Were there "death squads" in El Salvador? Nukes in Iraq? A cult down in Waco?
If the news said you were being moved east, it's for your own protection... do you go?
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
Were there "death squads" in El Salvador? Nukes in Iraq? A cult down in Waco?
If the news said you were being moved east, it's for your own protection... do you go?
That 600 million was decided in a California kangaroo court in Apple's backyard, so I wouldn't consider it entirely unbiased. And after the Presidential veto it is very clear that Samsung will not, ever, get a fair trial here.
You guys have got to come out with better stuff. There were also kangaroo courts in Japan, Germany, Korea, and the Netherlands who found that Samsung is a blatant thief. Just accept the facts and stop trying to make excuses.
FYI: The ITC found no evidence that Samsung was behaving in a way that would have prevented Apple from gaining fair, reasonable, and nondiscriminatory pricing for a license. The ITC actually found that Apple was being unreasonable in its negotiations.
The Samsung devices should not be banned. They should license the design from Apple at 12x the average fee. 
you still drunk with that absurd piece of garbage that people call article?
pls do a google search my friend...you will find how stupid that article was. im sure plenty of ppl will now post the links...
I swear lilo777 once posted about iOS not having a file system. Don't worry, lilo777 will top that post easily.
OMG... you found it. I thought about looking for that post, but I thought nah, after a few duffs maybe I memory sticks are misfiring.
Samsung getting sued was good for Samsung and consumers.
They were pushed out of the iPhone copying game and into the king of android spot due to their finally stopping the half measures and committing to be an android market leader through their own endeavors.
This is embarrassing and pathetic and probably would have remained the status quo if not for Apple's constant litigation and forcing Samsung to change.
They were pushed out of the iPhone copying game and into the king of android spot due to their finally stopping the half measures and committing to be an android market leader through their own endeavors.
This is embarrassing and pathetic and probably would have remained the status quo if not for Apple's constant litigation and forcing Samsung to change.
An analyst report will often get picked up by business publications, without judgement as to whether it is correct or not. As it should be-- just knowing that a report exists is information of value to investors, even if the report is flawed.
Apple won but Samsung is the true winner. More than half of the phones being banned are already not in production. Hopefully this help Apple down the road
Actually, that's not quite true. Read the explanatory letter by the US Trade Rep. The gist is that the Administration believes "bans" should not be applied in FRAND cases, because the threat of a ban essentially allows the patent holder to blackmail the potential licensee into an unfavorable settlement. If the US ITC had merely awarded a financial settlement against Apple, the Administration almost surely would not have stepped in. Unfortunately, the ITC does not have the power to assign a monetary award.
I agree with this; bans should never be applied in FRAND cases. Samsung should instead have sued Apple for monetary damages in a regular court, which would have been a more appropriate way to "defend their rights", as someone said. Perhaps they are also doing that.
----------
There were actually two stories, which are getting muddled here:
1. An independent analyst estimated that Samsung was making more profits from mobile devices. It was widely reported in many media outlets that "an ndependent analyst estimated that Samsung was making more profits from mobile devices." That is a fact, of interest to investors-- an analyst did make this estimate. So?
2. A reporter independently compared balance sheets of Apple and Samsung and concluded that Samsung was more profitable in consumer electronics. This story was re-reported a few times before someone caught on to a very basic flaw, based on a misreading of Samsung's balance sheet (AppleInsider did get this right--I have an MBA, and please accept that I know how to read a financial statement, a very basic skill they teach in B-school). That story was in fact retracted.
Oh geez...not this crap again...
Some people think posting pointless arguments again and again will make it smarter...
A "FRAND" (as you call it) is by definite standard-essential. There is no "could be". It has to be basic to an official recognized standard. Moreover, these essential patents are identified at the time the standard is submitted for approval.
I also have an accounting background but won't bother checking the Apple Insider because I'm on a trip with the gf and I'll believe your words for now BUT you cannot deny that pirg's approach to this right downright comical.
"All major presses are wrong, Apple Insider said so"
Just sounds very comical to me, an approach like yours would've been more believable and unbiased.
----------
FRAND or not, the court had decided that Apple was in the wrong. Samsung's 3G tech is way more valuable and important than Apple's touchscreen tech.
Please show me where I said, or implied that "all major presses are wrong, Apple Insider said so"
I can go on and on about how you're wrong but I believe my above request should prove it, because you will not find a single instance where I said or implied anything of the sort.
So I'll wait for your reply.
So if this doesn't get vetoed will people say Obama is anti South Korea ?
no, he's against anything that's not from the US. What the administration apparently doesn't get is that the US-market largely depends on foreign tech and companies.
My bad, should've said FloatingBones, you were somewhat agreeing him and he had stopped posting hence my mistake.
No problem, I apologize for getting defensive. To be fair, Floating Bones also never implied that everyone was wrong, and Apple Insider was right. He was simply asking appoloa to stop dismissing Apple Insider just because it was Apple Insider.
Like I mentioned, AI's article wasn't an opinion piece. It was based on facts, facts that Samsung themselves provided, and appoloa (or whatever his name is) played the martyr saying "I wish I could discuss with you but it's pointless"...
The fact remains that Dilger's piece was about financials from Samsung themselves, not some speculation or numbers he made up. The fact remains that appoloa was unable to dispute any of those numbers and instead decided to dismiss AI just because it was AI.