Verizon probably assumes their versions would be next. I'm not sure, I honestly cannot remember this patent ruling.
Good point that the ban only affects UMTS-3G phones like AT&T uses.
I think that the last time Verizon tried this was back in 2007 with the Broadcom patent case, when the ITC banned phones with certain 1xEVDO Qualcomm chips that Verizon uses.
President Bush did not intervene, and the ban went into effect.
Verizon, facing a shortage of phones, ended up making a deal where they themselves paid a $6 per device royalty to Broadcom just to get the phones imported.
Since the president doesn't have the power to create laws, Verizon is wasting their time and the president's (not to mention they are on a fool's errand, attempting to circumvent court rulings in this fashion). Write to your congressional representatives, Verizon! At least they are clearly bought off by corporate interests AND can craft your self-interested legislation.
Since the president doesn't have the power to create laws, Verizon is wasting their time and the president's (not to mention they are on a fool's errand, attempting to circumvent court rulings in this fashion). Write to your congressional representatives, Verizon! At least they are clearly bought off by corporate interests AND can craft your self-interested legislation.
You do understand the president can veto this right? The ITC is not part of the judiciary. Obama is the person who can right this wrong and as a result set policy as he is authorized to do.
I agree with Verizon here. The ITC is trying to ban a product that used patents that were FRAND. Just because the company offering their patents to be part of a standard and then deny fair and reasonable licensing on that patent, does not mean they should be allowed to ban the product. It means there was a failure in the negotiations of the two companies and the ITC (or the courts in general) are being used as pawns in anti-competitive behavior. Who makes the call on that then? The president, or a president in my opinion. If the world courts are inhibiting marketplace dynamics, then yes, something needs to be done to prevent this in the future.
Nope, it doesn't matter. FRAND doesn't mean Apple doesn't have to pay anything and all parties must continue negotiating in good faith. Likewise the ITC judges found Apple was not simply willing to negotiate. This is the right recourse for arrogant companies like Apple who thinks it can prevail in the US because it's Apple's hometown court.
Since the president doesn't have the power to create laws, Verizon is wasting their time and the president's (not to mention they are on a fool's errand, attempting to circumvent court rulings in this fashion). Write to your congressional representatives, Verizon! At least they are clearly bought off by corporate interests AND can craft your self-interested legislation.
Every report has mentioned this is an issue appealable to the president. The ITC is a trade commission, not a legal court. More like the Canadian pipeline than a burglary conviction.
Nope, it doesn't matter. FRAND doesn't mean Apple doesn't have to pay anything and all parties must continue negotiating in good faith. Likewise the ITC judges found Apple was not simply willing to negotiate. This is the right recourse for arrogant companies like Apple who thinks it can prevail in the US because it's Apple's hometown court.
Get lost troll. Just like KD you've been proven wrong so many times I'm surprised you're still trying to fool people on AI with that garbage.
Samsung is making over-the-top demands from Apple knowing full well Apple won't accept. Then they "claim" Apple is an unwilling licensee so they can seek a ban. Samsung is also trying to tie in Apple non-SEP's for cross-licensing, which the FTC just said was a big no-no.
There have been a few people here and there who think it's OK to get injunctions over FRAND patents. Known patent abusers Google, Motorola and Samsung (unsurprisingly) are among them. Meanwhile, the rest of the civilized tech world (and academia) are opposed to this. Apple, MS, Intel, Cisco, IBM just for starters. Not to mention numerous people in the senate (both Republicans and Democrats), former heads of government agencies that deal with competition or copyright/IP issues. I could go on, but there's not enough room to list all those who are against injunctions.
Yet idiots like KD still try and spin a few supporters of injunctions and claim there's widespread agreement for them. There isn't. And as long as AI lets you losers post I'm going to call you out on it.
It's funny that the companies that think it's OK to seek injunctions are the ones who have been found guilty of stealing IP (Samsung) or those that don't care about protecting IP (like Google, who actually think if tech becomes popular it should become a de-facto standard, and therefore, become an SEP even if the owner doesn't want to declare it as essential). Or those that have seen their market share disappear and are becoming irrelevant (Nokia, Ericsson). Every one else with common sense is against it.
Samsung is making over-the-top demands from Apple knowing full well Apple won't accept. Then they "claim" Apple is an unwilling licensee so they can seek a ban. Samsung is also trying to tie in Apple non-SEP's for cross-licensing, which the FTC just said was a big no-no.
The ITC didn't ban Apple's products just because "Samsung claimed" that Apple didn't try to negotiate. The ITC looked at what happened and saw that Samsung continued to make lower offers, while Apple instead ran to the courts claiming that the opening rate offer was too high.
Apple also claimed that Samsung wasn't following ETSI rules, which prompted the ITC to point out that Apple itself failed to follow ETSI rules by not asking for arbitration help.
As for tying in non-SEPs, you're right about the FTC's recent order to Google. However, the ITC majority said it was okay for Samsung to ask for that.
This has been the problem all along. Even governments have not resolved what to do, which is why I've said it's unfair on both sides to implement bans of any kind, until and unless the rules are flatly laid out ahead of time.
Are you an American? If so, you'll know that we're brought up on being fair. Making up rules after the fact, is not fair for anyone.
Quote:
Yet idiots like KD still try and spin a few supporters of injunctions and claim there's widespread agreement for them. There isn't. And as long as AI lets you losers post I'm going to call you out on it.
Then post some opposing references, if you can find any. Falling back on personal attacks simply lets everyone know that you have no facts to back up your arguments. I also suspect that you accidentally misunderstand a lot of the posts you read.
Nobody that I know of disputes that injunctions should not be used during ongoing normal negotiations (although nobody predefined what "ongoing negotiations" were, either).
All that some of us have been pointing out, is that the references you named who oppose it during negotiations, still say that an injunction is valid if the licensee refuses to negotiate or pay up. The EU Commission said so. The FTC said so. Apple's outside legal expert references in front of the ITC said so. Even your favorite Judge Robart in the Microsoft v Motorola case, who stated:
Quote:
"Indeed, Microsoft, or any other implementer, is not free to infringe Motorola’s standard essential patents, and were that to occur, this court’s ruling with respect to injunctive relief may be different."
...
"If, in the future, those circumstances change in a manner to warrant injunctive relief, Motorola may at that time seek such relief."
Interesting position VZ is taking. I wonder what the bigger game that is at play here.
I agree that VZ lawyer's approach to this is reasonable.
Is it not true that Verizon may have to Apple upto 14bn for not meeting its contractual obligation to sell iPhones? This must be the payback to placate Aple
Interesting position VZ is taking. I wonder what the bigger game that is at play here.
I agree that VZ lawyer's approach to this is reasonable.
Is it not true that Verizon may have to Apple upto 14bn for not meeting its contractual obligation to sell iPhones? This must be the payback to placate Aple
I agree with Verizon here. The ITC is trying to ban a product that used patents that were FRAND. Just because the company offering their patents to be part of a standard and then deny fair and reasonable licensing on that patent, does not mean they should be allowed to ban the product. It means there was a failure in the negotiations of the two companies and the ITC (or the courts in general) are being used as pawns in anti-competitive behavior. Who makes the call on that then? The president, or a president in my opinion. If the world courts are inhibiting marketplace dynamics, then yes, something needs to be done to prevent this in the future.
ITC has investigated and found that Apple was using this egregious argument and not paying anything to Samsung while still using the patents. It does not negotiate, it does not pay - in other words acts like a bully and wants to get away with it. This is called "Reverse Holdup". FTC had investigated Google thoroughly on FRAND/SEP usage and has told that FRAND patent holder's have a right to injunctive relief when the opposing party practices "Reverse Holdup". Hence this situation. Apple could come up with a negotiated price for tha patents ASAP instead of begging..
The ITC didn't ban Apple's products just because "Samsung claimed" that Apple didn't try to negotiate. The ITC looked at what happened and saw that Samsung continued to make lower offers, while Apple instead ran to the courts claiming that the opening rate offer was too high.
Apple also claimed that Samsung wasn't following ETSI rules, which prompted the ITC to point out that Apple itself failed to follow ETSI rules by not asking for arbitration help.
As for tying in non-SEPs, you're right about the FTC's recent order to Google. However, the ITC majority said it was okay for Samsung to ask for that.
This has been the problem all along. Even governments have not resolved what to do, which is why I've said it's unfair on both sides to implement bans of any kind, until and unless the rules are flatly laid out ahead of time.
Are you an American? If so, you'll know that we're brought up on being fair. Making up rules after the fact, is not fair for anyone.
Then post some opposing references, if you can find any. Falling back on personal attacks simply lets everyone know that you have no facts to back up your arguments. I also suspect that you accidentally misunderstand a lot of the posts you read.
Nobody that I know of disputes that injunctions should not be used during ongoing normal negotiations (although nobody predefined what "ongoing negotiations" were, either).
All that some of us have been pointing out, is that the references you named who oppose it during negotiations, still say that an injunction is valid if the licensee refuses to negotiate or pay up. The EU Commission said so. The FTC said so. Apple's outside legal expert references in front of the ITC said so. Even your favorite Judge Robart in the Microsoft v Motorola case, who stated:
More spin as usual. If you want me to take the time to bring up every case or group that's against injunctions then you have to do something for me first. It's really quite simple:
Go back and answer the 101 questions I (or others) have posed to you in the past to prove your claims. You see, this is a pattern with you. Make a claim and then leave the thread when you get called out on it. Then re-appear in another thread and make the same claims over.
Perfect example? You STILL haven't responded to my touchscreen questions. You know, that thread where you claimed to be a touchscreen engineer with "decades" experience. This was supposed to somehow add credibility to your ridiculous argument about Apple's touchscreen patents. Sort of like the losers who claim to own an Apple device so they can then turn around and bash Apple disguising it as legitimate criticism. Then when I announced that I had actually won a nationwide award for my touchscreen application back in the 80's (and have extensive experience with touchscreens) you disappeared. Of course you would. The last thing you expected was someone on AI to be an expert in touchscreen technology and it backfired on you spectacularly.
You have no right to demand of me (or anyone else on AI) to provide proof when you avoid the same such requests made of you.
Comments
Quote:
Originally Posted by 3Eleven
Verizon probably assumes their versions would be next. I'm not sure, I honestly cannot remember this patent ruling.
Good point that the ban only affects UMTS-3G phones like AT&T uses.
I think that the last time Verizon tried this was back in 2007 with the Broadcom patent case, when the ITC banned phones with certain 1xEVDO Qualcomm chips that Verizon uses.
President Bush did not intervene, and the ban went into effect.
Verizon, facing a shortage of phones, ended up making a deal where they themselves paid a $6 per device royalty to Broadcom just to get the phones imported.
Since the president doesn't have the power to create laws, Verizon is wasting their time and the president's (not to mention they are on a fool's errand, attempting to circumvent court rulings in this fashion). Write to your congressional representatives, Verizon! At least they are clearly bought off by corporate interests AND can craft your self-interested legislation.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Maestro64
Interesting position VZ is taking. I wonder what the bigger game that is at play here.
I agree that VZ lawyer's approach to this is reasonable.
Wonder if VZ came out opposing the ITC ban when Apple banned HTC smartphones (ie, slide-to-unlock)?
I understand VZ's position, but I'm afraid VS's plea would have no effect.
You do understand the president can veto this right? The ITC is not part of the judiciary. Obama is the person who can right this wrong and as a result set policy as he is authorized to do.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jkichline
I agree with Verizon here. The ITC is trying to ban a product that used patents that were FRAND. Just because the company offering their patents to be part of a standard and then deny fair and reasonable licensing on that patent, does not mean they should be allowed to ban the product. It means there was a failure in the negotiations of the two companies and the ITC (or the courts in general) are being used as pawns in anti-competitive behavior. Who makes the call on that then? The president, or a president in my opinion. If the world courts are inhibiting marketplace dynamics, then yes, something needs to be done to prevent this in the future.
Nope, it doesn't matter. FRAND doesn't mean Apple doesn't have to pay anything and all parties must continue negotiating in good faith. Likewise the ITC judges found Apple was not simply willing to negotiate. This is the right recourse for arrogant companies like Apple who thinks it can prevail in the US because it's Apple's hometown court.
I suspect most are too young to vote anyway.
Does that give you age data too? If many are under voting age the original point may still have merit, even if it was only meant in jest.
I would think the joke was more about intelligence than wealth.
Keeping it light folks ... now enough politics ...
Interesting
Quote:
Originally Posted by SpamSandwich
Since the president doesn't have the power to create laws, Verizon is wasting their time and the president's (not to mention they are on a fool's errand, attempting to circumvent court rulings in this fashion). Write to your congressional representatives, Verizon! At least they are clearly bought off by corporate interests AND can craft your self-interested legislation.
Every report has mentioned this is an issue appealable to the president. The ITC is a trade commission, not a legal court. More like the Canadian pipeline than a burglary conviction.
Geez, all we need is the Pres weighing in on another issue he has no business in.
Shame on Verizon lawyers for dangling bait, but obviously they know it has been taken before...
Quote:
Originally Posted by tooltalk
Nope, it doesn't matter. FRAND doesn't mean Apple doesn't have to pay anything and all parties must continue negotiating in good faith. Likewise the ITC judges found Apple was not simply willing to negotiate. This is the right recourse for arrogant companies like Apple who thinks it can prevail in the US because it's Apple's hometown court.
Get lost troll. Just like KD you've been proven wrong so many times I'm surprised you're still trying to fool people on AI with that garbage.
Samsung is making over-the-top demands from Apple knowing full well Apple won't accept. Then they "claim" Apple is an unwilling licensee so they can seek a ban. Samsung is also trying to tie in Apple non-SEP's for cross-licensing, which the FTC just said was a big no-no.
There have been a few people here and there who think it's OK to get injunctions over FRAND patents. Known patent abusers Google, Motorola and Samsung (unsurprisingly) are among them. Meanwhile, the rest of the civilized tech world (and academia) are opposed to this. Apple, MS, Intel, Cisco, IBM just for starters. Not to mention numerous people in the senate (both Republicans and Democrats), former heads of government agencies that deal with competition or copyright/IP issues. I could go on, but there's not enough room to list all those who are against injunctions.
Yet idiots like KD still try and spin a few supporters of injunctions and claim there's widespread agreement for them. There isn't. And as long as AI lets you losers post I'm going to call you out on it.
It's funny that the companies that think it's OK to seek injunctions are the ones who have been found guilty of stealing IP (Samsung) or those that don't care about protecting IP (like Google, who actually think if tech becomes popular it should become a de-facto standard, and therefore, become an SEP even if the owner doesn't want to declare it as essential). Or those that have seen their market share disappear and are becoming irrelevant (Nokia, Ericsson). Every one else with common sense is against it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by EricTheHalfBee
Samsung is making over-the-top demands from Apple knowing full well Apple won't accept. Then they "claim" Apple is an unwilling licensee so they can seek a ban. Samsung is also trying to tie in Apple non-SEP's for cross-licensing, which the FTC just said was a big no-no.
The ITC didn't ban Apple's products just because "Samsung claimed" that Apple didn't try to negotiate. The ITC looked at what happened and saw that Samsung continued to make lower offers, while Apple instead ran to the courts claiming that the opening rate offer was too high.
Apple also claimed that Samsung wasn't following ETSI rules, which prompted the ITC to point out that Apple itself failed to follow ETSI rules by not asking for arbitration help.
As for tying in non-SEPs, you're right about the FTC's recent order to Google. However, the ITC majority said it was okay for Samsung to ask for that.
This has been the problem all along. Even governments have not resolved what to do, which is why I've said it's unfair on both sides to implement bans of any kind, until and unless the rules are flatly laid out ahead of time.
Are you an American? If so, you'll know that we're brought up on being fair. Making up rules after the fact, is not fair for anyone.
Quote:
Yet idiots like KD still try and spin a few supporters of injunctions and claim there's widespread agreement for them. There isn't. And as long as AI lets you losers post I'm going to call you out on it.
Then post some opposing references, if you can find any. Falling back on personal attacks simply lets everyone know that you have no facts to back up your arguments. I also suspect that you accidentally misunderstand a lot of the posts you read.
Nobody that I know of disputes that injunctions should not be used during ongoing normal negotiations (although nobody predefined what "ongoing negotiations" were, either).
All that some of us have been pointing out, is that the references you named who oppose it during negotiations, still say that an injunction is valid if the licensee refuses to negotiate or pay up. The EU Commission said so. The FTC said so. Apple's outside legal expert references in front of the ITC said so. Even your favorite Judge Robart in the Microsoft v Motorola case, who stated:
Quote:
"Indeed, Microsoft, or any other implementer, is not free to infringe Motorola’s standard essential patents, and were that to occur, this court’s ruling with respect to injunctive relief may be different."
...
"If, in the future, those circumstances change in a manner to warrant injunctive relief, Motorola may at that time seek such relief."
Judge Robart
may not be an issue if rumors of two iphones coming out with the 4 4s etc discontinued
new ones won't have this issue
Quote:
Originally Posted by Maestro64
Interesting position VZ is taking. I wonder what the bigger game that is at play here.
I agree that VZ lawyer's approach to this is reasonable.
Is it not true that Verizon may have to Apple upto 14bn for not meeting its contractual obligation to sell iPhones? This must be the payback to placate Aple
Quote:
Originally Posted by Maestro64
Interesting position VZ is taking. I wonder what the bigger game that is at play here.
I agree that VZ lawyer's approach to this is reasonable.
Is it not true that Verizon may have to Apple upto 14bn for not meeting its contractual obligation to sell iPhones? This must be the payback to placate Aple
Quote:
Originally Posted by jkichline
I agree with Verizon here. The ITC is trying to ban a product that used patents that were FRAND. Just because the company offering their patents to be part of a standard and then deny fair and reasonable licensing on that patent, does not mean they should be allowed to ban the product. It means there was a failure in the negotiations of the two companies and the ITC (or the courts in general) are being used as pawns in anti-competitive behavior. Who makes the call on that then? The president, or a president in my opinion. If the world courts are inhibiting marketplace dynamics, then yes, something needs to be done to prevent this in the future.
ITC has investigated and found that Apple was using this egregious argument and not paying anything to Samsung while still using the patents. It does not negotiate, it does not pay - in other words acts like a bully and wants to get away with it. This is called "Reverse Holdup". FTC had investigated Google thoroughly on FRAND/SEP usage and has told that FRAND patent holder's have a right to injunctive relief when the opposing party practices "Reverse Holdup". Hence this situation. Apple could come up with a negotiated price for tha patents ASAP instead of begging..
Quote:
Originally Posted by KDarling
The ITC didn't ban Apple's products just because "Samsung claimed" that Apple didn't try to negotiate. The ITC looked at what happened and saw that Samsung continued to make lower offers, while Apple instead ran to the courts claiming that the opening rate offer was too high.
Apple also claimed that Samsung wasn't following ETSI rules, which prompted the ITC to point out that Apple itself failed to follow ETSI rules by not asking for arbitration help.
As for tying in non-SEPs, you're right about the FTC's recent order to Google. However, the ITC majority said it was okay for Samsung to ask for that.
This has been the problem all along. Even governments have not resolved what to do, which is why I've said it's unfair on both sides to implement bans of any kind, until and unless the rules are flatly laid out ahead of time.
Are you an American? If so, you'll know that we're brought up on being fair. Making up rules after the fact, is not fair for anyone.
Then post some opposing references, if you can find any. Falling back on personal attacks simply lets everyone know that you have no facts to back up your arguments. I also suspect that you accidentally misunderstand a lot of the posts you read.
Nobody that I know of disputes that injunctions should not be used during ongoing normal negotiations (although nobody predefined what "ongoing negotiations" were, either).
All that some of us have been pointing out, is that the references you named who oppose it during negotiations, still say that an injunction is valid if the licensee refuses to negotiate or pay up. The EU Commission said so. The FTC said so. Apple's outside legal expert references in front of the ITC said so. Even your favorite Judge Robart in the Microsoft v Motorola case, who stated:
More spin as usual. If you want me to take the time to bring up every case or group that's against injunctions then you have to do something for me first. It's really quite simple:
Go back and answer the 101 questions I (or others) have posed to you in the past to prove your claims. You see, this is a pattern with you. Make a claim and then leave the thread when you get called out on it. Then re-appear in another thread and make the same claims over.
Perfect example? You STILL haven't responded to my touchscreen questions. You know, that thread where you claimed to be a touchscreen engineer with "decades" experience. This was supposed to somehow add credibility to your ridiculous argument about Apple's touchscreen patents. Sort of like the losers who claim to own an Apple device so they can then turn around and bash Apple disguising it as legitimate criticism. Then when I announced that I had actually won a nationwide award for my touchscreen application back in the 80's (and have extensive experience with touchscreens) you disappeared. Of course you would. The last thing you expected was someone on AI to be an expert in touchscreen technology and it backfired on you spectacularly.
You have no right to demand of me (or anyone else on AI) to provide proof when you avoid the same such requests made of you.