The paragraph above and the 50+ other comments you've made in this thread alone show that you're also not coming at this from a neutral perspective.
Cote is wrong on this issue and will be told so by the appellate court in the near future. The fact that they have not had the opportunity to do so yet does not make her "right."
How am I not? I have no loyalty to Amazon or Apple, and I live in another country where these agreements didn't matter.
I've taken the position that I have to decide for myself based on both of their filings. Apple's defence exhibits show the price of all 5 colluding publishers shooting well above the average and staying there. Exactly what was discussed between Apple and the publishers that completely admit their illegal conduct.
Taking a summarised, third-party source and acting as if that single reference defeats the entire court case is crazy, especially when Apple didn't even file those figures in their defence.
The paragraph above and the 50+ other comments you've made in this thread alone show that you're also not coming at this from a neutral perspective.
Cote is wrong on this issue and will be told so by the appellate court in the near future. The fact that they have not had the opportunity to do so yet does not make her "right."
How am I not? I have no loyalty to Amazon or Apple, and I live in another country where these agreements didn't matter.
I've taken the position that I have to decide for myself based on both of their filings. Apple's defence exhibits show the price of all 5 colluding publishers shooting well above the average and staying there. Exactly what was discussed between Apple and the publishers that completely admit their illegal conduct.
Taking a summarised, third-party source and acting as if that single reference defeats the entire court case is crazy, especially when Apple didn't even file those figures in their defence.
I'm curious. If, as you say, you live in another country where these agreements don't matter, and have no loyalty to Amazon or Apple, why are you devoting so much time and effort to researching this issue and arguing on this forum?
I'm curious. If, as you say, you live in another country where these agreements don't matter, and have no loyalty to Amazon or Apple, why are you devoting so much time and effort to researching this issue and arguing on this forum?
Well, I lurked around on this site beforehand, and I saw a lot of posts regarding this trial and Apple's other legal cases elsewhere. I read the documents individually and the 'facts' stated here and the conclusions people met didn't seem to match with reality.
I'd been considering joining for a while anyway as I do genuinely think Apple is pushing technology forward faster than anyone else. That's their market strategy and so it's quite exciting, but I do believe they should be held to account for their bad practises.
That simple really, I don't think anyone is helped by incorrect facts, it just convinces people here that the government is anti Apple when in fact they have previously protected Apple from an international ruling (That people also don't understand because of bad facts).
That simple really, I don't think anyone is helped by incorrect facts, it just convinces people here that the government is anti Apple when in fact they have previously protected Apple from an international ruling (That people also don't understand because of bad facts).
Can you enlighten us on this government Apple protection? Are you referring to the ITC veto? If so I'm pretty sure it's you who needs to read more.
I am indeed. Apple refused to negotiate on reasonable terms and got slapped down. Obama protected them. It's not much more complex than that.
Well, this clearly shows that you're not coming at Apple related issues from a neutral perspective as you claim. That situation was much more complex than you suggest and saying it's not shows how little you know about this issue in particular and calls into question your judgement on the other ~115 posts you've made on AI.
The ITC is a part of the executive branch of the US government and is therefore subordinate to Obama. He didn't "protect" Apple, he decided that the decision made by his subordinates was wrong and acted accordingly. Are you suggesting that any time a boss disagrees with his subordinates and goes in a different direction that the boss is unjustly "protecting" someone?
There is plenty of evidence that Samsung never offered FRAND terms to negotiate on, so how can Apple possibly refuse to negotiate reasonable terms when they never received any?
The ITC is a part of the executive branch of the US government and is therefore subordinate to Obama. He didn't "protect" Apple, he decided that the decision made by his subordinates was wrong and acted accordingly. Are you suggesting that any time a boss disagrees with his subordinates and goes in a different direction that the boss is unjustly "protecting" someone?
Yes. When a boss vetoes a decision of a subordinate in extremely rare circumstances then I typically consider that protectionism.
Quote:
There is plenty of evidence that Samsung never offered FRAND terms to negotiate on, so how can Apple possibly refuse to negotiate reasonable terms when they never received any?
This really isn't the place for discussion but from what I read Apple said that licensing their software would cost serious percentage points on any product, but they'd only be willing to pay a fraction as much for software they license. If you want to discuss this further we can go to PM or start another thread if you like. This thread is already too fractured.
Btw, trying to paint me as some biased anti Apple crusader is kinda silly. Why would I join and spend time trying to make nuanced posts etc if I was anti Apple? Surely I'd just be on some random Windows Mobile site shouting about how great my phone is?
Btw, trying to paint me as some biased anti Apple crusader is kinda silly. Why would I join and spend time trying to make nuanced posts etc if I was anti Apple? Surely I'd just be on some random Windows Mobile site shouting about how great my phone is?
Whether you are one of them or not there are plenty of anti-Apple trolls that frequent this site and regularly post. Many of them even start by saying "how much they love Apple products but can't abide by Apple's behavior in xxxx situation." Why they join and spend their time making nuanced posts (beyond possibly being paid Samsung shills) is completely beyond me.
Whether you are one of them or not there are plenty of anti-Apple trolls that frequent this site and regularly post. Many of them even start by saying "how much they love Apple products but can't abide by Apple's behavior in xxxx situation." Why they join and spend their time making nuanced posts (beyond possibly being paid Samsung shills) is completely beyond me.
I haven't really seen much of that, nor particularly nuanced posts. What I have seen is that as soon as I disagreed with the apparent consensus, I get attacked from all sides. The most aggressive and troll posters seem to be well established with tens of thousands of posts.
Samsung shilling this site also seems pretty unlikely, but they clearly have no idea how to spend their money wisely so you never know!
edit: For what it's worth, I'm not actually a big fan of Apple's current products, just their pushing of tech. I think the iPad is too limited, the iPhone is too expensive and I already get free laptops for life and build my own PCs so neither Macbooks, iMacs or Mac Pros matter to me.
Quote:
Originally Posted by GregInPrague
Because it couldn't be a boss who only gets involved when the failure of the subordinate is egregious...
From what I read, this is the first veto in 26 years. Shockingly when it applies to an American company. I'm willing to believe it's not protectionism, but you're going to have to show me some strong evidence. the ITC final judgement is pretty damn harsh to Apple.
From what I read, this is the first veto in 26 years. Shockingly when it applies to an American company. I'm willing to believe it's not protectionism, but you're going to have to show me some strong evidence. the ITC final judgement is pretty damn harsh to Apple.
Again, if you were neutral you wouldn't use loaded statements like "Shockingly when it applies to an American company." That adds nothing to the arguement and makes your next sentence not believable.
Again, if you were neutral you wouldn't use loaded statements like "Shockingly when it applies to an American company." That adds nothing to the arguement and makes your next sentence not believable.
Sorry perhaps I should explain. I am quite anti American when it comes to intellectual property and copyright law, so I certainly have a bias there. It doesn't really translate through to Apple though. Apple aren't to blame for US protectionism, but I certainly see some of their statements as hypocritical.
Will read the link shortly but it seems to be a dissenting view alone, so it has value but needs comparison.
edit: Now I've read it the situation seems to be more complex than I was aware of, I'll keep reading but my statement above may have been too strong.
From what I read, this is the first veto in 26 years. Shockingly when it applies to an American company. I'm willing to believe it's not protectionism, but you're going to have to show me some strong evidence. the ITC final judgement is pretty damn harsh to Apple.
As you obviously know, samsung tried to get an import ban on apple products based on FRAND encumbered patents, if they had been successful if would have set a dangerous precedent and given all FRAND pledged patents hold up value, which would drive up costs for consumers and distorted the market
As you obviously know, samsung tried to get an import ban on apple products based on FRAND encumbered patents, if they had been successful if would have set a dangerous precedent and given all FRAND pledged patents hold up value, which would drive up costs for consumers and distorted the market
Even after the Presidential veto there were still, and may still be, companies trying to get ITC "injunctions" using FRAND-pledged IP. LSI (still being pursued AFAIK) Interdigital and Adaptix are some examples. The veto wasn't because the Samsung patents were standard-essential.
edit: Now I've read it the situation seems to be more complex than I was aware of, I'll keep reading but my statement above may have been too strong.
Here's the whole FRAND thing in a nutshell. Companies like Motorola, Nokia, Samsung, etc., have been abusing FRAND patents for decades, since there's no consensus on how to come up with a FRAND rate, and all SEP negotiating takes place in dark rooms under strict NDAs ensuring total secrecy with no oversight. It's only now that the stakes of the smartphone market, and everybody's interest in it, has thrown a spotlight on the FRAND licensing so that antitrust regulators, courts, standards bodies, legislators, and tech wonks are all watching, and while it will take some time the process is underway of clarifying terms and principles to prevent more abuse.
Here's the thing about injunctions. Traditionally the injunction is a remedy that is only used in cases where the potential harm is irreparable. Irreparable essentially means "money changing hands won't fix the problem." Stopping the harmful behavior doesn't correct the past but prevents more irreparable harm from occurring. Examples of irreparable harm are things like loss of reputation or market share. Now the consensus being formed around the globe right now, is that when one pledges to license standards essential patents to anyone under fair, reasonable, and non-discriminatory ways, one has essentially admitted that no irreparable harm could come from any infringing those patents. The only harm one can claim is the missed revenue. IOW, the company's reputation or market share are not dependent on it. Consequently, since no irreparable harm can come from any infringement of a SEP, SEPs are not eligible for injunctions. Period. A court can always settle a dispute over a standards essential patent infringement with a monetary remedy.
This is evolving law in the US, very little exists in the case law or statutes since standards essential patents are a relatively new phenomena. It is perfectly appropriate for the president to see the way the wind is blowing and get out in front of it by declaring it his trade policy that SEPs not be granted injunctions. The ITC chose to ignore the president's policy and grant Samsung an injunction over a SEP. The president vetoed that decision and it would not have been any different if the SEP had been owned by Apple. The policy is no injunctions for SEPs. Period.
Here's the thing about injunctions. Traditionally the injunction is a remedy that is only used in cases where the potential harm is irreparable. . . It is perfectly appropriate for the president to see the way the wind is blowing and get out in front of it by declaring it his trade policy that SEPs not be granted injunctions. The ITC chose to ignore the president's policy and grant Samsung an injunction over a SEP. The president vetoed that decision and it would not have been any different if the SEP had been owned by Apple. The policy is no injunctions for SEPs. Period. [/COLOR]
exclusionary relief should be available based only on the relevant factors described in the Policy Statement
don't you understand?
English does not appear to be your first language. I suggest you actually read the bottom 2¶s of page 1, and the top 2¶s of page 2, and footnote 3 on page 2, all of which summarize the President's Policy Statement on Remedies for Standard Essential Patents Subject to Voluntary FRAND Commitments, which essentially says there will be no injunctions for SEPs, except for some rare hypothetical situations (listed in fn3). The ITC went rogue by granting Samsung an injunction anyway, against the president's clear policy, which resulted in the rare presidential veto. Do you understand that an exclusion order and exclusionary relief means an injunction?
I don't think you can really criticise me for not being enough of a fan.
Don't underestimate the strength of the Applesauce. Any slight inclination towards doubt in the fruity company can get you labelled as a troll and/or paid shill around here.
Comments
The paragraph above and the 50+ other comments you've made in this thread alone show that you're also not coming at this from a neutral perspective.
Cote is wrong on this issue and will be told so by the appellate court in the near future. The fact that they have not had the opportunity to do so yet does not make her "right."
How am I not? I have no loyalty to Amazon or Apple, and I live in another country where these agreements didn't matter.
I've taken the position that I have to decide for myself based on both of their filings. Apple's defence exhibits show the price of all 5 colluding publishers shooting well above the average and staying there. Exactly what was discussed between Apple and the publishers that completely admit their illegal conduct.
Taking a summarised, third-party source and acting as if that single reference defeats the entire court case is crazy, especially when Apple didn't even file those figures in their defence.
The paragraph above and the 50+ other comments you've made in this thread alone show that you're also not coming at this from a neutral perspective.
Cote is wrong on this issue and will be told so by the appellate court in the near future. The fact that they have not had the opportunity to do so yet does not make her "right."
How am I not? I have no loyalty to Amazon or Apple, and I live in another country where these agreements didn't matter.
I've taken the position that I have to decide for myself based on both of their filings. Apple's defence exhibits show the price of all 5 colluding publishers shooting well above the average and staying there. Exactly what was discussed between Apple and the publishers that completely admit their illegal conduct.
Taking a summarised, third-party source and acting as if that single reference defeats the entire court case is crazy, especially when Apple didn't even file those figures in their defence.
I'm curious. If, as you say, you live in another country where these agreements don't matter, and have no loyalty to Amazon or Apple, why are you devoting so much time and effort to researching this issue and arguing on this forum?
I'm curious. If, as you say, you live in another country where these agreements don't matter, and have no loyalty to Amazon or Apple, why are you devoting so much time and effort to researching this issue and arguing on this forum?
Well, I lurked around on this site beforehand, and I saw a lot of posts regarding this trial and Apple's other legal cases elsewhere. I read the documents individually and the 'facts' stated here and the conclusions people met didn't seem to match with reality.
I'd been considering joining for a while anyway as I do genuinely think Apple is pushing technology forward faster than anyone else. That's their market strategy and so it's quite exciting, but I do believe they should be held to account for their bad practises.
That simple really, I don't think anyone is helped by incorrect facts, it just convinces people here that the government is anti Apple when in fact they have previously protected Apple from an international ruling (That people also don't understand because of bad facts).
That simple really, I don't think anyone is helped by incorrect facts, it just convinces people here that the government is anti Apple when in fact they have previously protected Apple from an international ruling (That people also don't understand because of bad facts).
Can you enlighten us on this government Apple protection? Are you referring to the ITC veto? If so I'm pretty sure it's you who needs to read more.
Can you enlighten us on this government Apple protection? Are you referring to the ITC veto? If so I'm pretty sure it's you who needs to read more.
I am indeed. Apple refused to negotiate on reasonable terms and got slapped down. Obama protected them. It's not much more complex than that.
I am indeed. Apple refused to negotiate on reasonable terms and got slapped down. Obama protected them. It's not much more complex than that.
Well, this clearly shows that you're not coming at Apple related issues from a neutral perspective as you claim. That situation was much more complex than you suggest and saying it's not shows how little you know about this issue in particular and calls into question your judgement on the other ~115 posts you've made on AI.
The ITC is a part of the executive branch of the US government and is therefore subordinate to Obama. He didn't "protect" Apple, he decided that the decision made by his subordinates was wrong and acted accordingly. Are you suggesting that any time a boss disagrees with his subordinates and goes in a different direction that the boss is unjustly "protecting" someone?
There is plenty of evidence that Samsung never offered FRAND terms to negotiate on, so how can Apple possibly refuse to negotiate reasonable terms when they never received any?
The ITC is a part of the executive branch of the US government and is therefore subordinate to Obama. He didn't "protect" Apple, he decided that the decision made by his subordinates was wrong and acted accordingly. Are you suggesting that any time a boss disagrees with his subordinates and goes in a different direction that the boss is unjustly "protecting" someone?Yes. When a boss vetoes a decision of a subordinate in extremely rare circumstances then I typically consider that protectionism.
This really isn't the place for discussion but from what I read Apple said that licensing their software would cost serious percentage points on any product, but they'd only be willing to pay a fraction as much for software they license. If you want to discuss this further we can go to PM or start another thread if you like. This thread is already too fractured.
Btw, trying to paint me as some biased anti Apple crusader is kinda silly. Why would I join and spend time trying to make nuanced posts etc if I was anti Apple? Surely I'd just be on some random Windows Mobile site shouting about how great my phone is?
Btw, trying to paint me as some biased anti Apple crusader is kinda silly. Why would I join and spend time trying to make nuanced posts etc if I was anti Apple? Surely I'd just be on some random Windows Mobile site shouting about how great my phone is?
Whether you are one of them or not there are plenty of anti-Apple trolls that frequent this site and regularly post. Many of them even start by saying "how much they love Apple products but can't abide by Apple's behavior in xxxx situation." Why they join and spend their time making nuanced posts (beyond possibly being paid Samsung shills) is completely beyond me.
Yes. When a boss vetoes a decision of a subordinate in extremely rare circumstances then I typically consider that protectionism.
Because it couldn't be a boss who only gets involved when the failure of the subordinate is egregious...
Quote:
Whether you are one of them or not there are plenty of anti-Apple trolls that frequent this site and regularly post. Many of them even start by saying "how much they love Apple products but can't abide by Apple's behavior in xxxx situation." Why they join and spend their time making nuanced posts (beyond possibly being paid Samsung shills) is completely beyond me.
I haven't really seen much of that, nor particularly nuanced posts. What I have seen is that as soon as I disagreed with the apparent consensus, I get attacked from all sides. The most aggressive and troll posters seem to be well established with tens of thousands of posts.
Samsung shilling this site also seems pretty unlikely, but they clearly have no idea how to spend their money wisely so you never know!
edit: For what it's worth, I'm not actually a big fan of Apple's current products, just their pushing of tech. I think the iPad is too limited, the iPhone is too expensive and I already get free laptops for life and build my own PCs so neither Macbooks, iMacs or Mac Pros matter to me.
Because it couldn't be a boss who only gets involved when the failure of the subordinate is egregious...
From what I read, this is the first veto in 26 years. Shockingly when it applies to an American company. I'm willing to believe it's not protectionism, but you're going to have to show me some strong evidence. the ITC final judgement is pretty damn harsh to Apple.
Since you read Cote's 60+ page brief this should be a piece of cake. http://tech.fortune.cnn.com/2013/08/05/apple-samsung-itc-pinkert/
Again, if you were neutral you wouldn't use loaded statements like "Shockingly when it applies to an American company." That adds nothing to the arguement and makes your next sentence not believable.
Since you read Cote's 60+ page brief this should be a piece of cake. http://tech.fortune.cnn.com/2013/08/05/apple-samsung-itc-pinkert/
Again, if you were neutral you wouldn't use loaded statements like "Shockingly when it applies to an American company." That adds nothing to the arguement and makes your next sentence not believable.
Sorry perhaps I should explain. I am quite anti American when it comes to intellectual property and copyright law, so I certainly have a bias there. It doesn't really translate through to Apple though. Apple aren't to blame for US protectionism, but I certainly see some of their statements as hypocritical.
Will read the link shortly but it seems to be a dissenting view alone, so it has value but needs comparison.
edit: Now I've read it the situation seems to be more complex than I was aware of, I'll keep reading but my statement above may have been too strong.
As you obviously know, samsung tried to get an import ban on apple products based on FRAND encumbered patents, if they had been successful if would have set a dangerous precedent and given all FRAND pledged patents hold up value, which would drive up costs for consumers and distorted the market
Even after the Presidential veto there were still, and may still be, companies trying to get ITC "injunctions" using FRAND-pledged IP. LSI (still being pursued AFAIK) Interdigital and Adaptix are some examples. The veto wasn't because the Samsung patents were standard-essential.
PM sent. Most here wouldn't be interested in the facts as they're relatively boring.
Here's the whole FRAND thing in a nutshell. Companies like Motorola, Nokia, Samsung, etc., have been abusing FRAND patents for decades, since there's no consensus on how to come up with a FRAND rate, and all SEP negotiating takes place in dark rooms under strict NDAs ensuring total secrecy with no oversight. It's only now that the stakes of the smartphone market, and everybody's interest in it, has thrown a spotlight on the FRAND licensing so that antitrust regulators, courts, standards bodies, legislators, and tech wonks are all watching, and while it will take some time the process is underway of clarifying terms and principles to prevent more abuse.
Here's the thing about injunctions. Traditionally the injunction is a remedy that is only used in cases where the potential harm is irreparable. Irreparable essentially means "money changing hands won't fix the problem." Stopping the harmful behavior doesn't correct the past but prevents more irreparable harm from occurring. Examples of irreparable harm are things like loss of reputation or market share. Now the consensus being formed around the globe right now, is that when one pledges to license standards essential patents to anyone under fair, reasonable, and non-discriminatory ways, one has essentially admitted that no irreparable harm could come from any infringing those patents. The only harm one can claim is the missed revenue. IOW, the company's reputation or market share are not dependent on it. Consequently, since no irreparable harm can come from any infringement of a SEP, SEPs are not eligible for injunctions. Period. A court can always settle a dispute over a standards essential patent infringement with a monetary remedy.
This is evolving law in the US, very little exists in the case law or statutes since standards essential patents are a relatively new phenomena. It is perfectly appropriate for the president to see the way the wind is blowing and get out in front of it by declaring it his trade policy that SEPs not be granted injunctions. The ITC chose to ignore the president's policy and grant Samsung an injunction over a SEP. The president vetoed that decision and it would not have been any different if the SEP had been owned by Apple. The policy is no injunctions for SEPs. Period.
Here's the actual letter overturning the exclusion and cease and desist finding at the ITC. You should read it. What you imagine it said isn't at all what it really said,
http://www.scribd.com/doc/157897822/Obama-Administration-ITC-Letter
Page two if you're not that much into reading.
What part of
don't you understand?
English does not appear to be your first language. I suggest you actually read the bottom 2¶s of page 1, and the top 2¶s of page 2, and footnote 3 on page 2, all of which summarize the President's Policy Statement on Remedies for Standard Essential Patents Subject to Voluntary FRAND Commitments, which essentially says there will be no injunctions for SEPs, except for some rare hypothetical situations (listed in fn3). The ITC went rogue by granting Samsung an injunction anyway, against the president's clear policy, which resulted in the rare presidential veto. Do you understand that an exclusion order and exclusionary relief means an injunction?