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.
ITC Rules Apple Infringed on Samsung Patents, Issues Cease and Desist Order for Older Apple Devices
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
The work is B.S. The system was created by and is perpetuated by lawyers to keep them getting dubious work.
To put it bluntly, this is getting totally ridiculous. I think about the incredible waste of money that is transpiring with all this mess.
I don't claim to be a patent expert, but it seems that there needs to be some serious reform in the patent space. I wonder if the way that the pharmaceutical companies do it would work better. That is, that the patent is awarded and able to be enforced for a period of time, and after that time period expires the subject of the patent becomes available for anyone to use as part of the industry. This would certainly keep pressure on technology companies to keep innovating, and not just inventing something and then sitting on it forever.
Unlike other industries, the intertwining of all these patents is going to get everything into a deadlock if they don't do something.
I don't claim to be a patent expert, but it seems that there needs to be some serious reform in the patent space. I wonder if the way that the pharmaceutical companies do it would work better. That is, that the patent is awarded and able to be enforced for a period of time, and after that time period expires the subject of the patent becomes available for anyone to use as part of the industry. This would certainly keep pressure on technology companies to keep innovating, and not just inventing something and then sitting on it forever.
Unlike other industries, the intertwining of all these patents is going to get everything into a deadlock if they don't do something.
This is an injunction over a FRAND-encumbered patent. It is going to send shockwaves through the industry, through Congress (which has written to the ITC multiple times to say they do not generally support injunctions over such patents), and throughout the world (specifically the EU).
It's also shocking that Apple's multiple infringement findings against Samsung still haven't resulted in an injunction, while Samsung apparently gets one rather easily against Apple.
I fully expect this one to be vetoed.
----------
That is how it works. The pharmaceutical industry doesn't get any kind of specially limited patents. All patents have an expiration date.
The iPad 2 3G is also still being sold.
EDIT: Refer to above.
Ah yes, thank you
But my guess is that the cheaper iPad 2 will be replaced with the iPad 3 or 4 once the iPad 5 comes out. Kind of like what Apple did with the iPhone 3GS, and what they will do with the iPhone 4 when the iPhone 5S comes out. So really, none of these products will be for sale by Apple by the time this takes affect.
Everyone also has cases in front of the ITC in order to halt sales of the offending product. Both Apple and Samsung have cases in front of the ITC although I'm not sure how the ITC supersede US patent laws (I'm also not sure if the ITC has the expertise to rule on patents).
You know there is a difference between a jury decision in a US court and the ITC ?
Not really. And even less when Apple files an appeal in Federal Court and the first move is to get an injunction to stop the injunction from being enforced
I don't know. The number of units sold must have been significant though seeing as how Apple continues to offer the product. Regardless, my post wasn't to indicate sales but just to point out that the iPad 2 is still an active product line.
If it is and was when it was being used for these products then that may be another issue that invokes an appeal attempt. And with Obama publicly coming down on patent trolls etc things could come out differently during an appeal. This might even be just the thing to get the ball rolling on the various very needed changes
and
Apple bought a Qualcomm chip, presumably Qualcomm already paid a license fee to Samsung to be able to manufacture the chip. Wouldn't this be double dipping?
Is that sentence badly worded? To me it reads that Samsung argued that the patent is a FRAND patent (i.e. essential to UMTS 3G), but Apple denied it, yet claimed that Samsung has a FRAND obligation
Does it really mean Samsung argued against the claim that '348 is FRAND?
Wait...I thought it was Samsung who always copied everything that Apple ever invented!
Didn't the ITC get the memo?
/s
----------
The judgement can be used as a basis for a later damages suit.
These willful patent infringers need to be taught a lesson.
Didn't the ITC get the memo?
/s
----------
The judgement can be used as a basis for a later damages suit.
These willful patent infringers need to be taught a lesson.
Just got a Galaxy S4 and in all honesty it makes the iPhone look like a kids toy.
If you haven't tried one then you really should. It genuinely is a far superior product and doesn't need to rely on smart marketing for features similar to Siri which frankly don't even work.
Korea > USA
If you haven't tried one then you really should. It genuinely is a far superior product and doesn't need to rely on smart marketing for features similar to Siri which frankly don't even work.
Korea > USA
Is that sentence badly worded? To me it reads that Samsung argued that the patent is a FRAND patent (i.e. essential to UMTS 3G), but Apple denied it, yet claimed that Samsung has a FRAND obligation
Does it really mean Samsung argued against the claim that '348 is FRAND?
Yeah the sentence seems badly worded or perhaps its summarizing Apple doing a two prong approach.
1st argument is that, the patent isn't an essential. 2nd argument is if it is an essential then Samsung has FRAND obligation and failed to meet it.