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.
Classic defensive attitude that turns into an attack that you see from those that feel guilty.
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.
That is why people bitch and moan about the president and want to hold the President accountable. The President actually has power even if they squander it most the time. When the President is engaged in running the country and leading the people it can be a really good thing. When they get caught up in politics, it doesn't go anywhere and they can easily waste a whole term in office. The buck stops with the President with all things of the Executive Branch.
Nice write upbut 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 original Judge found Apple to not have infringed the patent I believe twice. Under review, the full ITC disagreed.
Made possible partly due to Samsung's tech and components.
Again, irrelevant.
Your car is made possible by Goodyear tires (or some other make, it doesn't matter). Do you want the maker of your tires to come and charge you 5% of the purchase price of your car every time you buy a new set of tires?
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.
Irrelevant to this case? Absolutely but it is still true.
Made possible partly due to Samsung's tech and components.
LOL. It is kindof like Corning with its Gorilla Glass. It was sitting around not being used at all. Apple saw the potential in the technology and put it to use. Further, Samsung steals much more than it contributes. It operates the same in every industry. Some people might also forget Apple invested heavily in Samsung in the nineties giving its display business 100 million dollars.
You don't become one of the wealthiest companies in the world from ripping off others. They have one of largest R&D centres in the world, is this all for show? What about their absolutely huge Semiconductor department, their monitors, TV's, ect. It's not all stolen is it? Last time I looked most Apple products include a whole lot of Samsung built chips.What about those fabricating machines built by Samsung to build things like the Apple Arm CPU. Yes Apple is using less chips made by Samsung but did you know those company's are probably using equipment made by Samsung to fabricate those chips as well.
Fairly naive statement that about not becoming one of the wealthiest companies in the world fro ripping off others! And yes, Samsung allways ripped off the design from others, the TV monitors you mention was a rip off of Sony and their cellphones allways has been a rip off of whatever cellphone was popular. Whatever good they undoubtedly are in manufacturing, their design and user interfaces largely are based on ripping off other.
I'm glad you agree it is irrelevant. So what on earth was the point in mentioning it then? Or are you just trying to stir?
No I'm not trying to stir. There's a lot of hate for Samsung and rightly so but at the same time their tech and parts made it possible for Apple to make the iPhone. Did they then turn around and copy it? Yes they did and shame on them for that but their phones didn't truly take off until they went away from copying and offered customers something different. That picture of smartphones could be done with just about anything. I can show you what Sony TVs looked like before Philips introduced flat panel TVs to consumers and what Sony TVs looked afterwards. Did they copy or did they recognize what the future of TVs was going to look like and made TVs accordingly?
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.
You get it right, ITC is a governing body, not a court of law, still you manage to claim that the administration is overturning it's courts !
... I can show you what Sony TVs looked like before Philips introduced flat panel TVs to consumers and what Sony TVs looked afterwards. Did they copy or did they recognize what the future of TVs was going to look like and made TVs accordingly?
It's understandable with one or two details but Sammy copied the shape, the GUI, the packaging, the charger, the icons, etc...
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? ...
From what has been reported previously, the ITC took what facts it wanted to use and only those to come to its judgment. After reading the above letter, I can't help but wonder how long it will be before there's an inspection of the ITC to determine how they could have come up with the decision they dod. They had no basis for it. As the president (actually his assigned investigator) vetoed of a non-court-based decision, you need to reform your question. The president has always had the ability to pardon people who were found guilty by a legitimate court. This usually happens when the president is leaving office. I'm sure this happens much more in other countries, including Switzerland.
Regardless of whether Apple was infringing, the point was that even if they were, Samsung's terms were completely unreasonable for a SEP. I think the reasoning was specious and that Infineon's license should have covered Apple but regardless, 2.4% of the retail price of the phone is idiotic.
Comments
Classic defensive attitude that turns into an attack that you see from those that feel guilty.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Relic
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.
That is why people bitch and moan about the president and want to hold the President accountable. The President actually has power even if they squander it most the time. When the President is engaged in running the country and leading the people it can be a really good thing. When they get caught up in politics, it doesn't go anywhere and they can easily waste a whole term in office. The buck stops with the President with all things of the Executive Branch.
Made possible partly due to Samsung's tech and components.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Relic
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 original Judge found Apple to not have infringed the patent I believe twice. Under review, the full ITC disagreed.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Soloman
Made possible partly due to Samsung's tech and components.
Again, irrelevant.
Your car is made possible by Goodyear tires (or some other make, it doesn't matter). Do you want the maker of your tires to come and charge you 5% of the purchase price of your car every time you buy a new set of tires?
If you do, you're remarkably generous (and rich)!
Irrelevant to this case? Absolutely but it is still true.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Soloman
Made possible partly due to Samsung's tech and components.
LOL. It is kindof like Corning with its Gorilla Glass. It was sitting around not being used at all. Apple saw the potential in the technology and put it to use. Further, Samsung steals much more than it contributes. It operates the same in every industry. Some people might also forget Apple invested heavily in Samsung in the nineties giving its display business 100 million dollars.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Soloman
Irrelevant to this case? Absolutely [...].
I'm glad you agree it is irrelevant. So what on earth was the point in mentioning it then? Or are you just trying to stir?
Side remark: we all know about double dipping. Reminds me of Apple asking 30% of in-app purchases.
Be it legal or retail, everyone knows this.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Blitz1
Well, can't agree more IF the case is as it is presented.
Side remark: we all know about double dipping. Reminds me of Apple asking 30% of in-app purchases.
In what sense is Apple's cut of in-app purchases double dipping?
Do tell how 30% is double dipping?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Relic
You don't become one of the wealthiest companies in the world from ripping off others. They have one of largest R&D centres in the world, is this all for show? What about their absolutely huge Semiconductor department, their monitors, TV's, ect. It's not all stolen is it? Last time I looked most Apple products include a whole lot of Samsung built chips.What about those fabricating machines built by Samsung to build things like the Apple Arm CPU. Yes Apple is using less chips made by Samsung but did you know those company's are probably using equipment made by Samsung to fabricate those chips as well.
Fairly naive statement that about not becoming one of the wealthiest companies in the world fro ripping off others! And yes, Samsung allways ripped off the design from others, the TV monitors you mention was a rip off of Sony and their cellphones allways has been a rip off of whatever cellphone was popular. Whatever good they undoubtedly are in manufacturing, their design and user interfaces largely are based on ripping off other.
No I'm not trying to stir. There's a lot of hate for Samsung and rightly so but at the same time their tech and parts made it possible for Apple to make the iPhone. Did they then turn around and copy it? Yes they did and shame on them for that but their phones didn't truly take off until they went away from copying and offered customers something different. That picture of smartphones could be done with just about anything. I can show you what Sony TVs looked like before Philips introduced flat panel TVs to consumers and what Sony TVs looked afterwards. Did they copy or did they recognize what the future of TVs was going to look like and made TVs accordingly?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Relic
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.
You get it right, ITC is a governing body, not a court of law, still you manage to claim that the administration is overturning it's courts !
It's understandable with one or two details but Sammy copied the shape, the GUI, the packaging, the charger, the icons, etc...
Hey Gatorguy (alias Techstud ?) isn't it about now you come in to argue that black is white?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Relic
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? ...
From what has been reported previously, the ITC took what facts it wanted to use and only those to come to its judgment. After reading the above letter, I can't help but wonder how long it will be before there's an inspection of the ITC to determine how they could have come up with the decision they dod. They had no basis for it. As the president (actually his assigned investigator) vetoed of a non-court-based decision, you need to reform your question. The president has always had the ability to pardon people who were found guilty by a legitimate court. This usually happens when the president is leaving office. I'm sure this happens much more in other countries, including Switzerland.
Regardless of whether Apple was infringing, the point was that even if they were, Samsung's terms were completely unreasonable for a SEP. I think the reasoning was specious and that Infineon's license should have covered Apple but regardless, 2.4% of the retail price of the phone is idiotic.