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

189101113

Comments

  • Reply 241 of 280
    jragostajragosta Posts: 10,473member
    patsu wrote: »
    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).

    There's a more recent story that provides details.
    http://appleinsider.com/articles/13/08/05/samsungs-vetoed-push-for-an-itc-ban-against-apple-inc-in-pictures

    In particular, this story answers virtually every single point made by our local shills and trolls.
  • Reply 242 of 280
    erix43erix43 Posts: 3member
    @Stevel

    *If Samsung can't beat Apple at innovation? Samsung has built its career around Apple and completely tried to steal their business model, in addition, tried to acquire a patent that was never theirs! Are you brain dead? Have you not seen everything Samesung has stolen from Apple? Samesung was Apple's assistant. The assistant completely ripped off Apple, now they are trying to start Samesung stores in Best Buys like Apple Stores, even more pathetic. I can't wait for Apple to come out with a TV, so I can sell my Samesung TV. Samesung is bad business, period. Unethical business practice my friend. We live in a cold world. Now let's see how much Apple will crush Samesung at TVs.
  • Reply 243 of 280
    jungmarkjungmark Posts: 6,926member
    nikilok wrote: »
    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 ???

    Licensing brings in money. If a company doesn't offer it as SEP, another company might offer a similar tech as SEP. SEP will stop companies from trying to reinvent the wheel and gives the SEP holders monetary incentive to do so.
  • Reply 244 of 280
    gatorguygatorguy Posts: 24,176member
    jungmark wrote: »
    Licensing brings in money. If a company doesn't offer it as SEP, another company might offer a similar tech as SEP. SEP will stop companies from trying to reinvent the wheel and gives the SEP holders monetary incentive to do so.

    Nokia might be bluffing, but they claim they are no longer contributing to some standards due to SEP enforcement problems.

    "[Jenni Lukander, global head of competition law at Nokia] said the problem of “free-riding”, whereby technology companies adopt standard essential patents (SEPs) without complying with fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory (FRAND) licensing terms was a “far bigger problem” than patent holders pursuing injunctive relief. She said this behaviour was “unsustainable”, as it discouraged innovation and jeopardised standardisation.

    Because of the current atmosphere, Lukander said, Nokia has stepped back from the standardisation process, electing either not to join certain standard-setting organisations (SSOs) or not to contribute certain technologies to these organisations.

    The fact that every licence negotiation takes places “under the threat of injunction litigation” is not a sign of failure, said Lukander, but an indicator of the system working “as it was designed to work”.

    This, said [Dan Hermele, director of IP rights and licensing for Qualcomm Europe], amounted to “reverse hold-up”. “The licensor is pressured to accept less than reasonable licensing terms due to the threat of unbalanced regulatory intervention,” he said, adding that the trend was moving to an “infringe and litigate model”, which threatened to harm innovators, particularly small and medium-sized businesses, “for whom IPR is their life blood”.

    Beat Weibel, chief IP counsel at Siemens, said…innovation can only be beneficial if it occurs within a “safe and strong IP system,” he said, where a “willing licensee is favoured over a non-willing licensee” and the enforcer is not a “toothless tiger”.
  • Reply 245 of 280
    jungmarkjungmark Posts: 6,926member
    gatorguy wrote: »
    Nokia might be bluffing, but they claim they are no longer contributing to some standards due to SEP enforcement problems.

    Nokia, of all companies, should be offering its patents as SEP. it's "free money" and something we all know it needs.
  • Reply 246 of 280
    gatorguygatorguy Posts: 24,176member
    jungmark wrote: »
    Nokia, of all companies, should be offering its patents as SEP. it's "free money" and something we all know it needs.

    Nokia is saying their patents are more valuable and enforceable if they aren't FRAND-committed.
  • Reply 247 of 280
    jungmarkjungmark Posts: 6,926member
    gatorguy wrote: »
    Nokia is saying their patents are more valuable and enforceable if they aren't FRAND-committed.

    But that's kind of naive on their part. New tech will be developed and then used for a standard. Nokia isn't the only company in the world to develop cellular tech.
  • Reply 248 of 280
    gatorguygatorguy Posts: 24,176member
    jungmark wrote: »
    But that's kind of naive on their part. New tech will be developed and then used for a standard. Nokia isn't the only company in the world to develop cellular tech.

    Apple has the same general view on IP and FRAND-pledged contributions don't they? W3C has tried for some time to get Apple to contribute their applicable patents to new web standards and Apple continues to resist. So far Apple's way seems to work well for them. Perhaps Nokia is beginning to feel the same way.
  • Reply 249 of 280
    nikiloknikilok Posts: 383member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post





    Apple has the same general view on IP and FRAND-pledged contributions don't they? W3C has tried for some time to get Apple to contribute their applicable patents to new web standards and Apple continues to resist. So far Apple's way seems to work well for them. Perhaps Nokia is beginning to feel the same way.


    WebKit does that ring a bell ?


    Apple is part of the community that contributes to HTML 5 if you aren't aware.


    Canvas in html 5 is an Apple implementation that made it into standards.

  • Reply 250 of 280
    gatorguygatorguy Posts: 24,176member
    nikilok wrote: »
    WebKit does that ring a bell ?
    Apple is part of the community that contributes to HTML 5 if you aren't aware.
    Canvas in html 5 is an Apple implementation that made it into standards.

    I'm completely aware that Apple has contributed to certain standards, and I did not indicate or imply they had not. In the case of the W3C, where they count themselves a member, Apple has determined they retain a competitive advantage by declining to contribute their IP to new web standards. In other words Apple-owned IP the W3C has deemed essential to standards are more valuable to Apple if they aren't FRAND-pledged. Therefor they have no intention of contributing. Nokia may be coming around to the same view on SEP pledges.

    If you're not familiar with the issue I'll be happy to offer you a link to the discussion.
  • Reply 251 of 280

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by jragosta View Post





    There's a more recent story that provides details.

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



    In particular, this story answers virtually every single point made by our local shills and trolls.


     


    No it doesn't. You can't answer the shills as they refuse to listen to logic. And they claim Apple users are living in the "reality distortion field".

  • Reply 252 of 280

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post





    Nokia might be bluffing, but they claim they are no longer contributing to some standards due to SEP enforcement problems.

     


     


    Of course Nokia would say that. Once a world leader they are now almost irrelevant in smartphone sales. You know the old saying "a wounded animal is the most dangerous". Nokia is lashing out and their opinions on SEP's can't be taken seriously considering their position. Same holds true for Motorola, Blackberry and Ericsson.

  • Reply 253 of 280
    patsupatsu Posts: 430member
    gatorguy wrote: »
    Nokia is saying their patents are more valuable and enforceable if they aren't FRAND-committed.

    That's only true if they intend to abuse the SEPs. If they don't, nothing has changed.
  • Reply 254 of 280
    patsupatsu Posts: 430member
    gatorguy wrote: »
    Apple has the same general view on IP and FRAND-pledged contributions don't they? W3C has tried for some time to get Apple to contribute their applicable patents to new web standards and Apple continues to resist. So far Apple's way seems to work well for them. Perhaps Nokia is beginning to feel the same way.

    Need to know the specifics. The patent Samsung used to hit Apple is just a small, peripheral patent in the standards. That's why they are willing to license it out under FRAND terms.

    Without knowing what W3C want, and the implication to Apple, we won't be able to attach any value to your statement.

    Even if Apple refused, W3C still found ways to advance its standards without relying on shady, contentious SEPs. This is safer than companies trying to get their patents into SEP pool in the hope of screwing their competition in the future.

    Edit:
    The veto is consistent with EU's stance although the approach is different. In EU, not only the SEP was not enforceable, Samsung get sued by the government for abusing it. In US, the system is "kind" enough for the issue to escalate to the President. There is no antitrust investigation on Samsung.
  • Reply 255 of 280
    gatorguygatorguy Posts: 24,176member
    patsu wrote: »
    Need to know the specifics. The patent Samsung used to hit Apple is just a small, peripheral patent in the standards. That's why they are willing to license it out under FRAND terms.

    Without knowing what W3C want, and the implication to Apple, we won't be able to attach any value to your statement.

    http://www.fosspatents.com/2011/07/apples-latest-patent-foe-world-wide-web.html

    "Apple is a member of the W3C and, in that role, disclosed the fact that it holds one U.S. patent and one U.S. patent application that Apple believes read on the W3c's "Widget Access Requests Policy" specification. At the same time, Apple exercised its right to withhold those intellectual property rights. In other words, Apple refuses to make those rights available on the W3C's liberal terms. Simply put, Apple doesn't want to be restricted in any way and may want to assert those patents in its various lawsuits.

    This means the W3C can't formally adopt the "infringing" specification because its rules require patent-free or at least royalty-free standards. For now the Widget Access Request Policy is just a candidate recommendation, not a final specification yet.

    If a patent holder refuses to accept the W3C's terms, the W3C may try to have that patent invalidated (or a patent application rejected). If that effort succeeds, the specification is, again, patent-unencumbered. If not, the W3C can still evaluate possible workarounds or, if there's no workaround, give up on a standard.

    In this case, the W3C hopes to do away with Apple's relevant patent and patent application. It's an unpleasant situation for the W3C to have to confront one of its members, especially such a large and powerful one, but sometimes this can't be avoided."

    "This isn't the only issue in connection with which Apple favors the rights of patent holders over unencumbered standards: the W3C's rigid "royalty-free" policy is also a big problem in the debate over video codecs -- MPEG LA vs. the Google-led WebM. "

    " I (Mueller) guess the W3C is going to find it increasingly difficult to develop standards under its policy. There's still going to be some interest among industry players in the W3C's ability to develop its standards, but a company like Apple is certainly not the most generous contributor of patents to "free" standards, to put it mildly."
  • Reply 256 of 280
    gatorguygatorguy Posts: 24,176member
    gatorguy wrote: »
    http://www.fosspatents.com/2011/07/apples-latest-patent-foe-world-wide-web.html

    "Apple is a member of the W3C and, in that role, disclosed the fact that it holds one U.S. patent and one U.S. patent application that Apple believes read on the W3c's "Widget Access Requests Policy" specification. At the same time, Apple exercised its right to withhold those intellectual property rights. In other words, Apple refuses to make those rights available on the W3C's liberal terms. Simply put, Apple doesn't want to be restricted in any way and may want to assert those patents in its various lawsuits.

    This means the W3C can't formally adopt the "infringing" specification because its rules require patent-free or at least royalty-free standards. For now the Widget Access Request Policy is just a candidate recommendation, not a final specification yet.

    If a patent holder refuses to accept the W3C's terms, the W3C may try to have that patent invalidated (or a patent application rejected). If that effort succeeds, the specification is, again, patent-unencumbered. If not, the W3C can still evaluate possible workarounds or, if there's no workaround, give up on a standard.

    In this case, the W3C hopes to do away with Apple's relevant patent and patent application. It's an unpleasant situation for the W3C to have to confront one of its members, especially such a large and powerful one, but sometimes this can't be avoided."

    "This isn't the only issue in connection with which Apple favors the rights of patent holders over unencumbered standards: the W3C's rigid "royalty-free" policy is also a big problem in the debate over video codecs -- MPEG LA vs. the Google-led WebM. "

    " I (Mueller) guess the W3C is going to find it increasingly difficult to develop standards under its policy. There's still going to be some interest among industry players in the W3C's ability to develop its standards, but a company like Apple is certainly not the most generous contributor of patents to "free" standards, to put it mildly."

    EDIT: By the way, there is a subtle difference between FRAND-pledged and standard-essential IP. I've mistakenly mixed the two in the same discussion on occasion myself including in a previous post in this thread.
  • Reply 257 of 280
    Steval I would not be so sure. Read this link!

    http://www.mhpbooks.com/france-ebook-pricing/

    Looks like the French at least have the right idea. Stop things being sold cheap and then you can start improving quality. The problem these days seems to be business seems to be run on these principals

    1) Cut costs to the bone to get the cheapest price
    2) keep this going for as long as possible, buying up smaller players on the way
    3) when this stratergy fails SUE SUE SUE on what ever you can find.

    There are however trade offs, in this model they seem to be

    1) Quality, building cheap as possible leads to scrimping wherever possible and poor build quality. On this note one of my friends who used to be an avid anti apple guy (and still is not entirely convinced) realised the difference in quality between my iPhone 4S and his samsung galaxy S4 with its cheep plastic back and clunky interface. (His words not mine)

    2) Loss of inovation. Bigger companies buy smaller more innovative companies and all to often impose their structures stifling the very inovation the company was bought for. A better alternative would be to run the business like a group of small start ups allowing each company to continue as before with minimal intrusion . This is in complete contrast to what is happening in the bioscience sector and by he sounds of it more and more in the tech industry

    3) Eventually we end up with a few large companies pumping out incremental 'improvements' rather than truely inovative leaps. This could cause consumer apathy and so eventually loss of profits for even the largest companies

    Apple's model may not be perfect but their focus on making the best product THEY can rather than competing with others leads to great products that most peoe love. It is also a philosophy that I try and adhere to in my work. Not just designing something that works but designing something that works as well as I can make it work.

    Targets are the death of companies, goals give a company vision!
  • Reply 258 of 280
    patsupatsu Posts: 430member
    gatorguy wrote: »
    http://www.fosspatents.com/2011/07/apples-latest-patent-foe-world-wide-web.html

    "Apple is a member of the W3C and, in that role, disclosed the fact that it holds one U.S. patent and one U.S. patent application that Apple believes read on the W3c's "Widget Access Requests Policy" specification. At the same time, Apple exercised its right to withhold those intellectual property rights. In other words, Apple refuses to make those rights available on the W3C's liberal terms. Simply put, Apple doesn't want to be restricted in any way and may want to assert those patents in its various lawsuits.

    This means the W3C can't formally adopt the "infringing" specification because its rules require patent-free or at least royalty-free standards. For now the Widget Access Request Policy is just a candidate recommendation, not a final specification yet.

    If a patent holder refuses to accept the W3C's terms, the W3C may try to have that patent invalidated (or a patent application rejected). If that effort succeeds, the specification is, again, patent-unencumbered. If not, the W3C can still evaluate possible workarounds or, if there's no workaround, give up on a standard.

    In this case, the W3C hopes to do away with Apple's relevant patent and patent application. It's an unpleasant situation for the W3C to have to confront one of its members, especially such a large and powerful one, but sometimes this can't be avoided."

    "This isn't the only issue in connection with which Apple favors the rights of patent holders over unencumbered standards: the W3C's rigid "royalty-free" policy is also a big problem in the debate over video codecs -- MPEG LA vs. the Google-led WebM. "

    " I (Mueller) guess the W3C is going to find it increasingly difficult to develop standards under its policy. There's still going to be some interest among industry players in the W3C's ability to develop its standards, but a company like Apple is certainly not the most generous contributor of patents to "free" standards, to put it mildly."

    Seems to be access security for installable widgets/plugins. Given that we already have plugin and extension APIs + implementations, is this really meaningful ? Looks like people are already working around the tech.
  • Reply 259 of 280
    gatorguygatorguy Posts: 24,176member
    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

    Sorry... missed your post the first go-round.

    it looks like you may have missed the qualifier Apple included in it's supposed commitment to ETSI: It only applies if everyone else does the same. Since there's no chance at all that either Nokia or Qualcomm would agree to voluntarily give up their SEP injunction rights, and certainly Apple knows that, the letter actually means nothing and makes no commitment at all.

    If Apple truly believed what they said in the letter and were committed to it they wouldn't attach a disclaimer for an easy out. They would take the high road and not worry about what others were doing. It's gotta start somewhere but Apple isn't going to be the one to go first, nor will anyone else. For that reason and a few others it's inevitable that governments will need to step in at some point IMO. The players are not going to police themselves.
  • Reply 260 of 280
    jungmarkjungmark Posts: 6,926member
    It looked like Sammy demanded Apple's non SEP in its only negotiation. Extortion, baby! http://tech.fortune.cnn.com/2013/08/05/apple-samsung-itc-pinkert/
Sign In or Register to comment.