Senators allude support for Presidential veto of imminent ITC iPhone and iPad ban

Posted:
in General Discussion edited January 2014
Ahead of a U.S. International Trade Commission ban of older Apple iPhone and iPad models, a bipartisan cadre of senators has sent a cautionary letter to Trade Representative Michael Froman, who is responsible for the Presidential review of the ITC order.

USTR
Michael Froman was sworn in as United States Trade Representative by Supreme Court Justice Elena Kagan in June. | Source: USTR


As noted by FOSS Patents' Florian Mueller, the letter doesn't take a stand on the merits of the ITC case, but it does ask U.S. Trade Representative Michael Froman to carefully consider how companies use FRAND patents weapons in anticompetitive litigation.

The letter is dated July 30 and was signed by Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D.-Minn.), Sen. Mike Lee (R.-Utah), Sen. Barbara Boxer (D.-Calif.), and Sen. Jim Risch (R.-Idaho). Three of the four senators who signed Tuesday's letter also signed a similar letter to the ITC in May regarding the Samsung and Apple case.

The ITC ban, which found certain older models of Apple's iPhone and iPad to have infringed on declared standard-essential Samsung patents, will go into effect on Aug. 5 unless a Presidential veto nixes the order.

Due to their nature, pledged standard-essential patents (SEPs) are meant to be licensed under fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory (FRAND) rates. Samsung's use of its 3G cellular technology SEPs against Apple has been a bone of contention, and Froman's decision to act, or to do nothing, could set an undesirable precedent for future litigation.

As explained by the senators:
Competition and consumers benefit tremendously from the creation of technology standards that promote interoperability, lower costs, and expand consumer choice. Standards are crucial to ensuring that consumers have access to a competitive market of compatible products. The standards setting process depends on a commitment from companies contributing patents to license those patents to all parties implementing the standard on fair, reasonable, and non-discriminatory (FRAND) terms. If companies implementing standards cannot rely on FRAND commitments, they will be less likely to participate in standard setting, which will drive up costs for consumers and reduce the pace of innovation.
Mueller said the fact that the public letter was written so close to the 60-day Presidential veto period is an "unmistakable expression of concern" regarding the USTR's decision. The correspondence is also indirectly supporting Apple, which is pushing for the veto.

«13

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 42
    cash907cash907 Posts: 893member
    Maybe they should have thought about the consequences before starting a nuclear war with samsung, huh? You don't get to throw a sucker punch and then whine and play the victim after getting knocked on your butt, sorry.
  • Reply 2 of 42
    drewys808drewys808 Posts: 546member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Cash907 View Post



    Maybe they should have thought about the consequences before starting a nuclear war with samsung, huh? You don't get to throw a sucker punch and then whine and play the victim after getting knocked on your butt, sorry.




    What the f*** are you talking about?  Stop with the idiotic insinuations and sensationalism.  Try posting with some logic and sensibility.

  • Reply 3 of 42
    adamcadamc Posts: 582member
    cash907 wrote: »
    Maybe they should have thought about the consequences before starting a nuclear war with samsung, huh? You don't get to throw a sucker punch and then whine and play the victim after getting knocked on your butt, sorry.
    The good book said idiots reveal themselves when they open their mouths.
  • Reply 4 of 42
    flaneurflaneur Posts: 4,526member
    cash907 wrote: »
    Maybe they should have thought about the consequences before starting a nuclear war with samsung, huh? You don't get to throw a sucker punch and then whine and play the victim after getting knocked on your butt, sorry.

    What a miserable realm of half-light you must inhabit. Apple had no choice but to sue, and you're big enough to know that. Aren't you?
  • Reply 5 of 42
    drblankdrblank Posts: 3,383member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by AdamC View Post





    The good book said idiots reveal themselves when they open their mouths.


    What good book?  What about non-idiots?  

  • Reply 6 of 42
    drblankdrblank Posts: 3,383member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Cash907 View Post



    Maybe they should have thought about the consequences before starting a nuclear war with samsung, huh? You don't get to throw a sucker punch and then whine and play the victim after getting knocked on your butt, sorry.


    Ignorance is bliss, you must be completely blissful.


     


    Samsung was the one that started the whole problem.  If Samsung just stuck to making components and not trying to copy and then compete with their component customer, maybe Samsung wouldn't get these lawsuits against them.




    I still don't know why Apple is in violation of their 3G technology.  Apple doesn't make the voice/data chips, they buy those from another supplier that licenses those patents from Samsung.  What Samscum is doing sounds like double dipping on the same licensing.


     


    I think Samsung should be banned from selling finished products that compete with their component customers.  I wonder what the PC industry would do if Intel decided to market and sell their own line of desktops, servers, and laptops and just flat out sold their products cheaper than anyone since they make the processors themselves?  Oh wait, isn't conflict of interest and unfair business practices?

  • Reply 7 of 42
    teejay2012teejay2012 Posts: 296member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Cash907 View Post



    Maybe they should have thought about the consequences before starting a nuclear war with samsung, huh? You don't get to throw a sucker punch and then whine and play the victim after getting knocked on your butt, sorry.




    You think THAT is what this is about? You need to do some reading mate.

  • Reply 8 of 42


    Speaking of legal items, looks like Cash907 is getting served in the comments

  • Reply 9 of 42
    runbuhrunbuh Posts: 315member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by drblank View Post


     


    Samsung was the one that started the whole problem.  If Samsung just stuck to making components and not trying to copy and then compete with their component customer, maybe Samsung wouldn't get these lawsuits against them.



     


    You do realize that Samsung was making smartphones before the iPhone came out, right?

  • Reply 10 of 42
    MacProMacPro Posts: 19,380member
    runbuh wrote: »
    Hey, numnuts.  You do realize that Samsung was making smartphones before the iPhone came out, right?

    So, I guess your definition of 'smart' is on par with your own level of smart. :no:
  • Reply 11 of 42
    Maybe America should be a bit like China and the rest of the world & protect their countries businesses
  • Reply 12 of 42
    droidftwdroidftw Posts: 1,009member


    If the infringing iDevices aren't banned then what happens afterwards?  Samsung is out of luck and Apple is allowed to continue infringing on the Samsung patent?  Surely that can't be the case.  Does a third party mediator step in and determine what fair and reasonable rates need to be paid along with damages for lost revenue?

  • Reply 13 of 42
    gtrgtr Posts: 3,231member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by DroidFTW View Post


    Apple is allowed to continue infringing on the Samsung patent...



     


    image


     


    The very definition of irony.

  • Reply 14 of 42
    sambirasambira Posts: 90member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by DroidFTW View Post


    If the infringing iDevices aren't banned then what happens afterwards?  Samsung is out of luck and Apple is allowed to continue infringing on the Samsung patent?  Surely that can't be the case.  Does a third party mediator step in and determine what fair and reasonable rates need to be paid along with damages for lost revenue?



    Given that the patents in question are FRAND, this should be easy.  Look at what Samsung is charging other licensees for the patents and apply that.  Also, as was stated earlier in this thread, how is Apple responsible for this if the patented areas are included in a component built by another company which probably already has the license and if they don't they would be the ones to violate the patent, unless it IS Apple who is building the component, of course.

  • Reply 15 of 42
    tbelltbell Posts: 3,146member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by DroidFTW View Post


    If the infringing iDevices aren't banned then what happens afterwards?  Samsung is out of luck and Apple is allowed to continue infringing on the Samsung patent?  Surely that can't be the case.  Does a third party mediator step in and determine what fair and reasonable rates need to be paid along with damages for lost revenue?





    No, the two parties are involved in lawsuits. Eventually, a Court will determine what is a fair, reasonable, and non-discriminatory rate. Samsung will get paid provided it is not found Apple already has a license by paying the part provider.


     


    Look at the Motorola versus Microsoft suit. Motorola was asking for over four billion dollars for past use of its standard essential patents from Microsoft. The Court reviewed what others were paying Motorola, and determined Microsoft only owed about a two million dollars. Motorola wanted more from Microsoft because Google and Microsoft hate each other.


     


    Companies like Samsung and Motorola are using the ITC has an offensive weapon. If they can get it to issue an injunction, it can force companies like Apple to have to negotiate the rate under a gun and pay more than what is a fair, reasonable, and non-discriminatory rate. That is a very dangerous precedent and will undermine what standard essential patents are all about. It also will raise the cost of products for consumers, and like in Germany, take whole groups of products off the shelf. The ITC made a very bad decision.

  • Reply 16 of 42
    tbelltbell Posts: 3,146member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by sambira View Post


    Given that the patents in question are FRAND, this should be easy.  Look at what Samsung is charging other licensees for the patents and apply that.  Also, as was stated earlier in this thread, how is Apple responsible for this if the patented areas are included in a component built by another company which probably already has the license and if they don't they would be the ones to violate the patent, unless it IS Apple who is building the component, of course.





    You are right on both accounts. Apple is claiming the patents are exhausted and the license is already paid, but the ITC is not looking at that argument because that involves an agreement with a third party. The ITC is merely looking at whether Apple and Samsung have a deal, which is ridiculous. If Apple's deal with the it's broadband chip provider includes a license, that should be an absolute defense to an injunction.


     


    Moreover, Samsung is refusing to provide information on the deals it has with other companies. Again, the ITC is not requiring Samsung to provide that information. It is only looking at whether Apple and Samsung have a deal. This is the worst decision the ITC could have ever made and is completely unfair. It is also not consistent with its previous decisions involving other companies.

  • Reply 17 of 42
    tbelltbell Posts: 3,146member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Everett Ruess View Post



    Maybe America should be a bit like China and the rest of the world & protect their countries businesses




    Bingo.

  • Reply 18 of 42
    froodfrood Posts: 771member


    I think a ban under normal conditions is severe.


     


    But isn't this the patent where Apple said "We'll pay you a dollar tops per phone take it or leave it, if you don't take it we're going to claim you're not willing to negotiate and not pay you anything!" and then went on to tell a judge he could only set the 'fair and reasonable' rate at $1 or below and if he set it higher he was wasting his time because Apple would just drag the case out for years........


     


    Telling judges what they can and can't do in a courtroom rarely turns out to be the winning strategy- apparently even for Apple.


    Apple had a lot to do with bringing this on themselves.


     


     


    I'd be surprised if this gets a Presidential veto.  Other nations would claim favoritism for the home team and there's potential for an ensuing trade war.  More importantly to me is the basic concept.  FRAND patents are *supposed* to be among the most valuable patents to hold.  That is the whole basis of them.  They are so valuable that you HAVE to share them.  The patent world is just plain broken.


     


    Which would be more useless, a Phone that does not have rounded corners- or a phone that cant communicate wirelessly?


     


    Duh!   Yet Apple demands $30 for rounded corners and thinks $1 is 'max' for their phones to even be usable?


     


    If this gets a Presidential veto the message will be clear- FRAND patents have no teeth, can be safely ignored, and have less value to the holders than more trivial patents.


     


    Samsung already claims its '5g' technology will be several hundred times faster than the current 4g standard.  Why on earth would they even pursue patenting that under a FRAND license?  They'll just make it their own proprietary patent and refuse to license it to anyone else.  With their huge share of the smartphone market carriers will roll over and adopt it- why would they adopt the 'official' standard if 70% of the phones out there don't use it?  Hope Apple users enjoy snail mode or Apple gets a division with wireless expertise together faster and better than their cloud history.  Google of course already has their own super zippy version in the works which may get a huge benefit from their Loon project and Google fiber.  Why do we all need to be on the same networks, anyways?

  • Reply 19 of 42
    droidftwdroidftw Posts: 1,009member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Frood View Post


    But isn't this the patent where Apple said "We'll pay you a dollar tops per phone take it or leave it, if you don't take it we're going to claim you're not willing to negotiate and not pay you anything!" and then went on to tell a judge he could only set the 'fair and reasonable' rate at $1 or below and if he set it higher he was wasting his time because Apple would just drag the case out for years........



     


    Do you have a source for this?  I seem to recall the first part, but this is the first I've ever heard the second part.

  • Reply 20 of 42
    matrix07matrix07 Posts: 1,993member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Cash907 View Post



    Maybe they should have thought about the consequences before starting a nuclear war with samsung, huh? You don't get to throw a sucker punch and then whine and play the victim after getting knocked on your butt, sorry.


    Wow! You really show your true color. Pathetic.


Sign In or Register to comment.