From what has been reported previously, the ITC took what facts it wanted to use and only those to come to its judgment. After reading the above letter, I can't help but wonder how long it will be before there's an inspection of the ITC to determine how they could have come up with the decision they dod. They had no basis for it. As the president (actually his assigned investigator) vetoed of a non-court-based decision, you need to reform your question. The president has always had the ability to pardon people who were found guilty by a legitimate court. This usually happens when the president is leaving office. I'm sure this happens much more in other countries, including Switzerland.
It's very easy to believe that the ITC finding may be related to the amounts Samsung spend on lobbying in DC. Buy obviously that couldn't be the case because of the high moral standard of the people in DC profiting from the lobbying.
I also really don't like to see the leader of a country overturning it's own courts, what's the use of having them when all it takes is a veto to overturn them.
I also really don't like to see the leader of a country overturning it's own courts, what's the use of having them when all it takes is a veto to overturn them.
Then you need to have a quiet word with the South Korean leadership.
I think the reasoning was specious and that Infineon's license should have covered Apple but regardless, 2.4% of the retail price of the phone is idiotic.
It is beyond idiotic. It is greed, plain and simple.
Samsung somehow managed to convince the ITC that Intel's license was only valid in the United States, and that Intel's American sales of Infineon chips to Apple in California was not a transaction it recognized to be in the United States.
Right, the patent exhaustion defense is only applicable to sales conducted INSIDE the US.
Apple has bent over backwards to make sure most of its business is legally done OUTSIDE the US, in order to avoid paying US taxes.
Unfortunately, a company cannot always eat its cake, and keep it too. Saying that sales are based overseas in places like Ireland, comes with both pros and cons.
Quote:
Most egregiously, however, Samsung wasn't just demanding a double-dipping royalty for questionable patent claims on the baseband chip. It was demanding a royalty percentage of the full retail price of the finished product.
As noted many times before, that rate method has long been standard for ETSI patents, has some good reasons behind it, and was even approved by the US DOJ back in 2002:
So no, that was hardly "egregious". It's quite common. For example, Qualcomm's market value is greatly based upon what their current per-device percentage rates are.
Many things that might not make sense to the layman, have been policy for decades.
That's why it's not been fair to either side, that rule changes are being applied in the middle of cases.
The good thing that's coming out of all this, is that various agencies might just finally get their act together, and come up with a modern, cohesive set of rules that everyone will know ahead of time, and be applied across the board.
<span style="line-height:1.231;">Right, the patent exhaustion defense is only applicable to sales conducted INSIDE the US.</span>
<span style="line-height:1.231;">Apple has bent over backwards to make sure most of its business is legally done OUTSIDE the US, in order to avoid paying US taxes.</span>
Unfortunately, a company cannot always eat its cake, and keep it too. Saying that sales are based overseas in places like Ireland, comes with both pros and cons.
I wondered what kind of bizarre argument you'd come up with. You didn't disappoint - that it truly bizarre.
Have you seen Intel's license? Or ANY of the licenses, for that matter?
If Intel has a license for the US patent, that covers uses in the US. If the chip is manufactured by Intel in China and then shipped to the US, it would normally be covered unless the agreement says otherwise, but that would be very rare.
And shipments outside the US would be irrelevant to a US patent. Since Ireland is not involved in an iPhone which is manufactured in China and shipped to the US, you're simply throwing out ridiculous red herring arguments.
It may have resulted from them seeing "the writing on the wall" and making the decision to avoid something like what Apple and Samesung are now mired in.
I don't approve of that either, once a group of appointed representatives have made a decision, that should be it until another hearing overseeing a appeals can be seen. Mark my words, I have zero bias over any one particular company. Apple, Samsung, Sony, Nokia, Microsoft, etc. are all equal in my eyes, I have no favorites. I buy a product based on features, design and most importantly usefulness. If it seems like I'm favoring Samsung here, then it's my lack of English skills because I'm not. I'm just trying to figure out what's going on.
I don't approve of that either, once a group of appointed representatives have made a decision, that should be it until another hearing overseeing a appeals can be seen. Mark my words, I have zero bias over any one particular company. Apple, Samsung, Sony, Nokia, Microsoft, etc. are all equal in my eyes, I have no favorites. I buy a product based on features, design and most importantly usefulness. If it seems like I'm favoring Samsung here, then it's my lack of English skills because I'm not. I'm just trying to figure out what's going on.
ITC is not a court and our laws allow for the president to overturn an ITC decision. If this was a court decision, the Supreme Court has the final say if the case makes it that far.
...I have zero bias over any one particular company. Apple, Samsung, Sony, Nokia, Microsoft, etc. are all equal in my eyes, I have no favorites. I buy a product based on features, design and most importantly usefulness.
I, on the other, find that certain preferential features are tied to specific manufacturers and as such, I prefer doing business with those companies. Samesung, in my opinion, has repeatedly shown itself to be an unscrupulous company and I find that I would rather not do any business with them. Yes, I obviously realize that many of their components are in the products I buy, and that cannot be helped, but when I can help it, I avoid them like the plague. I guess what I'm trying to say is that I find certain qualities to be endemic to certain brands and when you buy a product, you are, in a way, buying into the company. Put another way, Samsung may slavishly copy Apple, but they will never be Apple.
Samsung and Motorola both have worthless patent portfolios. Sure they have a large number of patents, but they are almost all part of some standard, and therefore are useless in court as a weapon (though this hasn't stopped Samsung and Motorola from trying). With Samsung a large portion of their patent portfolio also includes all their IP to manufacture LCDS's and semiconductors. Again, useless patents in court against someone like Apple who doesn't make these components.
Here's a quote from Samsung: "In this spirit, Samsung has decided to withdraw our injunction requests against Apple on the basis of our standard essential patents pending in European courts, in the interest of protecting consumer choice."
Anyone remember when this happened? The timing of it is very interesting. Perhaps one of the shills here would like to explain why Samsung suddenly dropped all injunction requests against Apple and instead decided to go through the courts to get a settlement on license fees. Or more importantly, why Samsung dropped all the European injunction requests but kept up with the US case?
I, on the other, find that certain preferential features are tied to specific manufacturers and as such, I prefer doing business with those companies. Samesung, in my opinion, has repeatedly shown itself to be an unscrupulous company and I find that I would rather not do any business with them. Yes, I obviously realize that many of their components are in the products I buy, and that cannot be helped, but when I can help it, I avoid them like the plague. I guess what I'm trying to say is that I find certain qualities to be endemic to certain brands and when you buy a product, you are, in a way, buying into the company. Put another way, Samsung may slavishly copy Apple, but they will never be Apple.
<span style="line-height:1.231;">
As noted many times before, that rate method has long been standard for ETSI patents, has some good reasons behind it, and was even approved by the US DOJ back in 2002:
So no, that was hardly "egregious". It's quite common. For example, Qualcomm's market value is greatly based upon what their current per-device percentage rates are.
Many things that might not make sense to the layman, have been policy for decades.
That's why it's not been fair to either side, that rule changes are being applied in the middle of cases.
The good thing that's coming out of all this, is that various agencies might just finally get their act together, and come up with a modern, cohesive set of rules that everyone will know ahead of time, and be applied across the board.
Net sales. Not gross sales. Of the licensed product. The licensed product, in this case, is not the phone but the chip.
Comments
Quote:
Originally Posted by rob53
From what has been reported previously, the ITC took what facts it wanted to use and only those to come to its judgment. After reading the above letter, I can't help but wonder how long it will be before there's an inspection of the ITC to determine how they could have come up with the decision they dod. They had no basis for it. As the president (actually his assigned investigator) vetoed of a non-court-based decision, you need to reform your question. The president has always had the ability to pardon people who were found guilty by a legitimate court. This usually happens when the president is leaving office. I'm sure this happens much more in other countries, including Switzerland.
It's very easy to believe that the ITC finding may be related to the amounts Samsung spend on lobbying in DC. Buy obviously that couldn't be the case because of the high moral standard of the people in DC profiting from the lobbying.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Relic
I also really don't like to see the leader of a country overturning it's own courts, what's the use of having them when all it takes is a veto to overturn them.
Er... what 'courts' are you talking about?
Every time I read a long article on Samsung, I get this overpowering urge to wash my hands.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Relic
....my problem is it can be undone by just one guy.
This is, with all due respect, nonsense.
Nothing was 'undone' by 'one guy'. It was the office of USTR that made the decision, announced by its head.
I am never buying anything that has a Samsung label on it. Not even a broom !
Quote:
Originally Posted by Relic
I also really don't like to see the leader of a country overturning it's own courts, what's the use of having them when all it takes is a veto to overturn them.
Then you need to have a quiet word with the South Korean leadership.
http://www.engadget.com/2009/12/29/samsungs-former-chairman-pardoned-again/
Quote:
Originally Posted by TitanTiger
I think the reasoning was specious and that Infineon's license should have covered Apple but regardless, 2.4% of the retail price of the phone is idiotic.
It is beyond idiotic. It is greed, plain and simple.
A couple of historical notes:
Quote:
Originally Posted by AppleInsider
Samsung somehow managed to convince the ITC that Intel's license was only valid in the United States, and that Intel's American sales of Infineon chips to Apple in California was not a transaction it recognized to be in the United States.
Right, the patent exhaustion defense is only applicable to sales conducted INSIDE the US.
Apple has bent over backwards to make sure most of its business is legally done OUTSIDE the US, in order to avoid paying US taxes.
Unfortunately, a company cannot always eat its cake, and keep it too. Saying that sales are based overseas in places like Ireland, comes with both pros and cons.
Quote:
Most egregiously, however, Samsung wasn't just demanding a double-dipping royalty for questionable patent claims on the baseband chip. It was demanding a royalty percentage of the full retail price of the finished product.
As noted many times before, that rate method has long been standard for ETSI patents, has some good reasons behind it, and was even approved by the US DOJ back in 2002:
So no, that was hardly "egregious". It's quite common. For example, Qualcomm's market value is greatly based upon what their current per-device percentage rates are.
Many things that might not make sense to the layman, have been policy for decades.
That's why it's not been fair to either side, that rule changes are being applied in the middle of cases.
The good thing that's coming out of all this, is that various agencies might just finally get their act together, and come up with a modern, cohesive set of rules that everyone will know ahead of time, and be applied across the board.
Quote:
Originally Posted by RPT
Hey Gatorguy (alias Techstud ?) isn't it about now you come in to argue that black is white?
Can't agree with this one. There is no way Gatorguy is Techstud, Gatorguy is way smarter and much more openminded.
That's interesting, can you show where this resulted in litigation or any other proof that this happened?
I wondered what kind of bizarre argument you'd come up with. You didn't disappoint - that it truly bizarre.
Have you seen Intel's license? Or ANY of the licenses, for that matter?
If Intel has a license for the US patent, that covers uses in the US. If the chip is manufactured by Intel in China and then shipped to the US, it would normally be covered unless the agreement says otherwise, but that would be very rare.
And shipments outside the US would be irrelevant to a US patent. Since Ireland is not involved in an iPhone which is manufactured in China and shipped to the US, you're simply throwing out ridiculous red herring arguments.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Relic
That's interesting, can you show where this resulted in litigation or any other proof that this happened?
Actually, Sony and Samesung entered into a cross-licensing deal back in '04. http://www.sony.net/SonyInfo/News/Press_Archive/200412/04-1214E/
It may have resulted from them seeing "the writing on the wall" and making the decision to avoid something like what Apple and Samesung are now mired in.
I don't approve of that either, once a group of appointed representatives have made a decision, that should be it until another hearing overseeing a appeals can be seen. Mark my words, I have zero bias over any one particular company. Apple, Samsung, Sony, Nokia, Microsoft, etc. are all equal in my eyes, I have no favorites. I buy a product based on features, design and most importantly usefulness. If it seems like I'm favoring Samsung here, then it's my lack of English skills because I'm not. I'm just trying to figure out what's going on.
Another priceless article. Bravo indeed. Thank You, AI.
Samsung, good faith? Samsung?!!!!!
Those copycat idiots are busy pushing S. Korean gov. to start the WWIII!
Over a 3G patent? These are luxury goods, not warheads being snuck into North Korea.
ITC is not a court and our laws allow for the president to overturn an ITC decision. If this was a court decision, the Supreme Court has the final say if the case makes it that far.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Relic
...I have zero bias over any one particular company. Apple, Samsung, Sony, Nokia, Microsoft, etc. are all equal in my eyes, I have no favorites. I buy a product based on features, design and most importantly usefulness.
I, on the other, find that certain preferential features are tied to specific manufacturers and as such, I prefer doing business with those companies. Samesung, in my opinion, has repeatedly shown itself to be an unscrupulous company and I find that I would rather not do any business with them. Yes, I obviously realize that many of their components are in the products I buy, and that cannot be helped, but when I can help it, I avoid them like the plague. I guess what I'm trying to say is that I find certain qualities to be endemic to certain brands and when you buy a product, you are, in a way, buying into the company. Put another way, Samsung may slavishly copy Apple, but they will never be Apple.
Samsung and Motorola both have worthless patent portfolios. Sure they have a large number of patents, but they are almost all part of some standard, and therefore are useless in court as a weapon (though this hasn't stopped Samsung and Motorola from trying). With Samsung a large portion of their patent portfolio also includes all their IP to manufacture LCDS's and semiconductors. Again, useless patents in court against someone like Apple who doesn't make these components.
Here's a quote from Samsung: "In this spirit, Samsung has decided to withdraw our injunction requests against Apple on the basis of our standard essential patents pending in European courts, in the interest of protecting consumer choice."
Anyone remember when this happened? The timing of it is very interesting. Perhaps one of the shills here would like to explain why Samsung suddenly dropped all injunction requests against Apple and instead decided to go through the courts to get a settlement on license fees. Or more importantly, why Samsung dropped all the European injunction requests but kept up with the US case?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rob55
I, on the other, find that certain preferential features are tied to specific manufacturers and as such, I prefer doing business with those companies. Samesung, in my opinion, has repeatedly shown itself to be an unscrupulous company and I find that I would rather not do any business with them. Yes, I obviously realize that many of their components are in the products I buy, and that cannot be helped, but when I can help it, I avoid them like the plague. I guess what I'm trying to say is that I find certain qualities to be endemic to certain brands and when you buy a product, you are, in a way, buying into the company. Put another way, Samsung may slavishly copy Apple, but they will never be Apple.
I agree with you a 100%.
Net sales. Not gross sales. Of the licensed product. The licensed product, in this case, is not the phone but the chip.