This article is an amazing compilation of how badly messed up the ITC decision was. It also handily refutes about 98% of the arguments made by the shills and trolls here - if they would bother to read it.
Yet there wouldn't be a i'Phone' without Samsung's innovation.
That's not even remotely true.
Samsung's contributions are mostly FRAND and/or could have been obtained elsewhere. If Samsung's 'innovations' were not available, the standards body would have used a different method to accomplish the same thing.
And for Samsung's non-SEP contributions, please list them. Their semiconductor technology is not determinative. Apple could have easily bought chips from someone else using different technology. Sure, it might be slower or use more power, but the iPhone could still have been released.
Nice write up but the fact still remains the ITC found Apple guilty of infringing on the patent. So did the ITC not have all of the facts listed? I would really hate too believe a governing body like the ITC acted Willy Nilly. I also really don't like to see the leader of a country overturning it's own courts, what's the use of having them when all it takes is a veto to overturn them. I don't know, I'm just asking, is this normal in America? When Apple and Samsung tried to sue each other in our court systems both were denied. That and it's really not worth suing here as we cap the damages to 200,000 for suffering and payment of property for individuals and I think 1,000,000 for damages plus the amount of proven revenue lost for company's. Big reason why Swiss Rail would have sued in America if not for the settlement.
Most of your information is incorrect. It is not a court - and the executive branch is not able to overrule a court decision (with very few minor exceptions).
Read the article. It is clear that ITC messed up. Also, read the response from one of the ITC officials who agrees that the decision was wrong. Unfortunately, it is not that unusual for bureaucrats to make incorrect decisions. That's why the system is set up to allow a higher level official to veto it. If that fails, the court system is there to correct the error.
American, European and Japanese companies hold 90% of the innovation around 3G.
About CPUs, memory, SSD, etc. (integrated circuitry in general), you need to read more. And write less. Most of the innovation is again coming from US, EU or JP companies.
Samsung are fucking gangsters. They are FAMOUS for their level of corruption in Asia. Assuming a role as the industry's guiding light is simply not in their DNA.
Most of your information is incorrect. It is not a court - and the executive branch is not able to overrule a court decision (with very few minor exceptions).
Read the article. It is clear that ITC messed up. Also, read the response from one of the ITC officials who agrees that the decision was wrong. Unfortunately, it is not that unusual for bureaucrats to make incorrect decisions. That's why the system is set up to allow a higher level official to veto it. If that fails, the court system is there to correct the error.
Yeah, I really don't know anything about American laws, I thought the ITC was some kind of court. I understand there is a system in place to look over judgments and then overturn them if deemed necessary, my problem is it can be undone by just one guy.
Yet there wouldn't be a i'Phone' without Samsung's innovation.
Yet there would be no life at all if not for water and for air, if not for the Sun, if not for the Earth, nay, if not for the Universe ... was borne Samesung, out of the Universe, before anything else before it ... je-f*************king-sus. Yet they needed to copy rubber band UI fx ...
Yeah, I really don't know anything about American laws, I thought the ITC was some kind of court. I understand there is a system in place to look over judgments and then overturn them if deemed necessary, my problem is it can be undone by just one guy.
Who said this decision was made by just one guy? We are talking about a Bureaucracy, and in a bureaucracy there is never only one guy involved. The American government is an elaborate web of checks and balances designed to ensure that no one guy has all the power, and based on all the evidence that I have heard I would say that it is working (in this case). Further I find it curious that you say you don't want to think of the government (ITC) acting "Willy Nilly", yet you seem to think the veto was "some guy" doing just that.
Also, it's worth mentioning that this did go through the courts, and Judge Koh threw it out.
Yet there wouldn't be a i'Phone' without Samsung's innovation.
Irrelevant.
The fact is, Samsung has tried to pursue a patent beyond its limit of 'exhaustion'. I.e. Apple already had an indirect license to use the patent by virtue of purchasing a product from a company that had the legal right to sell it, patent included.
Patents and their licenses cross fertilise the entire IT industry. Microsoft wouldn't exist today in the form that it does without licensing agreed by Apple - i.e. the deal many years ago that allowed MS to use all sorts of different design patents in Windows (you know, that deal that all the 'fandroids' hold that MS 'saved' Apple somehow out of the goodness of its own heart, rather than having been forced to cough up as a result of a court case Apple brought against MS)...
What matters in this instance is the effective perjury by Samsung that somehow succeeded in convincing an ITC judge that a license to sell something only applies until such time as that something is supplied to someone the original licensor doesn't like, some time later after the license had been signed. Samsung is being deeply disingenuous in this instance and it's only to the good of the industry that the President's administration has seen through it and struck down an entirely unjust ban. It fires a warning shot over the bows of Samsung and, indeed, anyone else trying to double-dip in a similar way. If it were to be allowed, where would it stop? Would Goodyear tires require a 5% royalty on the sale price of my car every time I needed a new set? The whole idea is ridiculous.
Long time reader, infrequent commenter. I had to find my credentials to login and say "Atta boy DED!" . I've been REALLY impressed with the in-depth commentary by DED the past few weeks.
It's been VERY refreshing to read detailed articles, that obviously have been painstakingly written, rather than the standard copy/rehash articles which typically make the rounds.
Perhaps if more journalists ( DED has earned the right to be called a journalist, not a blogger ) put this much effort in their articles, Samsung wouldn't have been able to lie to the world the past two years.
Nice write up but the fact still remains the ITC found Apple guilty of infringing on the patent. So did the ITC not have all of the facts listed? I would really hate too believe a governing body like the ITC acted Willy Nilly. I also really don't like to see the leader of a country overturning it's own courts, what's the use of having them when all it takes is a veto to overturn them. I don't know, I'm just asking, is this normal in America? When Apple and Samsung tried to sue each other in our court systems both were denied. That and it's really not worth suing here as we cap the damages to 200,000 for suffering and payment of property for individuals and I think 1,000,000 for damages plus the amount of proven revenue lost for company's. Big reason why Swiss Rail would have sued in America if not for the settlement.
The ITC isn't a court. It's an executive agency that administers laws, and therefore is subject to the scrutiny of the legislative and executive branches. Obama was well within his duty to veto their decision. And yes, they were very willy nilly. If Samsung's prior behavior is any indication, perhaps they were even bribed.
What this world really needs is an androidinsider.com site so Fandroids would have a place of their own.
There are a number of Android fan sites - yet they still come here to attack Apple users.
I'm convinced it's a form of narcissistic personality disorder. They feel like they're the only ones entitled to an opinion and if someone has a different opinion than Android fans, the contrary opinion must be wrong.
This article is an amazing compilation of how badly messed up the ITC decision was. It also handily refutes about 98% of the arguments made by the shills and trolls here - if they would bother to read it.
That's not even remotely true.
I am amazed that the only "negotiating" Samesung did was in the form of an oral offer tied to cross-licensing of some of Apple's non-essential patents. As Pinkert points out in his dissension, "Although licenses to non-FRAND-encumbered patents may certainly be included in a consensual resolution of a dispute over a FRAND-encumbered patent, it is neither fair nor non-discriminatory for the holder of the FRAND-encumbered patent to require licenses to non-FRAND-encumbercd patents as a condition for licensing its patent." It is quite clear that Samsung, did not, in fact, negotiate fairly to license the '348 patent to Apple. How the ITC did not see this is mind boggling.
Comments
This article is an amazing compilation of how badly messed up the ITC decision was. It also handily refutes about 98% of the arguments made by the shills and trolls here - if they would bother to read it.
That's not even remotely true.
Samsung's contributions are mostly FRAND and/or could have been obtained elsewhere. If Samsung's 'innovations' were not available, the standards body would have used a different method to accomplish the same thing.
And for Samsung's non-SEP contributions, please list them. Their semiconductor technology is not determinative. Apple could have easily bought chips from someone else using different technology. Sure, it might be slower or use more power, but the iPhone could still have been released.
Most of your information is incorrect. It is not a court - and the executive branch is not able to overrule a court decision (with very few minor exceptions).
Read the article. It is clear that ITC messed up. Also, read the response from one of the ITC officials who agrees that the decision was wrong. Unfortunately, it is not that unusual for bureaucrats to make incorrect decisions. That's why the system is set up to allow a higher level official to veto it. If that fails, the court system is there to correct the error.
Conspicuously absent they were in June 2007.... along with the rest of the sleepy industry outside Cupertino.
Nor did we see them in January 2010. I guess everyone else was really busy turning the industry on its ear (read: waiting to see Apple's next move.)
Well, to begin with, if it wasn't for Newton ...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/3G#Patents
American, European and Japanese companies hold 90% of the innovation around 3G.
About CPUs, memory, SSD, etc. (integrated circuitry in general), you need to read more. And write less. Most of the innovation is again coming from US, EU or JP companies.
So there were no Samsung phones in existence in 2007?
Samsung had quite a few feature phones and some attempts for Smartphones.
And they are usually brought up when proving that Samsung ripped the iPhone off. Daniel E. Dilger loves that image:
You can find it in quite a few of his blogs, like in say Apple, Inc. iPad is obliterating Samsung, Google's Android in tablet profits
Did you miss the iPhone Keynote? It was sort of a massive friggin deal for the entire industry.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta
Most of your information is incorrect. It is not a court - and the executive branch is not able to overrule a court decision (with very few minor exceptions).
Read the article. It is clear that ITC messed up. Also, read the response from one of the ITC officials who agrees that the decision was wrong. Unfortunately, it is not that unusual for bureaucrats to make incorrect decisions. That's why the system is set up to allow a higher level official to veto it. If that fails, the court system is there to correct the error.
Yeah, I really don't know anything about American laws, I thought the ITC was some kind of court. I understand there is a system in place to look over judgments and then overturn them if deemed necessary, my problem is it can be undone by just one guy.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Soloman
Yet there wouldn't be a i'Phone' without Samsung's innovation.
Yet there would be no life at all if not for water and for air, if not for the Sun, if not for the Earth, nay, if not for the Universe ... was borne Samesung, out of the Universe, before anything else before it ... je-f*************king-sus. Yet they needed to copy rubber band UI fx ...
Who said this decision was made by just one guy? We are talking about a Bureaucracy, and in a bureaucracy there is never only one guy involved. The American government is an elaborate web of checks and balances designed to ensure that no one guy has all the power, and based on all the evidence that I have heard I would say that it is working (in this case). Further I find it curious that you say you don't want to think of the government (ITC) acting "Willy Nilly", yet you seem to think the veto was "some guy" doing just that.
Also, it's worth mentioning that this did go through the courts, and Judge Koh threw it out.
What this world really needs is an androidinsider.com site so Fandroids would have a place of their own.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Soloman
Yet there wouldn't be a i'Phone' without Samsung's innovation.
Irrelevant.
The fact is, Samsung has tried to pursue a patent beyond its limit of 'exhaustion'. I.e. Apple already had an indirect license to use the patent by virtue of purchasing a product from a company that had the legal right to sell it, patent included.
Patents and their licenses cross fertilise the entire IT industry. Microsoft wouldn't exist today in the form that it does without licensing agreed by Apple - i.e. the deal many years ago that allowed MS to use all sorts of different design patents in Windows (you know, that deal that all the 'fandroids' hold that MS 'saved' Apple somehow out of the goodness of its own heart, rather than having been forced to cough up as a result of a court case Apple brought against MS)...
What matters in this instance is the effective perjury by Samsung that somehow succeeded in convincing an ITC judge that a license to sell something only applies until such time as that something is supplied to someone the original licensor doesn't like, some time later after the license had been signed. Samsung is being deeply disingenuous in this instance and it's only to the good of the industry that the President's administration has seen through it and struck down an entirely unjust ban. It fires a warning shot over the bows of Samsung and, indeed, anyone else trying to double-dip in a similar way. If it were to be allowed, where would it stop? Would Goodyear tires require a 5% royalty on the sale price of my car every time I needed a new set? The whole idea is ridiculous.
It's been VERY refreshing to read detailed articles, that obviously have been painstakingly written, rather than the standard copy/rehash articles which typically make the rounds.
Perhaps if more journalists ( DED has earned the right to be called a journalist, not a blogger ) put this much effort in their articles, Samsung wouldn't have been able to lie to the world the past two years.
NICE JOB DED! /virtual beer
There are a number of Android fan sites - yet they still come here to attack Apple users.
I'm convinced it's a form of narcissistic personality disorder. They feel like they're the only ones entitled to an opinion and if someone has a different opinion than Android fans, the contrary opinion must be wrong.
Excellent reporting by PED.
C'mon, AI, get him to write for you. With both PED and DED, you'd be a killer site.
Amen to that. They could have Kim what's his name, as mod.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta
This article is an amazing compilation of how badly messed up the ITC decision was. It also handily refutes about 98% of the arguments made by the shills and trolls here - if they would bother to read it.
That's not even remotely true.
I am amazed that the only "negotiating" Samesung did was in the form of an oral offer tied to cross-licensing of some of Apple's non-essential patents. As Pinkert points out in his dissension, "Although licenses to non-FRAND-encumbered patents may certainly be included in a consensual resolution of a dispute over a FRAND-encumbered patent, it is neither fair nor non-discriminatory for the holder of the FRAND-encumbered patent to require licenses to non-FRAND-encumbercd patents as a condition for licensing its patent." It is quite clear that Samsung, did not, in fact, negotiate fairly to license the '348 patent to Apple. How the ITC did not see this is mind boggling.