Go Back   MacRumors Forums > News and Article Discussion > MacRumors.com News Discussion

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Old Jul 30, 2013, 03:49 AM   #101
beaniemyman
Banned
 
Join Date: May 2013
Quote:
Originally Posted by blitzer09x87 View Post
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.
beaniemyman is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jul 30, 2013, 04:53 AM   #102
macs4nw
macrumors 68020
 
macs4nw's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: On Safari…..
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gasu E. View Post
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.
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/w...ortionate.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.

Quote:
Originally Posted by thelatinist View Post
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.....
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.
__________________
Due to my aversion to bragging and clichés, no words of wisdom to be found on this line.....

Last edited by macs4nw; Jul 30, 2013 at 07:16 AM.
macs4nw is offline   1 Reply With Quote
Old Jul 30, 2013, 08:25 AM   #103
jasvncnt
macrumors 6502
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: New Jersey
Quote:
Originally Posted by Westside guy View Post
You need to learn what trade dress is and isn't.
Guess you need to learn how to "lighten up" dont you
jasvncnt is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jul 30, 2013, 09:04 AM   #104
kdarling
macrumors Demi-God
 
kdarling's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Device engineer 30+ yrs, touchscreens 23+.
Quote:
Originally Posted by macs4nw View Post
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."
The statement has to be read in context.

All that Samsung 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 quite legal.

Samsung apparently made several offers to Apple, including the 2.4% cash price, AND another offer to lower rates through cross-licensing non-FRAND patents.

He 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 consider it to qualify to be listed with other FRAND offers.

In other words, he was asking that, if you ignore that particular offer, do the remaining offer(s) count as FRAND offer(s)?

Mueller tried to make it sound like it was the only offer. It was not.
kdarling is offline   1 Reply With Quote
Old Jul 30, 2013, 09:17 AM   #105
LordVic
macrumors 65816
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: Ontario
Quote:
Originally Posted by KPOM View Post
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.
__________________
“We can't win against obsession. They care, we don't. They win.”
― Douglas Adams, Life, the Universe and Everything
LordVic is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jul 30, 2013, 12:06 PM   #106
KPOM
macrumors G3
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Quote:
Originally Posted by LordVic View Post
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.
KPOM is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jul 30, 2013, 01:21 PM   #107
LordVic
macrumors 65816
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: Ontario
Quote:
Originally Posted by KPOM View Post
The amounts in dispute last year in Apple v. Samsung were higher. The judge (correctly, in my view) largely avoided imposing injunctive sales bans.
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.
__________________
“We can't win against obsession. They care, we don't. They win.”
― Douglas Adams, Life, the Universe and Everything
LordVic is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jul 30, 2013, 02:03 PM   #108
Switchback666
macrumors 65816
 
Switchback666's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Caribbean
Quote:
Originally Posted by lazard View Post
Next time Apple should just pay the licensing fee like everyone else.
Exactly, pay the fee.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk 2

----------

Quote:
Originally Posted by ElTorro View Post
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.
If this is true... WOW! how disgusting, all that for a pos rounded edges and back ?


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk 2

----------

Quote:
Originally Posted by keysofanxiety View Post
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'.
Samsung is only hostile to apple, hell this could be a great opportunity for everyone else to join and humble down apple.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk 2
__________________
What is The B.D.S Movement ? Check it out !
FREEDOM, JUSTICE & EQUALITY !
Switchback666 is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jul 30, 2013, 02:59 PM   #109
TMay
macrumors 65816
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Carson City, NV
Quote:
Originally Posted by macs4nw View Post
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/w...ortionate.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.
Yes, both the implied access to Apple's non essential patents and the basis of the price of the finished product make this a no go for Apple.
TMay is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jul 30, 2013, 03:36 PM   #110
KPOM
macrumors G3
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Quote:
Originally Posted by LordVic View Post
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.
I believe actually Judge Koh rejected them initially, Apple appealed, and after appellate review Koh put in place 2 injunctions on some old products. Apple had to post a bond in the event that it lost (which it actually did on the two products). But by and large the judge did NOT impose sales bans on actively sold products.
KPOM is offline   1 Reply With Quote
Old Jul 30, 2013, 06:40 PM   #111
Leaping Tortois
macrumors regular
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Seems to be a fair bit of arguing over this. I was quite curious as to the terms of this until kdarling made his post. People seem to think that's ok to claim a patent is FRAND and therefore they can just use it. They can't. Samsung must license the patent under Fair, Reasonable and Non Discriminatory terms, but Apple MUST pay a Fair and Reasonable fee, they can't just claim Samsungs offer is outrageous and then use the patent anyway.

To draw analogy to the copyright field. If I write a song, compose and publish it, I have rights to make sure that nobody can claim that they wrote this song. That said if somebody wants to publish a cover, there's an obligation for me to license this as a Mechanical License with a fee. Because there's an obligation for me to provide the license, that does not mean that anyone can just make a cover and start profiting. They have to pay the fee, or else its copyright infringement. Same thing here. Apple didn't pay the fee, and therefore they've infringed on a Samsung patent.

As to the import ban. I think this is perfectly justifiable in this case. I think that apple had it coming when all those android phones (such as the galaxy nexus) had import bans placed on them for, what was it? The way you scrolled through photos in the gallery? In a case like that a just solution is to impose a set period for the company to release an update which stops the infringing patent (even if it is ridiculous).

In this case an import ban is absolutely justified. Unlike the animation for changing photos, the 3G patent is essential for sales of the iPhone. Nobody would buy an iPhone without 3G, they'd buy an iPod touch. Apple failed to negotiate for FRAND rights properly, and infringed on a patent that added an essential feature to their product. In this case it deserves to get banned.

I think a set fee for FRAND sounds good, but isn't a great idea. Many companies would want to do cross licensing of patents/copyright/general IP. They should be able to negotiate this. What's more, is that while a patent may be FRAND, it doesn't mean that it's worth a certain amount for every product. Some products would never sell without a particular FRAND patent, while others might go on just fine, the FRAND fee should reflect this. FRAND isn't a gratuity.

Last edited by Leaping Tortois; Jul 30, 2013 at 06:41 PM. Reason: Type
Leaping Tortois is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jul 30, 2013, 07:16 PM   #112
Glideslope
macrumors 68030
 
Glideslope's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: NY
Quote:
Originally Posted by i.mac View Post
Guess: you drive a pickup truck in Arizona ?
LOL, nope. I'd tell you, but you'd accuse me of being an elitist.
__________________
" A leader leads by example. Not by force." Sun Tzu
Glideslope is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Aug 4, 2013, 12:46 PM   #113
AidenShaw
macrumors G5
 
AidenShaw's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: The Peninsula
In the news:

Quote:
Older iPhones won’t be banned as Obama Administration vetoes ITC decision

On Saturday, the Obama Administration vetoed the International Trade Commission’s potential ban on a few models of older Apple phones and tablets.

http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2...-itc-decision/
__________________
6 October 2014 - the day that the debate about marriage equality ended. And equality prevailed.
nul
AidenShaw is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Aug 4, 2013, 05:16 PM   #114
otismotive77
macrumors 6502
 
Join Date: May 2013
the veto was totally unnecessary, apple should have been punished, they should have been told what it's like to sue everyone. bad decision
otismotive77 is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Aug 4, 2013, 06:24 PM   #115
IGregory
macrumors 6502a
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Quote:
Originally Posted by otismotive77 View Post
“Anyone who trades liberty for security deserves neither liberty nor security” - Benjamin Franklin
Might have been appropriate for the 1700s but not today.
__________________
The happy owner of a Mid-2012 Macbook Pro w/Retina Display, iPad Air, iPhone 6+, Apple Time Capsule, Apple TV, and Canon Photo Equipment .
IGregory is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Aug 4, 2013, 06:35 PM   #116
pirg
Banned
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Of course it was going to get vetoed. I'm really not sure why anyone could possibly think it wouldn't. Really shows a fundamental lack of understanding of anything at all if you could even imagine that such a ridiculous ruling would not be vetoed...

http://forums.macrumors.com/showpost...&postcount=158

Called it from the minute it happened. The only shocking part about all this is people thought it wouldn't be overturned...
pirg is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Aug 6, 2013, 02:38 PM   #117
otismotive77
macrumors 6502
 
Join Date: May 2013
Quote:
Originally Posted by IGregory View Post
Might have been appropriate for the 1700s but not today.
and why is that?
otismotive77 is offline   1 Reply With Quote
Old Aug 19, 2013, 10:16 AM   #118
oliversl
macrumors 6502a
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Samsung charge other manufacturers like 0.5% for the FRAND license, but Samsung is charging Apple more than that. That is not FRAND use.

Samgung will not license FRAND to Apple until Apple license not FRAND licenses to Samsung.


Quote:
Originally Posted by samcraig View Post
Please explain what you mean.
__________________
My email after a captcha in: http://tinymailto.com/oliversl
oliversl is offline   0 Reply With Quote

Reply
MacRumors Forums > News and Article Discussion > MacRumors.com News Discussion

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Similar Threads
thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Apple Reportedly Seeding iOS 7.0.3 Internally Ahead of Potential Launch Next Week MacRumors MacRumors.com News Discussion 151 Oct 21, 2013 04:58 PM
Samsung Fails to Win Presidential Veto of Potential U.S. Import Ban in Apple Patent Case MacRumors MacRumors.com News Discussion 74 Oct 12, 2013 04:13 AM
ITC Rules in Favor of Apple, Older Samsung Products Facing Ban MacRumors MacRumors.com News Discussion 181 Aug 24, 2013 11:41 AM
T-Mobile Attacked by AT&T in Newspaper Ad Ahead of Potential Rebranding MacRumors MacRumors.com News Discussion 164 Mar 6, 2013 04:00 AM
U.S. Cable Companies Reportedly Assessing Potential Infrastructure Impact of 'Imminent' Apple TV Product MacRumors MacRumors.com News Discussion 163 Nov 18, 2012 07:37 PM

Forum Jump

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 08:02 AM.

Mac Rumors | Mac | iPhone | iPhone Game Reviews | iPhone Apps

Mobile Version | Fixed | Fluid | Fluid HD
Copyright 2002-2013, MacRumors.com, LLC