"Don't pay FRAND patents, it's fine. The amount of R&D that went into creating the patent is irrelevant. Just continue using other people IP without compensating the inventor"
That's what this forum would sound like if Apple actually created any technology that would be worth FRAND status.
"Don't pay FRAND patents, it's fine. The amount of R&D that went into creating the patent is irrelevant. Just continue using other people IP without compensating the inventor"
That's what this forum would sound like if Apple actually created any technology that would be worth FRAND status.
Another IDIOT who post then leaves fast, sad very sad these trolls have to come here!!!!
"Don't pay FRAND patents, it's fine. The amount of R&D that went into creating the patent is irrelevant. Just continue using other people IP without compensating the inventor"
That's what this forum would sound like if Apple actually created any technology that would be worth FRAND status.
I don't know enough about the American patent system to comment on it but I really dislike that this ever happened to begin with. The same with the suit against Samsung, I hope it get's dropped in appeals.
"Don't pay FRAND patents, it's fine. The amount of R&D that went into creating the patent is irrelevant. Just continue using other people IP without compensating the inventor"
That's what this forum would sound like if Apple actually created any technology that would be worth FRAND status.
If Apple abused the system by refusing to license their FRAND patent in a fair manner, then I would not fault the president for vetoing a decision that was in Apple's favor. The case was not a matter of intellectual property theft, it was Apple fighting against Samsung's extortionary measures.
Was this legal? I mean, it was right, given that Apple should never have been "banned" in the first place, but was it legal to overturn?
It should be legal. It's not like Samsung won't have other means of recourse. They can still pursue the matter, it could still result in a settlement between the two companies. Samsung is just without a national product ban to hang over Apple's head as penalty for not agreeing to more generous licensing terms. All the president did was take the product ban off the table.
It was stated cogently and simply by a former FTC Commissioner in the WSJ: "Jon Leibowitz, who led the agency during the Google case, said Saturday's veto would benefit consumers and promote innovation. 'When a company agrees to license what is known as a standard-essential patent at fair and reasonable terms, it shouldn't be able to ban importation of a product into the United States simply because it wants a better deal,' he said."
Was this legal? I mean, it was right, given that Apple should never have been "banned" in the first place, but was it legal to overturn?
Do some basic research into how these things work. Yes, completely legal. It wasn't a court ruling. Obama really had little to do with it. It was a decision fully within the powers of the U.S. Trade Representative, who overruled the US International Trade Commission.
what a shameful act of injustice. If you can't beat them with innovation in the market place, and if you can't beat them with litigation in the courtroom, then go running to your President for the hope you paid him enough to do the deed. What about the price fixing Apple? You think Obama will help you out with that as well? Pathetic. Guaranteed to have some backlash with markets outside of the US.
No, not really. This is a good and smart thing that was done, for various reasons including economic ones.
I'm still unclear about what this is actually all about. So Samsung has a patent on something related to 3G GSM technology that Apple used in early versions of the iPhone and iPad. Did Apple refuse to pay royalties on this patent or did Samsung refuse to license it? Did Samsung offer to license to Apple but at rates far higher than other licensees were paying? Is this patent really subject to FRAND or not? Why has this gotten to this point? Who's really the bad guy here? Apple or Samsung?
I'm still unclear about what this is actually all about. So Samsung has a patent on something related to 3G GSM technology that Apple used in early versions of the iPhone and iPad. Did Apple refuse to pay royalties on this patent or did Samsung refuse to license it? Did Samsung offer to license to Apple but at rates far higher than other licensees were paying? Is this patent really subject to FRAND or not? Why has this gotten to this point? Who's really the bad guy here? Apple or Samsung?
The bad guy was ITC, which allowed itself to be used as an instrument of blackmail against the interest of the American people, they have been severely corrected, and it is going to be interesting to see the fallout.
I'm still unclear about what this is actually all about. So Samsung has a patent on something related to 3G GSM technology that Apple used in early versions of the iPhone and iPad. Did Apple refuse to pay royalties on this patent or did Samsung refuse to license it? Did Samsung offer to license to Apple but at rates far higher than other licensees were paying? Is this patent really subject to FRAND or not? Why has this gotten to this point? Who's really the bad guy here? Apple or Samsung?
Yes it was FRAND. Everyone knew this except ITC it seems.
Comments
"Don't pay FRAND patents, it's fine. The amount of R&D that went into creating the patent is irrelevant. Just continue using other people IP without compensating the inventor"
That's what this forum would sound like if Apple actually created any technology that would be worth FRAND status.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mrrodriguez
The President sent a clear message
"Don't pay FRAND patents, it's fine. The amount of R&D that went into creating the patent is irrelevant. Just continue using other people IP without compensating the inventor"
That's what this forum would sound like if Apple actually created any technology that would be worth FRAND status.
Another IDIOT who post then leaves fast, sad very sad these trolls have to come here!!!!
Quote:
Originally Posted by nikilok
Yeah Google would be thinking now "why why did we buy Motorola"!
The Three Stooges - Larry, Eric, and Sergei - are getting ready to jump out the window !!
I am glad this band got vetoed.
All they can do now is wait for new Apple products to copy.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mwhiteco
Another IDIOT who post then leaves fast, sad very sad these trolls have to come here!!!!
Quite agree, I miss Techstud, he stayed and argued in his twisted ways
I don't know enough about the American patent system to comment on it but I really dislike that this ever happened to begin with. The same with the suit against Samsung, I hope it get's dropped in appeals.
That is great news. Now my ObamaPhone does not have to be Android. Woo hoo !
It should be legal. It's not like Samsung won't have other means of recourse. They can still pursue the matter, it could still result in a settlement between the two companies. Samsung is just without a national product ban to hang over Apple's head as penalty for not agreeing to more generous licensing terms. All the president did was take the product ban off the table.That's all.
Finally someone with a clue. The ITC was dead wrong on there ban. Good job on the veto. Justice does really exist in this country.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
Was this legal? I mean, it was right, given that Apple should never have been "banned" in the first place, but was it legal to overturn?
Do some basic research into how these things work. Yes, completely legal. It wasn't a court ruling. Obama really had little to do with it. It was a decision fully within the powers of the U.S. Trade Representative, who overruled the US International Trade Commission.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stevel
what a shameful act of injustice. If you can't beat them with innovation in the market place, and if you can't beat them with litigation in the courtroom, then go running to your President for the hope you paid him enough to do the deed. What about the price fixing Apple? You think Obama will help you out with that as well? Pathetic. Guaranteed to have some backlash with markets outside of the US.
No, not really. This is a good and smart thing that was done, for various reasons including economic ones.
-QAMF
Common sense at last!!
I'm still unclear about what this is actually all about. So Samsung has a patent on something related to 3G GSM technology that Apple used in early versions of the iPhone and iPad. Did Apple refuse to pay royalties on this patent or did Samsung refuse to license it? Did Samsung offer to license to Apple but at rates far higher than other licensees were paying? Is this patent really subject to FRAND or not? Why has this gotten to this point? Who's really the bad guy here? Apple or Samsung?
I voted for him. And he has been missing in action until now.
Quote:
Originally Posted by lkrupp
I'm still unclear about what this is actually all about. So Samsung has a patent on something related to 3G GSM technology that Apple used in early versions of the iPhone and iPad. Did Apple refuse to pay royalties on this patent or did Samsung refuse to license it? Did Samsung offer to license to Apple but at rates far higher than other licensees were paying? Is this patent really subject to FRAND or not? Why has this gotten to this point? Who's really the bad guy here? Apple or Samsung?
The bad guy was ITC, which allowed itself to be used as an instrument of blackmail against the interest of the American people, they have been severely corrected, and it is going to be interesting to see the fallout.
Quote:
Originally Posted by lkrupp
I'm still unclear about what this is actually all about. So Samsung has a patent on something related to 3G GSM technology that Apple used in early versions of the iPhone and iPad. Did Apple refuse to pay royalties on this patent or did Samsung refuse to license it? Did Samsung offer to license to Apple but at rates far higher than other licensees were paying? Is this patent really subject to FRAND or not? Why has this gotten to this point? Who's really the bad guy here? Apple or Samsung?
Yes it was FRAND. Everyone knew this except ITC it seems.