard.)


     


    ETSI members are expected to enter negotiations with the patent holder.  If they fail, the next step is to use available ETSI arbitration aid.   Apple did not do this, preferring to file lawsuits claiming FRAND abuse instead.  That was a mistake.


     


    The ITC imposed the import ban because, as they put it, Apple accused Samsung of not following ETSI FRAND rules, yet Apple failed to follow those rules themselves.


     


    To be fair, Apple at first thought the patent was invalid.  I think the ITC could've first given them fair warning that they had to make a deal within a certain period of time, then use forced arbitration if that failed, then impose the ban if everything failed.

  • Reply 6 of 11
    kdarlingkdarling Posts: 1,640member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Relic View Post


    I'm sure Obama will overturn the decision though so this won't be such a big deal but if he doesn't, well, Apple might have to pull these products.



     


    Presidential interventions over ITC decisions are extremely rare.


     


    Apple's next best bet is with the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.    They overturn ITC decisions about 15% of the time.

  • Reply 7 of 11
    drblankdrblank Posts: 3,383member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Relic View Post


    According to the lawsuit Apple copied the 3G patent and didn't license the technology from Samsung so there was no contract. This lawsuit must have some validity or the trade commission wouldn't have banned the importing of the iPhone 4 and iPad 2 3G. The iPad 2 3G and iPhone 4 is still a big seller and this could affect Apple's bottom line and stock price. I'm sure Obama will overturn the decision though so this won't be such a big deal but if he doesn't, well, Apple might have to pull these products.



    And how did they "Copy" the 3G patent? doesn't Apple buy voice/data chips from another company that pays Samsung for the license to make 3G chips to sell on the open market?  Apple didn't make their own voice/data chips did they?

  • Reply 8 of 11
    relicrelic Posts: 4,735member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by drblank View Post


    And how did they "Copy" the 3G patent? doesn't Apple buy voice/data chips from another company that pays Samsung for the license to make 3G chips to sell on the open market?  Apple didn't make their own voice/data chips did they?



    Why don't you just read the articles.

  • Reply 9 of 11

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by AdonisSMU View Post



    Wait but isnt Samsung violating their contract terms? Why shouldapple be responsible for that? Everyone has to use 3g patents,


     


    Yet Apple has never, NEVER paid one single dime for the use of those said patents. The arrogance of Apple is to much.

  • Reply 10 of 11
    kdarlingkdarling Posts: 1,640member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by drblank View Post


    And how did they "Copy" the 3G patent? doesn't Apple buy voice/data chips from another company that pays Samsung for the license to make 3G chips to sell on the open market?  Apple didn't make their own voice/data chips did they?



     


    Apple unfortunately bought chips from a company that did not have a license for the tech in question.


     


    Recall that, before using Qualcomm, Apple used Infineon chips.   Infineon did NOT have a Samsung license.  Intel purchased Infineon in 2011 and they DID have a cross-license with Samsung.


     


    Therefore, any Infineon chip designs dating before the Intel purchase, and used for 3G, violate Samsung's SEP.   That's why the ban only affects older iOS devices.

  • Reply 11 of 11
    tallest skiltallest skil Posts: 43,399member
    relic wrote: »
    ITC to Apple - "We would then have to extend Samsung the same courtesy."

    "As long as we get to quadruple the damages they pay when they're found guilty again, we're fine with that."
Sign In or Register to comment.