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

1235714

Comments

  • Reply 81 of 280
    drblankdrblank Posts: 3,383member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by lkrupp View Post


     


    Don't you just love these one post wonders. They drive by, deposit a giant, smelly turd on the carpet, and then just disappear.



    hahahahahahahahahahaha............

  • Reply 82 of 280
    drblank wrote: »
    lkrupp wrote: »
    Don't you just love these one post wonders. They drive by, deposit a giant, smelly turd on the carpet, and then just disappear.
    hahahahahahahahahahaha............

    In the olden days we would say:

    "He crept in. crapped, and crept out!"

    or for our UK friends:

    "He popped in, pooped, and popped out!"

    or for the Germanic languages:

    "Essen und Scheißen!"
  • Reply 83 of 280
    gatorguygatorguy Posts: 23,321member
    piot wrote: »
    From Reuters: "Froman on Saturday said the ITC should thoroughly examine the public interest ramifications of its rulings in disputes over standard essential patents."
    So...... Clearly means something entirely different from your interpretation.

    I'm not exactly sure what you just said or if it's a question you have 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." He said Samsung could continue to pursue its case through the courts."

    In essence the ban was overturned more over public interest concerns rather than as a statement on the merits of SEP injunction requests. In any event tho I think the lifting of the injunction had to be done to give weight to the President's proposals for reining in software patents.

    Of course if there's consistency on the potential economic harm from some ITC injunctions it may not be the only one that gets overruled by the trade representative in the future.
  • Reply 84 of 280
    After learning the President overturned the import ban, I decided to respond to the emails for signing his birthday card! The distaste for all of the government's recent attacks on Apple was making me sense there was a concerted effort being made to force Apple to payoff politicians similar to Google, Amazon and Samsung.

    Google has been slapped for using SEPs to ban imports and for charging exhorbitant fees.

    Now Samsung and others have been put on notice for the same thing.

    All of this has me wondering what the postponed Apple vs. Samsung non-SEP ban decision will be by the ITC. The decision was supposed to be made last week, but was delayed without explanation on the day the decision was to be announced.

    I hope the ITC does not purposefully allow Samsung off the hook because of today's overturn.

    IF Samsung is as innovative as it claims to be then it should be willing to spend its money and time designing and developing its own non-SEP technology that is so compelling that it makes Apple want to copy it.
  • Reply 85 of 280
    sflocalsflocal Posts: 5,856member
    stevel wrote: »
    whine..whine..

    Mods.. Get this piece of trash off AI please.
  • Reply 86 of 280
    kdarlingkdarling Posts: 1,640member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by BeltsBear View Post


    The patents are both exhausted and FRAND. They should not be able to collect twice (both from the chip maker and from Apple).  



     


    Please read the link in Post #78 to get some background facts.


     


    The patent was not exhausted because Infineon never had a license for it.


     


    --


     


    The ITC has almost always issued bans after finding violations.  The last time the ITC did NOT implement a ban was in 1984, when it decided that blocking the import of special burn victim beds would be against public welfare.


     


    Interestingly, the last time an Administration overturned a ban was with Reagan back in 1987 in order to allow Samsung parts to come in.


     


    OTOH, a ban over almost all Verizon new cell phone imports back in 2007 wasn't overturned by Bush.  While it was a blow to Qualcomm and Verizon's customers, it wasn't deemed critical enough to the public welfare.  (It was later overturned by the appeals court.)

  • Reply 87 of 280

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by KDarling View Post


    False.  Samsung did not "demand that Apple license non-SEP Apple patents". 



     


    Actually, Samsung did.  Look here:


    http://www.fosspatents.com/2013/07/wheres-doj-samsung-takes-extortionate.html


     


     


     


    Quote:

    Originally Posted by KDarling View Post


    While the letter emphasized the concern over FRAND, it also bent over backwards to note two things:


     


    1) That bans over FRAND patents were still an option under certain circumstances (including the reason the ITC gave, which was a refusal to negotiate):



     


     


    While the letter did say that, it also said that the ITC was sloppy and incomprehensive in its investigation of whether there was indeed a refusal to negotiate, whether a real FRAND offer was indeed made by Samsung, and whether the ITC considered all the facts associated with the FRAND nature of the offer made by Samsung (i.e. did Samsung make similar offers to other parties?).  Look at the second to the last paragraph of the letter.  Here's the relevant text:


     


     


    Quote:


    I would like to underscore that in any future cases involving SEPs that are subject to voluntary FRAND commitments, the Commission should be certain to (1) to examine thoroughly and carefully on its own initiative the public interest issues presented both at the outset of its proceeding and when determining whether a particular remedy is in the public interest and (2) seek proactively to have the parties develop a comprehensive factual record related to these issues in the proceedings before the Administrative Law Judge and during the formal remedy phase of the investigation before the Commission, including information on the standards-essential nature of the patent at issue if contested by the patent holder and the presence or absence of patent hold-up or reverse hold-up. In addition, the Commission should make explicit findings on these issues to the maximum extent possible. I will look for these elements in any future decisions involving FRAND-encumbered SEPs that are presented for policy review. The Commission is well-positioned to consider these issues in its public interest determinations


     



     


     


     


     


     

  • Reply 88 of 280
    gatorguygatorguy Posts: 23,321member

    Google has been slapped for using SEPs to ban imports and for charging exhorbitant fees.

    Google hasn't ever asserted any SEP's and so hasn't been "slapped" for seeking a ban with or charging exorbitant fees for them. You're confusing them with their independently operated subsidiary Motorola Mobility. IIRC these cases started before Motorola had even spun off MM. and long before Google got involved. It's just like saying Apple is in the midst of layoffs when it's really their independent subsidiary Filemaker who decided it had to let some folks go to stay in business.

    Of course there's those that will continue to mix and match Google and Motorola as tho they're one and the same. It's a favorite tactic of FOSSPatents so the confusion by some here might be understandable.
  • Reply 89 of 280
    macvicta wrote: »
    Hillary will wipe the floor with whichever one of these Rethugs who thinks he's ready to take her on. They won't know what hit em. Looking forward to another Karl Rove meltdown on Fox News.

    Sad what the Tea Baggers have done to my Republican Party, I voted for Obama in 08, only reason I voted for Romney in 2012 was I thought he would be better for my $AAPL & other stock holdings. Good thing about Hillary is we also get Bill again & be nice to see a deserving woman be POTUS.

    As far as Apple stock goes seems momentum is finally coming back, either way as a consumer I am winning. Now where is my big damn iPhone? :)
  • Reply 90 of 280
    matrix07matrix07 Posts: 1,993member
    kharvel wrote: »
    Look at the second to the last paragraph of the letter.  Here's the relevant text

    He never want to look at that. If he wanted to he would have seen it by now. LOL.
  • Reply 91 of 280
    paul94544paul94544 Posts: 1,027member
    Hangin' is too good for em . I suggest piano wire like Mussolini
  • Reply 92 of 280
    kdarlingkdarling Posts: 1,640member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by kharvel View Post


    Actually, Samsung did.  Look here:


    http://www.fosspatents.com/2013/07/wheres-doj-samsung-takes-extortionate.html



     


    No sir, Samsung did not require cross-licensing.


     


    That excerpt from the Commissioner's statement has to be read in context.



    All that Samsung as a SEP holder is required to do, is offer a cash price that anyone can pay.  Any other deal is gravy for both sides, and as the Commissioner pointed out, is perfectly legal.



    Samsung made several offers to Apple, including the 2.4% cash price, AND another offer to lower rates through cross-licensing non-FRAND patents.



    The Commissioner was not saying that Samsung was wrong to make such an offer. On the contrary, he said it was okay if consensual.  The Commissioner was simply stating that he didn't think it should qualify to be listed as a FRAND offer with any other FRAND offers.



    In other words, he was asking, if you ignore that particular offer, do the remaining offer(s) count as FRAND offer(s)?



    Mueller's article made it sound like it was the only offer. It was not.

  • Reply 93 of 280
    patsupatsu Posts: 430member
    It doesn't really matter.

    In principle, in the interest of the consumers and the industry, SEPs should never ever be used as a legal weapon to ban imports.

    The engineers and scientists can always pick alternative technologies to build their standards.

    The industry is willing to incorporate SEPs into standards because they are promised and used as a neutral foundation for common interests. They should not be used as a bargain chip. Period.
  • Reply 94 of 280
    kdarlingkdarling Posts: 1,640member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by kharvel View Post


    While the letter did say that, it also said that the ITC was sloppy and incomprehensive in its investigation of whether there was indeed a refusal to negotiate, whether a real FRAND offer was indeed made by Samsung, and whether the ITC considered all the facts associated with the FRAND nature of the offer made by Samsung (i.e. did Samsung make similar offers to other parties?).  Look at the second to the last paragraph of the letter.  Here's the relevant text:




     


    Umm.  I don't read it that way, but then, I've read almost all 800 pages of the evidence and ruling, as background.  (I wonder if this brand new Trade Commissioner did so, or if his staff did it for him.)


     


    Neither Apple nor Samsung kept good records.


     


    In light of that, the paragraph you quoted seemed to be telling the ITC to lean on the parties involved to come up with better records in the future... not that the ITC itself was sloppy, since it could only work with what info the parties had.


     


    As for the phrase in it about wanting "explicit findings" to "the maximum extent", the ITC ruling was like 700 pages.  That's really detailed for a decision involving a single patent.


     


    Thanks for the interesting discussion!


     


    As I've said many times before, I don't believe in software patent bans.  It's interesting though that this one didn't have to go to appeals court like all the others before it.  This just shows how opinions are changing recently.

  • Reply 95 of 280


    To: Mr. President Obama,


     


    Thank You, Sir.

  • Reply 96 of 280
    obamaobama Posts: 62member
    You're welcome Apple fans.
  • Reply 97 of 280
    mdriftmeyermdriftmeyer Posts: 7,503member


    Looks like several ignoramuses from The Verge can't handle the fact they know less than nothing of the powers and laws of The US Constitution and the duties therein each branch entails.

  • Reply 98 of 280
    tbelltbell Posts: 3,146member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Rob55 View Post


     


    Sounds like the DOJ in the eBook case.  



     


     


    Exactly, the Department of Justice should be ashamed of itself in the eBook case. Never before has a party such as Apple that had no market power entering a market against an established  party that had a monopoly ever get accused of anti-competitive behaviour. Why wasn't Barnes and Noble accused of the same thing, since it was  clear it was working out the same deal Apple had even before Apple? 

  • Reply 99 of 280
    tbelltbell Posts: 3,146member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post





    Google hasn't ever asserted any SEP's and so hasn't been "slapped" for seeking a ban with or charging exorbitant fees for them. You're confusing them with their independently operated subsidiary Motorola Mobility. IIRC these cases started before Motorola had even spun off MM. and long before Google got involved. It's just like saying Apple is in the midst of layoffs when it's really their independent subsidiary Filemaker who decided it had to let some folks go to stay in business.



    Of course there's those that will continue to mix and match Google and Motorola as tho they're one and the same. It's a favorite tactic of FOSSPatents so the confusion by some here might be understandable.


     


     


    It is BS that Motorola Mobility is independently run. Maybe in day to day operations, but all litigation and large decisions are approved and or planned by Google. That is why when Microsoft and Google were suing each other, Microsoft had to bring Google into the lawsuit because Motorola kept saying it needed Google to make decisions. 


     


    Large companies like Google, and even Apple, have many wholly owned supposedly independent companies. This is for tax reasons and liability purposes. Both Google and Apple control their subsidiaries. You do not see File Maker making an Android App, or Motorola adding a skin to Android as opposed to using stock Android. 

  • Reply 100 of 280
    rayzrayz Posts: 814member
    gatorguy wrote: »
    Google hasn't ever asserted any SEP's and so hasn't been "slapped" for seeking a ban with or charging exorbitant fees for them. You're confusing them with their independently operated subsidiary Motorola Mobility. IIRC these cases started before Motorola had even spun off MM. and long before Google got involved. It's just like saying Apple is in the midst of layoffs when it's really their independent subsidiary Filemaker who decided it had to let some folks go to stay in business.

    Of course there's those that will continue to mix and match Google and Motorola as tho they're one and the same. It's a favorite tactic of FOSSPatents so the confusion by some here might be understandable.

    Your efforts to protect Google's reputation are admirable, but the fact is that Google owns Motorola Motability and so it is in Google's power to have prevented this.

    The reason that FOSS Patents keeps making these Google reference is so that people don't forget who is behind this: Google.

    'Do no evil.'

    Mmmm.

    I'm afraid your 'one degree of separation' argument remains unconvincing.
Sign In or Register to comment.