Those are serious allegations that can get people sent to jail. What proof of this do you have.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Companies Lining Up in Support of Apple Ahead of Potential Older Model iPhone/iPad Ban in U.S.
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Those are serious allegations that can get people sent to jail. What proof of this do you have.
The idea of FRAND though cuts both ways.
yes, on one side it gives a monopoly to the patent holder. But on the other side, it forces them to license out their technology. They do not have direct control over the rates as anythign that is excessive or overbearing will be mandated to be lowered to "reasonable fees" by the courts.
its a double edged sword to hold a FRAND Patent as it inherently counters the ability of a patent holder from monopolizing in the marketplace.
If the 3g patents for example were not FRAND, the only holder was samsung, that means all phones 3g chips would have to be exclusively provided by samsung. By being forced legally to license out the tech and patents, they are allowing anyone who's willing to pay for the license to making their own 3g chips and profiting directly off the chip production.
Samsung likely could have made a lot more money if they were a monopoly in the chips. forcing FRAND changes that
What does "willing negotiation" mean, and how does it differ from ordinary negotiation?
But in any case, Apple did negotiate. I have no idea whether it was "willing negotiation" or some other kind.
I don't disagree. My "issue" is with those arguing who is in the right/wrong/etc.
It's almost irrelevant to the conversation. Is Apple using patented tech (even if it's FRAND) - yes. Are they paying for the use. No. Doesn't matter the rest of the details. Apple needs to pay.
So how much? Ah - there's the rub. That's why I suggested forced mediation. Clearly Apple wants to pay as little as possible. Samsung wants as much as possible. Since they can't agree on common ground - then all that's left is for either Apple to stop using the patents (not really plausible); Samsung to forget about upholding their patents (not really plausible) or for a 3rd party to step in and solve the issue.
My guess is no ban will actually happen because either offending products will no longer be available and/or before the 1st day of the ban, there will be an agreement.
If not - both companies lose. Apple has banned products and Samsung doesn't see any $.
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'.
This is the probably the most neutral post I have read yet. From what I remember reading on some tech site a few days ago(just google it) Samsung supposedly wanted around 2.4% of every infringing device sold. According to another poster here on the MR article a few days ago on this same import ban story said that Apple only wanted to give pennies for each device sold.
I have no idea if the tech site(cant remember which one) was correct on stating the 2.4% or if the poster from the preview MR article was correct on Apple wanting something like pennies for each sale, but supposedly both Apple and Samsung wanted extremes in both their favors for the licensing of the Samsung patents.
Since the talks broke down and Apple refused to license, the ITC granted the ban because at that point, that is the only way to enforce the patentee's rights.
Now, also supposedly so dont hold me to it, the ITC is supposed to have the two companies go through mediation first and then if nothing is resolved, a ban can be issued, but they, in theory, didnt go through mediation so that might warrant an overturning of the ban.
You equivocate IP essential to implement a particular technology (like 3G) with "real technology". That is also a FAIL.
Tech like Apple's rubber-band scrolling (first used on the iPhone) is not essential while being highly innovative. FRAND rules don't apply to real technology like that. Do you now understand the difference?
If those patents are worthless, then Samsung wouldn't need them, right?
We are all in agreement that rubber-banding is not essential -- the FRAND rules do not apply.
How does asking for a license for something that you agree is not essential possibly comparable to a dispute about IP under FRAND?
Last edited:
Unfortunately your comments are ill informed. FRAND. Research it please. Samsung is demanding 10 times the acceptable rate. They were charged in Europe for abusing this exact principle. I think you may just be looking to cause trouble in the forums.
Source? In a separate case, Apple claims Motorola wanted terms that were 12 times what it charged others.
Apple and Samsung have discussed global cross-licensing as part of the court-ordered settlement negotiations but I don't think the sides ever got close to an agreement.
A holder of a FRAND patent is not supposed to have the power to "monopolize", to set high prices or exclude competitors. So it is a monopoly only in the very narrowest sense of being a sole supplier.
Anyway, my point was really about the behavior of the third parties. Several people offered knee-jerk comments about them being in bed with Apple; but in this case, it seems to me that they are trying to move the ITC to be more consistent with the goals of FRAND. This is a high profile case and there is an opportunity to make some changes in the governance of the ITC. I dont think any of them really care that much about Apple or the iDevices.
Samsung
For a good read head here:
http://www.fosspatents.com/
For a better understanding as why
gets so much companies behind them on this matter:
http://www.fosspatents.com/2013/07/wheres-doj-samsung-takes-extortionate.html
For a good read head here:
http://www.fosspatents.com/
For a better understanding as why
gets so much companies behind them on this matter:http://www.fosspatents.com/2013/07/wheres-doj-samsung-takes-extortionate.html
AT&T versions of the iPhone 4 and iPad 2 with 3G.
I believe at one point Apple disputed the validity of the patent (as Samsung has done with some of Apple's). If it were solely a dispute about how much Apple has to pay Samsung, the federal courts are a better venue. That's essentially the message of the other companies who are petitioning for a veto of the ITC's order (or a reversal). My guess is that they'd do the same if Apple had won an import ban on a Samsung product. At one point Apple did win an import ban on some old HTC phones, but then the two parties entered into a broader licensing agreement to resolve all their patent disputes.
I'm sure Samsung's hoping that an import ban, however, short, might force Apple into entering into a cross-licensing agreement similar to Apple's with HTC, but that doesn't seem likely. With the rumored plastic iPhone looking to replace the iPhone 4 soon, it's probably not worth it for Apple (they can lower the price of the AT&T iPhone 4S in the meantime - and probably would have anyway given that we're close to an iPhone 5 refresh).
It is funny how fast people talks about bribery
For a good read head here:
http://www.fosspatents.com/
For a better understanding as why
http://www.fosspatents.com/2013/07/wheres-doj-samsung-takes-extortionate.html
No, Florian Mueller is not a good read if you want objectivity and don't want paid propaganda.
This is likely something that an upper court will need to decide.
I think a better term than "willing negotiator" would be "negotiating in good faith".
were both sides negotiating in good faith? Thats probably not something any one of us are privy too.
Negotiating in good faith means that the parties come to the table with the desire to reach a reasonable compromise. Say, Apple came to the table at 1%, Samsung at 2% and during negotatiations they were somewhere in the middle, but just couldn't agree, This would be "good faith".
However, flip side, if Samsung came to the table at 10%, and Apple at .01% and neither side budged, than that wouldn't be in good faith either.
problem is, We dont' know.
Close, but there's an important point missing. Let me provide a silly example. Suppose Samsung is charging 2.4% of every cell phone, consistent and fairly, and cell phones cost from $100-200. Now, let's says that Mercedes starts making cars with built-in cellphones; the car costs around $100K. Now Samsung asks for 2.4% of this $100K.
That's essentially what Apple's argument is-- 2.4% may be fine for a feature phones, there is a lot more added value in an iPhone, and Samsung shouldn't get royalties on the value-added. Of course, in the Mercedes case, the argument would be thrown out due to absurdity-- the car is obviously separate from the phone; in the iphone case it is more subtle, hence the different outcome.
That's fantastic, and so applicable to a handful of posters who position themselves as technical, legal or design subject matter experts, but who should just do exactly what you suggested (see this very thread for examples
)
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. I think here that it is the process that is broken.
They aren't unprecedented but they are still unusual. Intel, Verizon, et. al are more concerned about their own interests. Heck, Verizon acknowledged in its letter that it wasn't directly affected by this specific action (and conceivably could benefit for a month or two if AT&T can't sell the iPhone 4 and has no "free" product until the plastic iPhone comes out).
Patent holders like the ITC because it can act more quickly than the overloaded federal courts. However, perhaps it's time to give the ITC more available remedies, such as the ability to award monetary damages or establish a royalty rate (even if they are ultimately subject to judicial review). An import ban can continue to be a remedy, but it doesn't need to be the only one available.
----------
Florian Mueller has his own biases, but he does tend to give a thorough explanation. Plus, when he says that Apple might have an uphill battle (as he does with the pinch-to-zoom patent that was invalidated), his biases actually strengthen his opinion.
----------
Exactly. They'd probably be making the same filings if a Samsung product were about to be subject to an import ban resulting from an Apple action.
When the explanation is mixed with opinion, half trues and directly lies it is not information.
And someone that doesn't discloses that he is paid by Microsoft or Oracle in posts that imply them or the companies they are litigating loses any legitmity
Yeah, they are. Can you please point me to an injunction issued by a court for a FRAND patent?
Actually, the Court has jurisdiction to set the rate or to force mediation. Only in the case of a company willfully refusing to pay against a Court sanctioned rate agreement should that companies infringing products be banned.
Motorola against Microsoft in Germany
Phillips in Netherlands
Qualcomm against Broadcom in USA (it was appealed)
For a good read head here:
http://www.fosspatents.com/
For a better understanding as why
http://www.fosspatents.com/2013/07/wheres-doj-samsung-takes-extortionate.html
eww, no
This would explain Apple's intentions with the iPhone 5C. Can't sell older iPhones because of the ban? Make a new, low-cost phone that updates yearly similar to past iPhones.
That moment when some troll named Weed Smoker gets more up-votes then the educated folk...