when samsung faces a loss no one cares when apple faces a loss the govt gets involved, that's totally unfair.
agreed, apple should fight like a man.
when samsung faces a loss no one cares when apple faces a loss the govt gets involved, that's totally unfair.
It seems to me the issue is narrower here. Since Samsung is required to license the technology to Apple under FRAND, this is a monetary dispute. But the ITC is not allowed to issue a monetary judgement against Apple-- their only recourse is an import ban. This appears to be in contradiction to the goals of FRAND, as it gives Samsung an incentive not to settle on reasonable terms. The result is that having a standards-essential patent is providing Samsung some undue monopoly power. That seems to be what all the third-party filings are about. I think all the third parties would be perfectly happy if the ITC imposed a monetary judgement on Apple, but that is not within their power.
It seems to me that a solution to this problem is for royalties to be fixed as part of the process of standards adoption. Then patent holders would not be able to abuse their monopoly and large manufacturers would not be able to negotiate lower royalties that disadvantage other players.....
You need to learn what trade dress is and isn't.
From the ITC : Samsung says that Apple should simply avoid the import ban, which will enter into force on August 5 absent a veto or stay, by accepting Samsung's December 2012 cross-licensing proposal -- the one Commissioner Pinkert found inconsistent with FRAND for particularly the following reason:
"Although licenses to non-FRAND-encumbered patents may certainly be included in a consensual resolution of a dispute over a FRAND-encumbered patent, it is neither fair nor non-discriminatory for the holder of the FRAND-encumbered patent to require licenses to non-FRAND-encumbered patents as a condition for licensing its patent."
over a dispute over a relatively small sum of money.
2.4% of iphone sales is "small"?
there are what? 60 million iphones sold over it's life? at a modest 650/phone,
we're talking nearly a billion dollars in potential lost revenue from the patent license.
The amounts in dispute last year in Apple v. Samsung were higher. The judge (correctly, in my view) largely avoided imposing injunctive sales bans.
Next time Apple should just pay the licensing fee like everyone else.
Apple asked Samsung $30 per phone for their worthless rounded edges and bounce back patents, so you can argue all day who is more unreasonable.
Apple went down the legal path and now it bit them in the @ss. Tough luck.
You know nothing, Jon Snow.
In fact, it does show who's more unreasonable. The fact that you deem bounce-back patents to not be essential to a phone, yet Samsung used them anyway (knowing that Apple had them patented) ...
Not only that, but this is a 3G FRAND patent. If they win this against Apple, they have grounds to cripple every single phone manufacturer that uses 3G.
Stop being so blind, this is far bigger than 'that's what you get for suing people, Apple'.
You've hit upon the crux of the dispute.
From the ITC : Samsung says that Apple should simply avoid the import ban, which will enter into force on August 5 absent a veto or stay, by accepting Samsung's December 2012 cross-licensing proposal -- the one Commissioner Pinkert found inconsistent with FRAND for particularly the following reason: "Although licenses to non-FRAND-encumbered patents may certainly be included in a consensual resolution of a dispute over a FRAND-encumbered patent, it is neither fair nor non-discriminatory for the holder of the FRAND-encumbered patent to require licenses to non-FRAND-encumbered patents as a condition for licensing its patent."
Source: http://www.fosspatents.com/2013/07/wheres-doj-samsung-takes-extortionate.html
We don't really know, what SAMSUNG asked for, and what APPLE offered, but it was reportedly the cross-licensing agreement SAMSUNG was seeking from APPLE, that was the most objectionable to the latter, as SAMSUNG would have more to gain from such an agreement.
That seems like an excellent and reasonable solution to this mess, and I might add 'fixed royalties', as in fixed $ amount per frand patent used in each handset sold, rather than fixed percentage of the price of each handset sold, which is an inequitable way to receive more royalties for the same patent, from manufacturers who include more or better additional tech, in their higher-priced handsets.
are you talking about the court case in California between Apple and Samsung that ended up with a preliminary ruling ofr over 3 Billion towards Apple?
Cause technically a few Injunctions were in place by Judge Koh, that were later overturned by higher district courts.
Guess: you drive a pickup truck in Arizona ?
Older iPhones wont be banned as Obama Administration vetoes ITC decision
On Saturday, the Obama Administration vetoed the International Trade Commissions potential ban on a few models of older Apple phones and tablets.
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/...-as-obama-administration-vetoes-itc-decision/
“Anyone who trades liberty for security deserves neither liberty nor security” - Benjamin Franklin
Might have been appropriate for the 1700s but not today.
Please explain what you mean.