I read both the ITC ruling highlights and the letter that explained the overruling of the ITC ordered injunction. I'll suggest that you have not. Apple was the only one found to be abusing the FRAND process.
... of which the Whitehouse and the supporting industry players believe is flawed. That's why the President veto'ed the ban.
From Apple's perspective, they likely won't sign said deal with Samsung until Samsung stop abusing the SEPs.
Ah, so it might be OK with you if Samsung's designated patent enforcement agent pulls Apple's license and insists on more robust royalties. Or Moto does so. Or Nokia (hint: watch for that one )
Fair enough. I'll note your opinion.
... which is why it is important to lay down the ground rules and principles for SEP licensing. Once that's settled, the legislature folks couldn't care less about business agreements between companies. The agreements will spell out the specific terms. It would be business as usual.
I think if Apple violated Samsung's SEP, then Apple should be fined, but blocking Apple products is taking unfair advantage of SEP because Apple is very much a Samsung competitor and this is about competing product lines. It is also desperation to block a competitor with SEP, because you could then pretty much block everyone. Hey why not do that? Lets be king with these SEPs! ... bull poop case, raise your SEP licensing price and sue when competitors refuse to oblige.
Even Apple has never taken the position that injunctions involving SEP's are never an appropriate remedy.
You sure about that? Here's a letter written to ETSI where Apple is pretty clear you should not seek injunctions in regards to SEP's. Apple goes further to say that this applies both to IP you developed and IP that you may have acquired where the party you acquired it from also declared it as FRAND.
Why would tech companies bother making a technology a Standard then ? They might aswell keep it as an Intellectual Property instead. That way they can enforce bans right ? Would this veto result in tech never becoming SEP's ???
Why would tech companies bother making a technology a Standard then ?
They might aswell keep it as an Intellectual Property instead. That way they can enforce bans right ? Would this veto result in tech never becoming SEP's ???
Well... open source software development and royalty-free IPs exist today. We should be able to find plenty on the net.
Companies can charge for SEPs. They just can't abuse the IPs.
These IPs are adopted industry-wide quickly in a neutral fashion.
Well... open source software development and royalty-free IPs exist today. We should be able to find plenty on the net.
Companies can charge for SEPs. They just can't abuse the IPs.
I'm talking about hardware tech not becoming a standard. Like 3G or LTE or Bluetooth. What if those weren't standards and were proprietary tech ?
I wonder if that could become the new strategy tech companies use instead of making it an SEP. Simply because it allows the owner of such a tech monopoly in the business.
Even if they can't impose import ban using the SEPs, they can still continue to make money from the royalties.
There are royalty-free hardware IPs. e.g., DisplayPort.
It's up to the businesses to decide what they want to do, and how they monetize their IPs.
e.g., Before the ubiquitous TCP/IP, there were Novell Netware, Windows for Workgroup, and other proprietary network technologies.
Ah so obviously it means if a company comes out with a tech that's proprietary someone's going to make an alternate solution and make it an SEP or even just a open standard. That itself is an opportunity presenting itself.
And when that happens the company that originally made the tech proprietary would realize what a waste of money it was. And in turn face the risk of getting less relevant in the industry.
That excerpt from the Commissioner's statement has to be read in context.
All that Samsung as a SEP holder is required to do, is offer a cash price that anyone can pay. Any other deal is gravy for both sides, and as the Commissioner pointed out, is perfectly legal.
Samsung made several offers to Apple, including the 2.4% cash price, AND another offer to lower rates through cross-licensing non-FRAND patents.
The Commissioner was not saying that Samsung was wrong to make such an offer. On the contrary, he said it was okay if consensual. The Commissioner was simply stating that he didn't think it should qualify to be listed as a FRAND offer with any other FRAND offers.
In other words, he was asking, if you ignore that particular offer, do the remaining offer(s) count as FRAND offer(s)?
Mueller's article made it sound like it was the only offer. It was not.
Why bicker over that part of the offer anyway? 2.4% of the iPhone isn't a FRAND offer and we all know it. Samsung could make a true FRAND offer and get their money. They will not do that as they see this argument over their SEPs as one of the only things going for them in their larger dispute with Apple. Their designs are evolving enough to be distinct from iPhone. They could workaround most of the patent issues, offer FRAND rates and rake in cash while keeping Apple as a customer. I'm not sure what it is in their culture that is preventing this, but it is pretty bad business. I can only assume that they will continue to fight it because they intend to continue to copy or push the boundaries of doing so. Given the limited exposure they have had legally, it has not been that bad for them. The biggest hit may well be loosing Apple as a customer, but that has not happened and may actually be difficult for Apple to do completely.
There's nothing in his letter that suggests that it was primarily due to public interest. "In part" does not equal "Primarily due to".
Your trolling is getting lamer every day.
LOL. Since the trade representative made it clear that SEP injunctions might be appropriate in certain circumstances and the number one thing he wanted the ITC to pay attention to in future rulings was the public interest concerns and then noting his press quote cited the same public interest concerns too it's pretty obvious sir. The fact you have problems seeing it isn't terribly surprising to me. Perhaps you could ask a mathematician for a formula that might lead you to the answer.
EDIT: If you have a good understanding of English you won't even need a mathematician to show you how to arrive at the right answer. Just peruse the letter AI linked for you in the article itself. Page three, paragraph three if you're not a great reader or simply impatient.
Hmmmm. . .
"This decision is based on... the effect on competitive conditions in the U.S. economy and the effect on U.S. consumers". Huh. Public interest concerns just as I said.
Egregious trolling isn't a great start for you on a Sunday morning. Maybe you could tone it down at least one day a week.
My interpretation was that it was for public interest concerns, but specifically around the publics interest in SEPs not being abused as it would harm efforts going forward for standards. Standards are the a huge public interest. Without them, most technology would not be where it is.
Irrespective of what the facts of this case be, what would the general public perceive this as back in the Asian countries , when they read there local papers abusing the American government? Just another reason to side with an Asian manufacturer since the affair is going political.
In the end it all sums down to that. Public perception.
Perhaps. But it will also be a good time to observe the marketing and journalism of our era.
Is it just astroturfing and PR ?
In Asia, Samsung tried to get rid of the Taiwanese manufacturers with astroturfing techniques. It's not a unified whole to begin with.
Local competition is something that happens in every economy. I'm sure it's not any different elsewhere.
The dangers when technology is sided by a political factor is it starts becoming more of a regional sided thing than just the brand itself speaking for itself.
I am sure they are aware of this and the US government will rarely get themselves involved in such scenarios.
If they kept doing this more often it would look like protectionism.
Perhaps Samsung predicted this and knew they could win the peoples hearts in there region when news like this comes out.
Local competition is something that happens in every economy. I'm sure it's not any different elsewhere.
The dangers when technology is sided by a political factor is it starts becoming more of a regional sided thing than just the brand itself speaking for itself.
I am sure they are aware of this and the US government will rarely get themselves involved in such scenarios.
If they kept doing this more often it would look like protectionism.
Perhaps Samsung predicted this and knew they could win the peoples hearts in there region when news like this comes out.
It is not hard to predict this outcome given that the SEP abuse has been acknowledged by EU (in order to kick off the antitrust case).
In that regard, Apple and others may have anticipated this outcome too. At the end of the day, they need to do what is right.
The rest will depend on execution.
Samsung is indeed strong in Asia. Asian consumers may be blindsided but they are not stupid.
EDIT: I think Apple may be more successful if they release a bigger phone for the Asian markets though.
Comments
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy
I read both the ITC ruling highlights and the letter that explained the overruling of the ITC ordered injunction. I'll suggest that you have not. Apple was the only one found to be abusing the FRAND process.
... of which the Whitehouse and the supporting industry players believe is flawed. That's why the President veto'ed the ban.
From Apple's perspective, they likely won't sign said deal with Samsung until Samsung stop abusing the SEPs.
In EU, Samsung chose to back off:
http://www.fosspatents.com/2012/12/samsung-drops-all-requests-for.html
... but EU want a piece of Samsung anyway on antitrust grounds (for abusing SEPs).
In US, Samsung's move is "only" veto'ed by the President. No punishment yet.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy
Ah, so it might be OK with you if Samsung's designated patent enforcement agent pulls Apple's license and insists on more robust royalties. Or Moto does so. Or Nokia (hint: watch for that one
Fair enough. I'll note your opinion.
... which is why it is important to lay down the ground rules and principles for SEP licensing. Once that's settled, the legislature folks couldn't care less about business agreements between companies. The agreements will spell out the specific terms. It would be business as usual.
I think if Apple violated Samsung's SEP, then Apple should be fined, but blocking Apple products is taking unfair advantage of SEP because Apple is very much a Samsung competitor and this is about competing product lines. It is also desperation to block a competitor with SEP, because you could then pretty much block everyone. Hey why not do that? Lets be king with these SEPs! ... bull poop case, raise your SEP licensing price and sue when competitors refuse to oblige.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mechanic
Basically the above quote means to me and most reasonable people is that ..
I think you're onto something here..
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy
Even Apple has never taken the position that injunctions involving SEP's are never an appropriate remedy.
You sure about that? Here's a letter written to ETSI where Apple is pretty clear you should not seek injunctions in regards to SEP's. Apple goes further to say that this applies both to IP you developed and IP that you may have acquired where the party you acquired it from also declared it as FRAND.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/80899178/11-11-11-apple-letter-to-etsi-on-frand
They might aswell keep it as an Intellectual Property instead. That way they can enforce bans right ? Would this veto result in tech never becoming SEP's ???
Quote:
Originally Posted by nikilok
Why would tech companies bother making a technology a Standard then ?
They might aswell keep it as an Intellectual Property instead. That way they can enforce bans right ? Would this veto result in tech never becoming SEP's ???
Well... open source software development and royalty-free IPs exist today. We should be able to find plenty on the net.
Companies can charge for SEPs. They just can't abuse the IPs.
These IPs are adopted industry-wide quickly in a neutral fashion.
I wonder if that could become the new strategy tech companies use instead of making it an SEP. Simply because it allows the owner of such a tech monopoly in the business.
Quote:
Originally Posted by nikilok
I'm talking about hardware tech not becoming a standard. Like 3G or LTE or Bluetooth. What if those weren't standards and were proprietary tech ?
Even if they can't impose import ban using the SEPs, they can still continue to make money from the royalties.
There are royalty-free hardware IPs. e.g., DisplayPort.
It's up to the businesses to decide what they want to do, and how they monetize their IPs.
e.g., Before the ubiquitous TCP/IP, there were Novell Netware, Windows for Workgroup, and other proprietary network technologies.
And when that happens the company that originally made the tech proprietary would realize what a waste of money it was. And in turn face the risk of getting less relevant in the industry.
Quote:
Originally Posted by KDarling
Quote:
Originally Posted by kharvel
Actually, Samsung did. Look here:
http://www.fosspatents.com/2013/07/wheres-doj-samsung-takes-extortionate.html
No sir, Samsung did not require cross-licensing.
That excerpt from the Commissioner's statement has to be read in context.
All that Samsung as a SEP holder is required to do, is offer a cash price that anyone can pay. Any other deal is gravy for both sides, and as the Commissioner pointed out, is perfectly legal.
Samsung made several offers to Apple, including the 2.4% cash price, AND another offer to lower rates through cross-licensing non-FRAND patents.
The Commissioner was not saying that Samsung was wrong to make such an offer. On the contrary, he said it was okay if consensual. The Commissioner was simply stating that he didn't think it should qualify to be listed as a FRAND offer with any other FRAND offers.
In other words, he was asking, if you ignore that particular offer, do the remaining offer(s) count as FRAND offer(s)?
Mueller's article made it sound like it was the only offer. It was not.
Why bicker over that part of the offer anyway? 2.4% of the iPhone isn't a FRAND offer and we all know it. Samsung could make a true FRAND offer and get their money. They will not do that as they see this argument over their SEPs as one of the only things going for them in their larger dispute with Apple. Their designs are evolving enough to be distinct from iPhone. They could workaround most of the patent issues, offer FRAND rates and rake in cash while keeping Apple as a customer. I'm not sure what it is in their culture that is preventing this, but it is pretty bad business. I can only assume that they will continue to fight it because they intend to continue to copy or push the boundaries of doing so. Given the limited exposure they have had legally, it has not been that bad for them. The biggest hit may well be loosing Apple as a customer, but that has not happened and may actually be difficult for Apple to do completely.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta
IOW, you pulled it out of your a**.
There's nothing in his letter that suggests that it was primarily due to public interest. "In part" does not equal "Primarily due to".
Your trolling is getting lamer every day.
LOL. Since the trade representative made it clear that SEP injunctions might be appropriate in certain circumstances and the number one thing he wanted the ITC to pay attention to in future rulings was the public interest concerns and then noting his press quote cited the same public interest concerns too it's pretty obvious sir. The fact you have problems seeing it isn't terribly surprising to me. Perhaps you could ask a mathematician for a formula that might lead you to the answer.
EDIT: If you have a good understanding of English you won't even need a mathematician to show you how to arrive at the right answer. Just peruse the letter AI linked for you in the article itself. Page three, paragraph three if you're not a great reader or simply impatient.
Hmmmm. . .
"This decision is based on... the effect on competitive conditions in the U.S. economy and the effect on U.S. consumers". Huh. Public interest concerns just as I said.
Egregious trolling isn't a great start for you on a Sunday morning. Maybe you could tone it down at least one day a week.
My interpretation was that it was for public interest concerns, but specifically around the publics interest in SEPs not being abused as it would harm efforts going forward for standards. Standards are the a huge public interest. Without them, most technology would not be where it is.
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/south-korea-says-concerned-u-060733239.html
Damn I hope a new Cold War doesn't start up. Or has it already begun ?
It's not US specific. Samsung probaby need to settle their SEP differences with EU's antitrust team first, if not already in progress.
Just another reason to side with an Asian manufacturer since the affair is going political.
In the end it all sums down to that. Public perception.
Perhaps. But it will also be a good time to observe the marketing and journalism of our era.
Is it just astroturfing and superficial PR ?
In Asia, Samsung tried to get rid of the Taiwanese manufacturers with astroturfing tactics, and was busted. It's not a unified whole to begin with.
The dangers when technology is sided by a political factor is it starts becoming more of a regional sided thing than just the brand itself speaking for itself.
I am sure they are aware of this and the US government will rarely get themselves involved in such scenarios.
If they kept doing this more often it would look like protectionism.
Perhaps Samsung predicted this and knew they could win the peoples hearts in there region when news like this comes out.
Quote:
Originally Posted by nikilok
Local competition is something that happens in every economy. I'm sure it's not any different elsewhere.
The dangers when technology is sided by a political factor is it starts becoming more of a regional sided thing than just the brand itself speaking for itself.
I am sure they are aware of this and the US government will rarely get themselves involved in such scenarios.
If they kept doing this more often it would look like protectionism.
Perhaps Samsung predicted this and knew they could win the peoples hearts in there region when news like this comes out.
It is not hard to predict this outcome given that the SEP abuse has been acknowledged by EU (in order to kick off the antitrust case).
In that regard, Apple and others may have anticipated this outcome too. At the end of the day, they need to do what is right.
The rest will depend on execution.
Samsung is indeed strong in Asia. Asian consumers may be blindsided but they are not stupid.
EDIT: I think Apple may be more successful if they release a bigger phone for the Asian markets though.