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 in Favor of Apple, Older Samsung Products Facing Ban
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
So if this doesn't get vetoed will people say Obama is anti South Korea ?
No.
President Barack Obama is against import bans based on the type of patent at issue in the June ruling. U.S. courts have ruled that such patents cannot be the basis for import bans. But the ITC, which is an administrative agency and not a court, follows a different standard than the courts. The Obama administration wants the ITC to adhere to the same principles and has recommended that Congress limit the ITC's ability to impose import bans in these cases.
The patents at issue in Friday's ruling are unaffected, as they aren't of the type Obama is against.
Ah I see, so an article that was picked up and reported on by several dozen highly regarded and professional news outlets were ALL wrong simply because one Apple fan website told you so?Is this the article -- Strategy Analytics: http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/strategy-analytics-samsung-becomes-worlds-most-profitable-handset-vendor-in-q2-2013-217059871.html -- the one you're talking about?
Did you fail to read the Appleinsider article that thoroughly deconstructed that claim? As Dilger notes in that article:
We'll add you to the list of individuals who were snookered by that fundamentally flawed analysis.
Have you read Dilger's article? Did you step through his analysis? Do you have some specific challenge to the facts and reasoning that he presented?
In order for us to have an intelligent discussion on this topic, you're going to have to show us that you have actually read Dilger's article.
Yeah, fair isn't it? Samsung gets a veto, while it gets banned on patents, such as the Steve Jobs patent, that, by the way, got already reviewed and canceled by the patent office. I wonder when Samsung will wake up and stop supplying its upcoming real innovative parts, such as flexible display and 3D NAND memory.
Like let's say for rectangly things, which is in no way an essential patent when you make … things.
I don't see any intelligent discussions on here these days, it's all about you either love Apple or you are wrong, no matter the evidence supplied in your arguments.
In regards to the article, I just wanted to confirm that you believe all those professional news outlets to be wrong, because Apple insider told you so. And you have done that.
See, this is why you don't discuss or challenge things on here, you are under the belief that the article presented cold hard 'facts' to you, yet how many of those professional news outlets confirmed with the Apple Insider article and retracted their posting of the original?
The real issue is that Apple and Samsung can't seem to settle.
Apple has an inflated idea of what it's patents are worth but in return tries to say that the patents held by Samsung and others are basically worthless.
There in lies the problem with settlement.
Apple wants a billion from Samsung, but only wants to pay peanuts.
They don't even want to pay what is fair and reasonable under FRAND.
That is why Samsung asked for the ban, Apple just doesn't want to pay for the patents of others.
It's the NIV Syndrome, that is Not Invented Here Syndrome.
If Apple didn't invent it, it can't be of any real value.
The "Pinch to Zoom",etc. Would a buy a phone that didn't pinch to zoom?
Yes, because I want a different screen size that Apple does not offer.
Apple has an inflated idea of what it's patents are worth but in return tries to say that the patents held by Samsung and others are basically worthless.
There in lies the problem with settlement.
Apple wants a billion from Samsung, but only wants to pay peanuts.
They don't even want to pay what is fair and reasonable under FRAND.
That is why Samsung asked for the ban, Apple just doesn't want to pay for the patents of others.
It's the NIV Syndrome, that is Not Invented Here Syndrome.
If Apple didn't invent it, it can't be of any real value.
The "Pinch to Zoom",etc. Would a buy a phone that didn't pinch to zoom?
Yes, because I want a different screen size that Apple does not offer.
??
You're doing PRECISELY what you're accusing everyone else of doing. Rather than examining the facts and trying to present arguments why the AppleInsider article is wrong, you're dismissing it simply because it's AppleInsider.Like someone said, did you even read the article? It's not an opinion piece. He uses FACTS, and figures (taken from Samsung's reported financials itself) and goes into great depth to show that the other articles were wrong.
So please by all means, dispute the facts, and don't sit there crying because it's AppleInsider.
As, by far the biggest, Apple hater I have seen in this forum, can you please tell us in what Samsung has not overtaken Apple yet? I`m just wondering what you will say, and how you will phrase it.
It's simple really. Apple is still ahead in tablet sales (one more year perhaps). As I understand, Samsung decided to abandon desktop PC market. Apple is probably ahead in laptop profits (I am not sure about unit sales). And, Samsung does not sell software like Aperture etc. The list is quite short. Perhaps iPod should be mentioned but we do not really have any data on how much MP3 players Samsung sells (not much in USA but who knows about the rest of the World).
??
Like someone said, did you even read the article? It's not an opinion piece. He uses FACTS, and figures (taken from Samsung's reported financials itself) and goes into great depth to show that the other articles were wrong.
So please by all means, dispute the facts, and don't sit there crying because it's AppleInsider.
You see, that's what I mean, you are already of the 'opinion' you were supplied cold hard facts because a website told you so, yet several dozen of the worlds top news outlets do not agree with you, unless they retracted their story's, which you haven't stated if they did.
No point in discussing the topic with yourself as it would go no where.
No it is not. You do not need it to create a phones. FRAND is limited to essential technology - with which the device would not function. Touch screens or Apple's Multi-touch technology is not essential given that other people can use the tech in different ways and it's not even necessary. 3G radios, yes, touch screens, no.
Just try visiting tech-related web sites other than MacRumors and Apple Insider and read the comments about Apple lawsuits. The picture will become crystal clear.
*News Flash* The BMWs of the mobile world are not getting even touched, the Chevys are, but guess what, Apple does not produce Chevys while Samsung's market are full of them, considering Samsung have almost the 50% of the android market, now look at Android fragmentation... this is gonna hit Android and Samsung sooo bad.
Oh brother, what a long way to say nothing at all. Again, he used SAMSUNG'S posted FINANCIALS in his article. Goodness man. He didn't make numbers up. He used numbers that Samsung themselves released in his article.
It is glaringly obvious that you have not one single shred of evidence to dispute even the flimsiest claims in Dilger's article. Seriously, just give it a rest with your martyr shtick.
Again, you have no idea how much they sell, and that article doesn't help your point since it talks about shipments.