Presidential veto in favor of Apple expected to alter future patent litigation strategies

2

Comments

  • Reply 21 of 48

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by jimijon View Post



    As much as I bleed in seven colors, having the president veto this is simple wrong.



    Lob some cash onto a "leader" and poof, all laws go away. Sad.


    The issue is so clear (read previous article about this), that if any cash was involved, it was at IFC people, not to your "leader". The alternative is that IFC guys are simply morons.


    With the logic of Samsung and IFC, trying to collect money for a second time from IP already sold to the chip maker that Apple is using; why stop charging only Apple? They could cash a third time, now from the carriers selling and using the phone in their networks; and a fourth, from you for using a phone that has that chip. Wait, they could also charge a fifth, to the people you are calling, just for answering using that technology. And we are still not talking of the subject being a FRAND issue. And Samsung pretends to charge Apple for that IP to Apple 150% of the value of the whole chip, that has several other features besides Samsung IP... still, when Apple (trying to avoid public discussion of this technical issue) offered exchange of FRAND's of their own -even without a need to pay a penny-, Samsung valued them at a fraction, making it clear they had no intention to be paid for this patent in the first place. C'mon, don't be naif, this was a dirty (yet one more) move of Samsung to level the field on public's opinion regarding the copyright trials...

     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 22 of 48
    rob55rob55 Posts: 1,291member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Larry Doyle View Post



    Before anyone comments on this, they should read this:



    http://appleinsider.com/articles/13/08/05/samsungs-vetoed-push-for-an-itc-ban-against-apple-inc-in-pictures

     


     


    I meant to link to this too in my earlier comment (#16). Wholeheartedly agree, it should be required reading.

     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 23 of 48
    tbelltbell Posts: 3,146member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by harharhar View Post


    So Apple can say No, I don't want to pay what everyone else does for this technology that lets us actually sell a phone as a phone. Then, they get away without paying a dime. 


     


     


    What a scumbag company.



     


    Perhaps, you should educate yourself before making posts. All Samsung is entitled to, if anything, is money. The parties disagree over the rate Apple should pay, if anything. A court will decide this matter without a gun in the form of an injunction forcing Apple to pay more than is required under FRAND terms. 

     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 24 of 48
    SpamSandwichspamsandwich Posts: 33,407member
    Link to the in-depth Philip Elmer DeWitt reporting (worth your time to read): http://tech.fortune.cnn.com/2013/08/05/apple-samsung-itc-pinkert/
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 25 of 48
    lkrupplkrupp Posts: 10,557member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by jimijon View Post



    As much as I bleed in seven colors, having the president veto this is simple wrong.



    Lob some cash onto a "leader" and poof, all laws go away. Sad.


     


    On the contrary, Apple has always been criticized for not lobbying enough in Washington. Apple spends a pittance on lobbying compared to other tech companies like Microsoft, Google, and Samsung. Your entire premise is simply trash talk with no basis in reality.

     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 26 of 48
    s.metcalfs.metcalf Posts: 1,026member
    Of course he would veto any ban, it's returning the favour for Apple joining the PRISM program.

    All's fair in love and war and the US will use any means in their war against international companies, including illegal surveillance and wiretapping. It's all proven.
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 27 of 48

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by TBell View Post




    Quote:

    Originally Posted by harharhar View Post


    So Apple can say No, I don't want to pay what everyone else does for this technology that lets us actually sell a phone as a phone. Then, they get away without paying a dime. 


     


     


    What a scumbag company.



     


    Perhaps, you should educate yourself before making posts. All Samsung is entitled to, if anything, is money. The parties disagree over the rate Apple should pay, if anything. A court will decide this matter without a gun in the form of an injunction forcing Apple to pay more than is required under FRAND terms. 



    "Educate yourself" and "Samsung user" are probably contradictory phrases...

     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 28 of 48
    realisticrealistic Posts: 1,154member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by harharhar View Post


    So Apple can say No, I don't want to pay what everyone else does for this technology that lets us actually sell a phone as a phone. Then, they get away without paying a dime. 


     


     


    What a scumbag company.



    What an asinine remark. Apple is agreeable to paying FRAND rates but samsung wants 2.7% of the selling price of the entire product which is neither FRAND nor reasonable. No company pays 2.7% of the selling price of the finished product for FRAND rate.

     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 29 of 48
    realisticrealistic Posts: 1,154member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by s.metcalf View Post



    Of course he would veto any ban, it's returning the favour for Apple joining the PRISM program.



    All's fair in love and war and the US will use any means in their war against international companies, including illegal surveillance and wiretapping. It's all proven.


    Another idiot BLOCKED

     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 30 of 48
    realisticrealistic Posts: 1,154member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by harharhar View Post

     


    Another troll blocked

     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 31 of 48
    john.bjohn.b Posts: 2,742member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by harharhar View Post


    So Apple can say No, I don't want to pay what everyone else does for this technology that lets us actually sell a phone as a phone. Then, they get away without paying a dime.



     


    If I'm understanding this correctly, Apple has said they do "want to pay what everyone else does for this technology that lets us actually sell a phone as a phone". 


     


    Which is how standards-essential patents (SEP) were meant to work, prior to Motorola/Samsung using them as a tool to try to "get back" at Apple for not wanting to license their non-SEP portfolio.


     


    http://tech.fortune.cnn.com/2013/08/05/apple-samsung-itc-pinkert/

     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 32 of 48
    jfc1138jfc1138 Posts: 3,090member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by harharhar View Post


    So Apple can say No, I don't want to pay what everyone else does for this technology that lets us actually sell a phone as a phone. Then, they get away without paying a dime. 


     


     


    What a scumbag company.



    Except Samsung was asking for substantially MORE (approx. $16 per) then the purchase price of the chip itself (approx. $11 per) which was being purchased by Apple from a company that had already licensed the patent from Samsung.


     


    Samsung was asking to be paid twice for the same license, and an exhorbitant amount for that second go-round given it was for more than the entire chip was priced at that contained  that sliver of samsung tech.

     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 33 of 48
    sockrolidsockrolid Posts: 2,789member


    Originally Posted by AppleInsider View Post



    ... companies may think twice about acquiring portfolios at any cost, given the potentially reduced chance of being awarded a cease and desist order ...


     


    Google and Motorola Mobility immediately springs to mind here.


    Google acquired MM's portfolio for $12.5 billion and got what?


    A feeble has-been of a hardware maker plus thousands of FRAND-encumbered patents.

     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 34 of 48
    kdarlingkdarling Posts: 1,640member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by jfc1138 View Post


    Except Samsung was asking for substantially MORE (approx. $16 per) then the purchase price of the chip itself (approx. $11 per) which was being purchased by Apple from a company that had already licensed the patent from Samsung.



     


    Not debating that the starting negotiation rate was high, but that aside...


     


    The physical chip price is totally irrelevant to licensing.  It could cost $150 to make at first, and a few years later cost only $15 to make.  Price drops happen all the time as production gets better.


     


    Instead, what matters for licensing is the value of the related IP.


     


    This is why Apple (and everyone else) pays Qualcomm twice.  Once for the stock (or custom) chipset that they will solder into the device, and then separately for related IP they will use on that device.  (They will not necessarily be the same thing.  E.g. why pay for LTE chip capability. if you have no LTE amps or antennas.)


     


    AFAIK, Infineon did not have a license for the patent in question.   Intel did, but they didn't buy Infineon until Jan 2011.

     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 35 of 48
    rptrpt Posts: 175member
    harharhar wrote: »
    So Apple can say No, I don't want to pay what everyone else does for this technology that lets us actually sell a phone as a phone. Then, they get away without paying a dime. 


    What a scumbag company.

    No, they probably end up paying a FRAND rate. In a similar hold up case from Motorola (Google), with a similar demand of 2.4%, the federal court awarded Moto an estimate of 0.006 cent per unit instead of $15
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 36 of 48
    fracfrac Posts: 480member
    harharhar wrote: »
    So Apple can say No, I don't want to pay what everyone else does for this technology that lets us actually sell a phone as a phone. Then, they get away without paying a dime. 


    What a scumbag company.

    Lol...another drive-by delinquent with learning difficulties:D
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 37 of 48
    fracfrac Posts: 480member

    "While this does not devalue patents and patents will still be necessary as a form of offense and defense (particularly those that are standards essential patents), companies may think twice about acquiring portfolios at any cost, given the potentially reduced chance of being awarded a cease and desist order," Um said.

    Um? Sorta making heavy weather sense til the last para.

    Ummn no...SEPs have lost value in both offense and defence with this veto...severely so.
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 38 of 48
    solomansoloman Posts: 228member
    realistic wrote: »
    Another troll blocked

    Careful you might get banned yourself.
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 39 of 48
    maestro64maestro64 Posts: 5,043member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by jimijon View Post



    As much as I bleed in seven colors, having the president veto this is simple wrong.



    Lob some cash onto a "leader" and poof, all laws go away. Sad.


    well you sure what you mean but Apple spend very little on Lobbing the US government. However, I would say this is more like a perfect example of what is mean when you say you got friend in high places. Apple and it leadership has always befriend the white house unlike other companies out there. More time than not who you know helps more than who you pay.

     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 40 of 48
    forestforest Posts: 1member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by harharhar View Post


    So Apple can say No, I don't want to pay what everyone else does for this technology that lets us actually sell a phone as a phone. Then, they get away without paying a dime. 


     


     


    What a scumbag company.



     


    After reading the history from Samsung's vetoed push for an ITC ban against Apple, Inc., in pictures, I feel "scumbag" more easily describes the other company.

     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
Sign In or Register to comment.