President Obama vetoes Samsung ban on Apple, Inc. iPhones, iPads

1356714

Comments

  • Reply 41 of 280
    kharvelkharvel Posts: 80member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by lkrupp View Post


    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 and the enabler of the bad guy was Samsung.  


     


    Samsung offered license to Apple on non-FRAND terms.  Specifically, Samsung demanded that Apple license non-SEP Apple patents to Samsung in exchange for Samsung licensing SEP patents to Apple on presumably FRAND terms.  This is known as "tying" in the antitrust world.  Apple refused to this non-FRAND arrangement and in response, Samsung asked ITC to ban Apple products.  ITC decided that it doesn't matter what terms Samsung offered as long as Samsung offered something and proceeded to ban Apple products on that basis alone.  President smacked down ITC for being an idiot and specifically said that it does matter what the terms were and those terms have to be FRAND.  


     


    Now, the only option available to Samsung is to take Apple to court.  That is exactly what Samsung doesn't want because the courts have already ruled in a separate Motorola vs. Microsoft case (Judge Robart) that Microsoft was obligated to pay only FRAND licensing fees to Motorola which asked for non-FRAND licensing fees.  In Samsung's case, the court will determine what the FRAND licensing fees will be and will force both Apple and Samsung to accept those court terms.  

  • Reply 42 of 280
    droidftwdroidftw Posts: 1,009member
    Glad to hear this. Banning devices is too extreme a punishment that mostly hurts consumers. Getting a third party mediator to assess a monetary agreement seems like a much more sound option. Hopefully something gets worked out.
  • Reply 43 of 280
    cyniccynic Posts: 124member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by lkrupp View Post


    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? 



     


    Well, the 3G Technology patent in question is a standard essential patent to be licensed under FRAND terms.


    Apple has stated multiple times, that they'd like to license it under fair terms, i.e. the same terms as other have gotten it licensed for.


    However, Samsung failed to offer fair terms and tried to charge Apple multiple times the amount others pay for this patent and therefore Apple refused to license it.

  • Reply 44 of 280
    jungmarkjungmark Posts: 6,883member
    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 is legal for the president to overturn an ITC decision.
    lkrupp wrote: »
    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? 

    Sammy wanted Apple's first born or a relatively large licensing fee.
  • Reply 45 of 280
    froodfrood Posts: 771member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by lkrupp View Post


    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? 



     


    From what I see, as long as the courts refuse to define 'Fair and Reasonable' its a big lawyer fest.  If Samsung owns the SEP patent it thinks a high price is 'fair and reasonable.'  Apple doesn't think that's fair at all and proposes its own low price as 'fair and reasonable.'  Samsung of course does not agree with that.  Vice versa if its Apple that owns the SEP patent


     


    Neither side budges.


     


    Who is right?


     


    It depends on what your definition of 'fair and reasonable' is


     


    Apparantly the ITC reacts much quicker than the courts, but it is not actually a court- it cant impose any penalties other than either banning, or not banning.


     


    It strikes me a little bit like a court where the only option the judge has is to listen to both sides for 10 minutes and then either shoot someone or not shoot them.  So if someone commits a minor crime, or even a medium one, is the punishment too severe for the crime?


     


    It sounds to me like there was a lot of merit in overturning this one.  Did Apple skimp out on Samsung and not negotiate in full faith?  Probably a little bit, they tend to know what they can get away with :)  But does the punishment of banning them fit the crime?  A lot of prior rulings seem to indicate that it did not and was excessive on the ITC's part.


     


    In that sense it is a good overturn.  If the general sentiment is true that it can start a 'tit for tat' war between nations and the ITC as well as generally promoting the notion that SEP patents are worth less than non SEP patents there's a danger there as there will be little incentive to pursue SEP

  • Reply 46 of 280
    slurpyslurpy Posts: 5,330member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by jungmark View Post





    It is legal for the president to overturn an ITC decision.

    Sammy wanted Apple's first born or a relatively large licensing fee.


     


    Specifically, 1000x-2000x what Microsoft was paying for those exact same patents. According to the Samsung shills here, Apple should have just taken it up the ass and complied with that blatant extortion. 

  • Reply 47 of 280
    irnchrizirnchriz Posts: 1,603member
    stevel wrote: »
    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.

    1000
  • Reply 48 of 280
    Dan_DilgerDan_Dilger Posts: 1,583member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by lkrupp View Post


    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? 



     


    When companies say Apple "refused to take a license" for their FRAND patent, it means Apple said it wouldn't write them a blank check for the +1200%-more any anyone else type fees that Google's Motorola is trying to extort from Apple and Microsoft. Apple pays all sorts of licensing fees, from H.264 to licensing the swiss train station clocks represented in pixels. Apple isn't saying it won't pay, it's saying it won't be ripped off.


     


    Samsung was trying to use an ITC import ban to force Apple's hand, but given that Apple could have survived without this AT&T model of the iPhone 4 (although it would have been an annoying complication), it fought and the veto means Samsung will have to negotiate fees in front of a judge, where its efforts to extort an order of magnitude more than is FRAND will not stand, just as it didn't for Google's FRAND patent abuse. 


     


    Quote:

    Originally Posted by mrrodriguez View Post



    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.


     


    This isn't true. The reverse is: had Samsung been allowed to block sales over a FRAND shakedown, everyone in the industry would start getting held up at ban-point but patent trolls, and rather than having to argue anything in court, all they'd have to do is give the ITC officials a secret handshake to cause major import hassles to anyone doing legitimate business unless they agreed to pay the trolls whatever they had the balls to demand.


     


    It's actually in Samsung's own interest to not have such egregious BS happening at the ITC, because it would eventually come back to bite it in the ass too.

  • Reply 49 of 280
    gatorguygatorguy Posts: 23,302member
    In a news update Reuters reports that the Obama administration overturned the ITC ruling because of "public interest ramifications" rather than concerns over the fact the involved patents included at least one that was standards-essential.
  • Reply 50 of 280
    msimpson wrote: »
    That is great news.  Now my ObamaPhone does not have to be Android.  Woo hoo !

    "Obamaphone?" Really? How many times does it have to be pointed out that is from a program started LONG before Obama was elected?
  • Reply 51 of 280
    gtrgtr Posts: 3,231member


     


  • Reply 52 of 280
    tallest skiltallest skil Posts: 43,399member
    slurpy wrote: »
    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.

    The title say the opposite of what the article implies, is all.
  • Reply 53 of 280
    chris_cachris_ca Posts: 2,543member
    stevel wrote: »
    what a shameful act of injustice.
    You are right. It should have never got this far.
    The ITC is obviously blind when it comes to SEP/FRAND and Samsung should have never been granted the ban in the first place.
  • Reply 54 of 280
    superdxsuperdx Posts: 67member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by kharvel View Post


     


    The bad guy was ITC and the enabler of the bad guy was Samsung.  


     


    Samsung offered license to Apple on non-FRAND terms.  Specifically, Samsung demanded that Apple license non-SEP Apple patents to Samsung in exchange for Samsung licensing SEP patents to Apple on presumably FRAND terms.  This is known as "tying" in the antitrust world.  Apple refused to this non-FRAND arrangement and in response, Samsung asked ITC to ban Apple products.  ITC decided that it doesn't matter what terms Samsung offered as long as Samsung offered something and proceeded to ban Apple products on that basis alone.  President smacked down ITC for being an idiot and specifically said that it does matter what the terms were and those terms have to be FRAND.  


     


    Now, the only option available to Samsung is to take Apple to court.  That is exactly what Samsung doesn't want because the courts have already ruled in a separate Motorola vs. Microsoft case (Judge Robart) that Microsoft was obligated to pay only FRAND licensing fees to Motorola which asked for non-FRAND licensing fees.  In Samsung's case, the court will determine what the FRAND licensing fees will be and will force both Apple and Samsung to accept those court terms.  



     


    Thanks for this clear explanation. Been on The Verge, Engadget, Slashdot, Ars Technica and everyone seems bent on bashing Obama rather than digging through what the legal details of what happened.

  • Reply 55 of 280
    When companies say Apple "refused to take a license" for their FRAND patent, it means Apple said it wouldn't write them a blank check for the +1200%-more any anyone else type fees that Google's Motorola is trying to extort from Apple and Microsoft. Apple pays all sorts of licensing fees, from H.264 to licensing the swiss train station clocks represented in pixels. Apple isn't saying it won't pay, it's saying it won't be ripped off.

    Samsung was trying to use an ITC import ban to force Apple's hand, but given that Apple could have survived without this AT&T model of the iPhone 4 (although it would have been an annoying complication), it fought and the veto means Samsung will have to negotiate fees in front of a judge, where its efforts to extort an order of magnitude more than is FRAND will not stand, just as it didn't for Google's FRAND patent abuse. 


    This isn't true. The reverse is: had Samsung been allowed to block sales over a FRAND shakedown, everyone in the industry would start getting held up at ban-point but patent trolls, and rather than having to argue anything in court, all they'd have to do is give the ITC officials a secret handshake to cause major import hassles to anyone doing legitimate business unless they agreed to pay the trolls whatever they had the balls to demand.

    It's actually in Samsung's own interest to not have such egregious BS happening at the ITC, because it would eventually come back to bite it in the ass too.

    Or another tone AI would take would be

    "Grr the President sticking his nose where it doesn't belong. The courts decided and that should be final"

    Or

    "We all know the Obama administration got paid by Google. This is Obama returning the favor. "

    Look at the DOJ case. As soon as Apple lost all of AI was condemning the government, even Apple called its punishment punitive and draconian. The moment something is in Apples favor it's 'the right thing to do' .
  • Reply 56 of 280
    tribalogicaltribalogical Posts: 1,182member
    Hopefully the administration will step up and scold the DOJ next for its ridiculous witch hunt regarding iBooks.

    It's almost like the DOJ is saying, "Apple worked with others in the publishing industry to break Amazon's debilitating monopoly and restore 'fair trade' pricing practices to the e-book market. Since we are only capable of seeing "increased prices to the consumer", we therefore believe that Amazon's monopoly should be restored."

    Come on. Seriously?

    It seems like somewhere inside the government is a small, conspiratorial consortium going after Apple, leveraging the somewhat disingenuous perception that they are "avoiding taxes", and using DOJ and ITC rulings to exact unfair 'punishments'.

    I say, let the scoldings begin! ;)
  • Reply 57 of 280
    tribalogicaltribalogical Posts: 1,182member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Stevel View Post



    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.


     


    Wait, where's the "shameful" here? What about unfairly leveraging FRAND patents? And in case you didn't comprehend or read the article, it wasn't Apple that "ran to the President", it was a consortium of Apple's COMPETITORS, and Senators from multiple states, among others...


     


    And in addition, which you also apparently chose to ignore or didn't understand, the veto is mostly about one thing, and one thing only:


     


    "it's all about protecting the industry standard-setting system against the abusive pursuit of injunctive relief by certain players."


     


    The "certain player" they are referring to in this case is SAMSUNG. 


     


     


    But, since you clearly with or work for Samsung, I don't expect my rational response to make a difference to you.

  • Reply 58 of 280
    mhiklmhikl Posts: 471member


    Florian, I thought you were a girl and made some not-very-nice comments about your knickers. I apologise and withdraw my comments. You are my Newfoundhero for the day.


     


    Warning, FloDo not stray from the Apple way.

  • Reply 59 of 280
    tribalogicaltribalogical Posts: 1,182member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by lkrupp View Post


     


    And yet another sock puppet signs up. Hey Stevel, get thee over to C|net where you can run around in circles of rage with the other iHaters, hair on fire, flailing arms and shrieks of outrage. Really funny scene over there.



     


    Cnet forums are pretty much owned by fandroids and Samsung trolls anymore… Samsung has made it a central suppository (sic) for their "paid shill" marketing.

  • Reply 60 of 280
    qamfqamf Posts: 87member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by tribalogical View Post



    Hopefully the administration will step up and scold the DOJ next for its ridiculous witch hunt regarding iBooks.



    It's almost like the DOJ is saying, "Apple worked with others in the publishing industry to break Amazon's debilitating monopoly and restore 'fair trade' pricing practices to the e-book market. Since we are only capable of seeing "increased prices to the consumer", we therefore believe that Amazon's monopoly should be restored."



    Come on. Seriously?


    Amazon did not have a monopoly, they might have established one, they might not have provided this did not happen.



    Apple's actions caused the price of Ebooks to spike over 18% on average when implemented.  It took about 2 years for the price to fall down.  Consumers bought 12-17% (depending on which large publisher it is) less books after this happened.  NTY bestseller books rose over 42%, amazingly, Amazon's average prices rose over 14%.


    Quote: TidBITS http://tidbits.com/article/13912


    Again, there is nothing inherently illegal with the agency model, price tiers, or an MFN clause. And there isn’t even anything wrong with combining them in negotiation with a single company. The problem comes when they’re combined in negotiation with six publishers that between them control nearly 50 percent of the book market, and over 90 percent of the New York Times bestsellers.


    After five of the Big Six publishers signed Apple’s deal, they immediately went to Amazon to switch their wholesale pricing agreements to the agency model. Amazon was understandably upset about this, due to the loss of pricing control, but had no choice but to accept in the end. Subsequently, the publishers also negotiated an agency model with Google, which was similarly unhappy.


    Once the agency model was in place, ebook prices from those publishers rose immediately. Roughly two weeks after the move, prices at Amazon rose 14.2 percent for new releases, 42.7 percent for New York Times bestsellers, and 18.6 percent overall. Publishers raised prices for their hardcovers as well, to bump them into higher price tiers, and increased prices for their backlist books, older titles that sell relatively few copies each, but which form the long tail of book sales.


    Simultaneously, and in a win for the basic economic rule that higher prices result in lower sales, the number of sales dropped by 12 to 17 percent per publisher. In short, customers bought fewer books and paid more per book.


    In Judge Cote’s opinion, the combination of Apple working with all the publishers simultaneously to fix ebook prices in such a way as to cause them to rise was where Apple violated the Sherman Antitrust Act. Whether the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals upholds or strikes down Cote’s ruling remains to be seen.




    Now, Apple and other companies do sell against Amazon.  If Apple does not want to compete with Amazon that is there choice.  There could only be a monopoly if that happened.



    I fail to see what the side against what Apple did is.  Especially when 5 of the large publishers settles with the DOJ.



    Apple is a great company, every great companies make mistakes.



    -QAMF

Sign In or Register to comment.