President Obama vetoes Samsung ban on Apple, Inc. iPhones, iPads

1810121314

Comments

  • Reply 181 of 280

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post



    EDIT: Where's my video?


     


    Beats me. It's Huddler Tech. The servers are in Kasper's mom's basement, next to the washing machine. image

  • Reply 182 of 280
    patsupatsu Posts: 430member
    gatorguy wrote: »
    You're really resisting reading the legal opinion issued to the ITC aren't you? The trade rep doesn't argue that any of the facts the ITC based it's ruling one were flawed. He doesn't claim any of the fact-finding the ITC did was flawed. He doesn't dispute that Samsung's request for an injunction for SEP infringement may have been proper, say SEP injunctions are always wrong, nor disagree with the ITC finding that Samsung did try to negotiate a license . He doesn't say that the ITC determination of reverse hold-up on Apple's part was incorrect. None of those were cited as his reason behind the ITC being overruled does he? What he did say was the public interest demanded that the injunction could not stand. FWIW I agree with that too. The President had already taken a public stand.

    Your back and forth with me started when you asked how I was making the leap to say the ITC was overturned primarily over public interest concerns. That's not be be read as only over public interest concerns. I've explained my reasoning pretty darn well and pointed you to actual statements (or lack of them). You on the other hand don't appear able to rationally explain how I'm wrong tho you keep saying so.

    If you disagree with anything I just said it's easy to dispute it. Simply show some actual evidence, something better than "I know you're wrong because I said so" like you often do. Use your Ivy League education for something more than a doc to cover the hole in the wall: Research, read and post something more that an arrogant ad-hom. You can do it.

    The rep doesn't have to argue anything. That's not his job, at least not at that point. He only has to issue his statement in terms that laypeople can understand in a short time.

    The top concern for the ban was SEP abuse all along, as expressed by so many industry players publicly. Hence, public concern.

    The details will be sort out behind the scene, before they issue more public statements.
  • Reply 183 of 280
    tallest skiltallest skil Posts: 43,399member
    Beats me. It's Huddler Tech. The servers are in Kasper's mom's basement, next to the washing machine. :lol:

    Huddler actually hosts the site on their own servers. But do you see it? It's that Jurassic Park clip.

  • Reply 184 of 280
    gatorguygatorguy Posts: 23,365member
    patsu wrote: »
    The rep doesn't have to argue anything. That's not his job, at least not at that point. He only has to issue his statement in terms that laypeople can understand in a short time. .

    If you were correct then it would be a fail on his part. The written opinion he offered certainly cited a reason for the veto and that reason appears to have gone right over your head and a few other too, another fail if it was supposed to be in "terms that laypeople can understand", which is not a requirement in the first place AFAIK unless you have something to point to that says otherwise.
  • Reply 185 of 280
    patsupatsu Posts: 430member
    gatorguy wrote: »
    If you were correct then it would be a fail on his part. The written opinion he offered certainly cited a reason for the veto and that reason appears to have gone right over your head and a few other too, another fail if it was supposed to be in "terms that laypeople can understand", which is not a requirement in the first place AFAIK unless you have something to point to that says otherwise.

    Of course he has to cite a reason. But it is naive to expect the rep to argue over the details in public.

    We will see more public statements when things move along behind the scene.

    As for things going over our head, that's your opinion. I can't help you there.
  • Reply 186 of 280

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post





    Huddler actually hosts the site on their own servers. But do you see it? It's that Jurassic Park clip.





     


    I only see the embedded video when I click the "quote" button; the video appears fine in the reply editor window, but not on the forum page. That's a scripting problem, right? I still find the code used in the forums to be half-baked and problematic. Can I lay blame for that on Huddler Tech?

  • Reply 187 of 280
    tallest skiltallest skil Posts: 43,399member
    Can I lay blame for that on Huddler Tech?

    Probably, since it works fine with the Huddler editor but not the BBCode editor, which I'm forced to use right now due to Mavericks.
  • Reply 188 of 280
    benyubenyu Posts: 4member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Stevel View Post



    what a shameful act of injustice. If you can't beat them with innovation in the market place, and if you can't beat them with litigation in the courtroom, then go running to your President for the hope you paid him enough to do the deed. What about the price fixing Apple? You think Obama will help you out with that as well? Pathetic. Guaranteed to have some backlash with markets outside of the US.


    Not to merely jump on a bandwagon to bash one user, but some facts to get straight. Samsung's Chairman has been convicted of bribery/tax evasion/etc. and pardoned... TWICE by the South Korean government:


     


    http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/983c3922-f423-11de-ac55-00144feab49a.html#axzz2TjPLeSJJ


     


    http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/44a717e2-8910-11de-b50f-00144feabdc0.html#axzz2b2DJ608W


     


    http://articles.latimes.com/1996-08-27/news/mn-38054_1_south-korean-tycoons


     


    And in case you don't want to bother creating free accounts on ft.com to read those full articles:


    http://tech.fortune.cnn.com/2013/05/19/apple-cook-samsung-lee/

  • Reply 189 of 280


    I know this guy.


    His real name is Steve Choi.


    He work for Samsteal.


    That's why all the negative comments from him.

  • Reply 190 of 280
    kdarlingkdarling Posts: 1,640member

     del

  • Reply 191 of 280


    Sunday and I'm still happy about this.


     


    Ban Samsung!

  • Reply 192 of 280
    piotpiot Posts: 1,346member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post





    I'm not exactly sure what you just said or if it's a question you have........ 


     


    Your original post quoted "public interest ramifications" from a Reuters article. You then stated that these public interest concerns.... were, somehow, independent of SEPs.


     


    I simply quoted the FULL sentence from Reuters that states QUITE CLEARLY how the "public interest ramifications" were directly related to SEPs. Here it is again... if you missed it.


     


    From Reuters: "Froman on Saturday said the ITC should thoroughly examine the public interest ramifications of its rulings in disputes over standard essential patents."


     


     


     


     


    Your next post contains a different and more extensive quote:


     


     


    Quote:


    so here's a link to the Reuters update. :

    http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/08/03/usa-apple-patents-idUSL1N0G40EJ20130803



    "U.S. Trade Representative Michael Froman on Saturday vetoed the ban, saying his decision was in part based on its "effect on competitive conditions in the U.S. economy and the effect on U.S. consumers." 



     


    Fine. 


     


     


     


    Quote:


    In essence the ban was overturned more over public interest concerns rather than as a statement on the merits of SEP injunction requests.



     


    Not fine! A really strange interpretation, on your part, of the written word. Of course Froman has to give cogent reasons for the veto. He's not going to come out with "Obama uses an iPad and..... we hate SEPs" The TWO main reasons appear to be competition in the US and, consequently, the "effect on US consumers" Obvious. Aren't those a couple of fundamental considerations in any (US) patent dispute?


     


     


     


    This whole case, or at least the controversial part of the case is all about SEPs. Fromer's official letter makes frequent references  to SEP's and FRAND commitments. The DOJ and US Patent office issued a policy statement, back in January.... all about SEPs. Also mentioned in Fromer's letter. This was all about SEPs. 


     


    I'm not sure why (although I can hazard a guess) you are hell bent on downplaying the Standards Essential Patents angle... and pushing "the public interest" to the fore.

  • Reply 193 of 280
    I think I know this guy "Stevel".
    His real name is Steve Choi.
    Maybe he work for Samsteal.
    All of his comments are very negative for Apple.
    Thats why.
  • Reply 194 of 280
    hjbhjb Posts: 278member


    Fair call for protecting American companies.  


     


    But, I am a bit confused.  I believe that the reason for the ban was directly come from Apple's refusal to negotiate on fair term.  Are SEP or FRAND really relevant here?

  • Reply 195 of 280
    mechanicmechanic Posts: 805member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post





    You're really resisting reading the legal opinion issued to the ITC aren't you? The trade rep doesn't argue that any of the facts the ITC based it's judgement on were flawed or not applicable. He doesn't dispute that Samsung's request for an injunction for SEP infringement may have been proper, say SEP injunctions are always wrong, nor disagree with the ITC finding that Samsung did try to negotiate a license with Apple. He doesn't say that the ITC determination of reverse hold-up on Apple's part was incorrect or say that Apple acted properly in the negotiations. None of those were cited as his reason behind the ITC being overruled does he?



    What he did say, and the only reason directly and explicitly cited, was that the public interest concerns demanded that the injunction could not stand. FWIW I agree with that too. The President had already taken a public stand.



    Your back and forth with me started when you asked how I was making the leap to say the ITC was overturned primarily over public interest concerns. That's not be be read as only over public interest concerns. I've explained my reasoning pretty darn well and pointed you to actual statements (or lack of them). You on the other hand don't appear able to rationally explain how I'm wrong tho you keep saying so.



    If you disagree with anything I just said it's easy to dispute it. Simply show some actual evidence, something better than "I know you're wrong because I said so" like you often do. Use your Ivy League education for something more than a doc to cover the hole in the wall: Research, read and post something more that an arrogant ad-hom. You can do it.


    I have to disagree with you as well, I have read the statement and it is very clear that it says on page two that Mr. Froman states quoting from the DOJ and US Patent office statement of policy on FRAND that he agrees with.  


     


    To quote Florian Mueller at FOSS Patents:


     


    Quote:


    The reason for the veto is the Administration's concern over the implications of exclusion orders over SEPs except "in some circumstances, such as where the putative licensee is unable or refuses to take a FRAND license and is acting outside the scope of the patent holder's commitment to license on FRAND terms" or "if a putative licensee is not subject to the jurisdiction of a court that could award damages" (these quotes are from a joint policy paper of the Department of Justice and United States Patent and Trademark Office on SEPs and injunctive relief).



    Florian quotes directly from the Statement from the DOJ and Patent office on FRAND Policy.  Which Mr. Froman stated in the letter to the ITC he agrees with it, and he quotes in large portions on page 2 of his veto letter to the ITC.


    Basically the above quote means to me and most reasonable people is that Exclusion orders should never be used with a willing licensee like Apple and should be settled on a damages only reward.  They should never be used either by the Patent holder (hold up) or the licensee (reverse hold up(licensee unwilling to pay)).  They should be settled in court for money rather than exclusion orders.  This is the core reason that this becomes public interest.  Because if allowed to continue it sets a dangerous precedence not only for Apple but for any company.  Basically being extorted by the ITC on behalf of Standards essential patent holders like Samsung.

  • Reply 196 of 280
    e_veritase_veritas Posts: 248member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by patsu View Post





    Given that this is the first time since a long time ago, and SEP is the central issue highlighted by Apple, Microsoft, Intel, Oracle and others. Yes (this time):

    http://betanews.com/2013/07/30/microsoft-oracle-and-others-side-with-apple-over-us-iphone-4-ban/


     


    Humongous multinational corporations who almost always throw their IP towards proprietary solutions instead of contributing to community standards are arguing against SEP...SHOCKING!

  • Reply 197 of 280
    gatorguygatorguy Posts: 23,365member
    piot wrote: »
    Your original post quoted "public interest ramifications" from a Reuters article. You then stated that these public interest concerns.... were, somehow, independent of SEPs.

    I simply quoted the FULL sentence from Reuters that states QUITE CLEARLY how the "public interest ramifications" were directly related to SEPs. Here it is again... if you missed it.

    From Reuters: "Froman on Saturday said the ITC should thoroughly examine the public interest ramifications of its rulings in disputes over standard essential patents."

    Your next post contains a different and more extensive quote:


    Fine. 

    Not fine! A really strange interpretation, on your part, of the written word. Of course Froman has to give cogent reasons for the veto. He's not going to come out with "Obama uses an iPad and..... we hate SEPs" The TWO main reasons appear to be competition in the US and, consequently, the "effect on US consumers" Obvious. Aren't those a couple of fundamental considerations in any (US) patent dispute?



    This whole case, or at least the controversial part of the case is all about SEPs. Fromer's official letter makes frequent references  to SEP's and FRAND commitments. The DOJ and US Patent office issued a policy statement, back in January.... all about SEPs. Also mentioned in Fromer's letter. This was all about SEPs. 

    I'm not sure why (although I can hazard a guess) you are hell bent on downplaying the Standards Essential Patents angle... and pushing "the public interest" to the fore.

    I don't think I missed a thing thank you. I believe I had it correctly interpreted from the get-go.

    I'm pretty sure why you and a couple of others would be pushing the "SEP injunctions aren't permitted" angle despite the fact the Mr. Fromer said otherwise in his letter to the ITC.

    Yes he speaks about the potential harm from holders of Standards-essential tech "gaining undue leverage" and "engaging in patent hold-up" (Samsung?). But he also notes, just as the ITC did, that there's also a danger from some "technology implementers who engage in reverse holdup ("hold-out"). . . by constructive refusal to negotiate a FRAND license" (Apple?) which is what the ITC found Apple to be doing in this specific case. Rather than come out on either side of those two problems and throw either Apple or Samsung under the bus he simply acknowledged them and instead overturned on public interest grounds. It's darn easy to see, so I would have to assume you're purposefully ignoring what he actually said and arriving at your own conclusion, but one not stated in the letter to the ITC.

    You should really read Mr Fromer's letter in it's entirety, paying attention to what he actually says and doesn't say. It's obvious where he stops short of declaring that SEP's shouldn't enjoy the same protections from infringement as any other patent, and too avoids directly agreeing with the ITC that Apple was engaging in reverse holdup. The public interest concern becomes the safe landing pad and avoids setting any legal precedent, new rule-making for the ITC, or likewise make a break with a large influential American corporation, that the administration then needs to defend.
  • Reply 198 of 280
    patsupatsu Posts: 430member
    e_veritas wrote: »
    Humongous multinational corporations who almost always throw their IP towards proprietary solutions instead of contributing to community standards are arguing against SEP...SHOCKING!

    Perhaps not as shocking as why Google, the open and do no evil company, doesn't argue against SEP abuse.

    I see Apple on open standards fora like W3C, ITU, IETF all the time. WebKit, HTML5, H.264, Bonjour, OpenCL, OpenGL, etc.

    EDIT: Heck, Apple even voted for and help vetted the Blu-ray specs even though they are not interested in rolling out Blu-ray products.
  • Reply 199 of 280
    patsupatsu Posts: 430member
    gatorguy wrote: »
    I'm pretty sure why you and a couple of others would be pushing the "SEP injunctions aren't permitted" angle despite the fact the Mr Fromer said otherwise in his letter to the ITC. Yes he speaks about the potential harm from holders of Standards-essential tech "gaining undue leverage" and "engaging in patent hold-up" . But he also notes, just as the ITC did, that there's also a danger from some "technology implementers who engage in reverse holdup ("hold-out"). . . by constructive refusal to negotiate a FRAND license" which is what the ITC found Apple to be doing in this specific case. Rather than come out on either side of those two problems and throw either Apple or Samsung under the bus he simply acknowledged them and instead overturned on public interest grounds. It's darn easy to see, so I would have to assume you're purposefully ignoring what he actually said and arriving at your own conclusion, but one not stated in the letter to the ITC.

    You should really read Mr Fromer's letter in it's entirety, paying attention to what he actually says and doesn't say. It's obvious where he stops short of declaring that SEP's shouldn't enjoy the same protections from infringement as any other patent, and too avoids directly agreeing with the ITC that Apple was engaging in reverse holdup. The public interest concern becomes the safe landing pad and avoids setting any legal precedent, new rule-making for the ITC, or likewise a break with a large influential American corporation, that the administration then needs to defend.

    The administrator veto'ed the ban based on their stand on the SEP abuse. The rep simply layout their broad stroke position.

    Companies should not accept any terms based on SEP abuse before the fundamental principles are settled. Accept the terms would imply that the current SEP abuse is acceptable to the signing parties.

    The SEP abuse caused public concerns. That's why people are debating everywhere. And other companies are lining up to object to the ban.
  • Reply 200 of 280
    gatorguygatorguy Posts: 23,365member
    Even Apple has never taken the position that injunctions involving SEP's are never an appropriate remedy.

    Perhaps there's a reason for that too. Rockstar, the Apple led consortium that purchased the Nortel patent portfolio including extensive SEP's has placed some number of patents with a new "Patent assertion entity" ( ie patent troll) with the first lawsuits announced to begin within 60 days. It should be exciting.

    As a bonus guess who invested in that new "Patent Assertion Entity" just to be sure those patents are properly pointed in the right directions yet still claim clean hands?

    Fortunately the President also has taken a stand on that too as it applies to the ITC. He proposes that ITC injunction orders be tied to the same 4-factor "eBay test" used in District courts. The effect should be that injunction requests from patent holders who don't actually practice the patent would be denied. I don't know how practically effective it would be but it's still a good suggestion IMO.
Sign In or Register to comment.