ITC Rules in Favor of Apple, Older Samsung Products Facing Ban

[Medic311]

the tax dollars being spent on this back and forth patent battle between these 2 corporations is astounding. i'm afraid to even ask what the real number is. we sit back and laugh and make forum posts but no one is asking the question of how much of our tax dollars are being burned in this fiasco.

it's such a waste of time and attention on both sides. i can only imagine what innovations they could accomplish if they could shift their focus, time, and money back to the products and not to litigation. at this point, both sides are to be blamed.

the entire country needs to downsize the legal profession

 

[DeathChill]

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.

Apparently not all members of the ITC agreed with this:

http://tech.fortune.cnn.com/2013/08/05/apple-samsung-itc-pinkert/

Pinkert, a George W. Bush appointee (and a Democrat), laid out in careful detail why his fellow commissioners were wrong to order Apple to cease and desist selling those five products — including a version of the iPhone 4 that is still one of the company’s most popular – on the strength of Samsung’s complaint.

Among the reasons he cites:

The patent in question was part — and only a tiny part — of an international standard, and as such Samsung had agreed to make it available for licensing under terms that are fair, reasonable and nondiscriminatory (FRAND).

Samsung had made no effort to demonstrate that the licensing terms it offered Apple “satisfied an objective standard of reasonableness.”
That the only time Samsung made such an offer — in oral discussions in December 2012 — it came with strings attached to which Apple could not agree.

What those strings were are blacked out in the document, but Pinkert adds in the next sentence: “it is neither fair nor non-discriminatory for the holder of the FRAND-encumbered patent to require licenses to non-FRAND-encumberd patents as a condition for licensing its patent” (emphasis his).

 

[aerok]

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.

There is a reason why I prefer MR over AI, AI a couple of years ago was awfully biased and I think of the same of them today.

Although MR posts are somewhat starting to annoy me.

 

[pirg]

There is a reason why I prefer MR over AI, AI a couple of years ago was awfully biased and I think of the same of them today.

Although MR posts are somewhat starting to annoy me.

All sites can be biased at times. But to dismiss a site, especially when people are telling you that the article is based on facts just proves that you're not interested in a fact-based discussion. It was obvious that appoloa did not read Dilger's article and did not know what was contained therein because his first response to the link was "You believe AI when all these other places reported otherwise??"

I'm sorry but if someone provides a link, I'll read it before I dismiss it.

 

[Gus Van Der Mee]

Will someone please tell me why he/she hasn't been banned as of yet from MR? Not you, macs4nw, that other person.

They ban normal people instead. For breaking THE RULES. Spewing lies, starting useless 'debates' and trolling like he does is apparently ok. Another gem is winni.

 

[waltand07]

Samsung vs Apple is Bull. If Apples market share is like 0% why are they still making double and triple the revenue and profits in the smartphone market? End of discussion.

 

[iBug2]

Probably not since the US always sides with apple. Sad situation

Guess you have missed the whole eBook investigation of DOJ.

 

[HenryDJP]

They ban normal people instead. For breaking THE RULES. Spewing lies, starting useless 'debates' and trolling like he does is apparently ok. Another gem is winni.

I can't disagree with you one bit word for word.

 

[1member1]

anyone know which samsung products got banned?

 

[preyan]

Mmm...

Thing is, if Samsung never mimicked the looks (white, button), feels (many GUI traits) and GUI (appearance of icons, etc) to seem like an iPhone, they never would have gotten the massive market share they've gotten today. However, I don't think a ban will make look any more innovative. I believe the right thing to do is to:

1. Fine Samsung heavily. People learn when it hits their pockets
2. Give them a few weeks to remove stock in US and those models can stay in future if the patent infringements are addressed. Only then can those "fixed" models continue to sell in America. (It will probably get a new model number and name though)

I think Samsung Galaxy flagship phones are stunning (i own one) but I don't believe in capitalizing of someone's else's innovative thoughts and ideas (where hundreds of millions were spent on R&D alone).

 

[Sellewiet]

"It is unlikely that Samsung will get the same presidential intervention, however, as Samsung's patent violations do not involve standard-essential patents."

Yeah sure, that's the reason...

 

[jgrove]

Well no really surprise here is there?!

A US legal system sticking up for a major US company. Shock horror!

 

[UBS28]

Well Samsung, when you start making some "real innovation," then we can talk about Apple's innovation.

Real innovation from Samsung that has supposedly become essential is not real innovation?

----------

Only if the ban is based on FRAND patents.



It's not siding with Apple. It's all about FRAND patents.

No, Obama will only veto it if it's a ban on domestic companies. They even said they were afraid of loosing jobs.

----------

well no really surprise here is there?!

A us legal system sticking up for a major us company. Shock horror!

+1

 

[mccldwll]

Apple's touchscreen patent could easily be a FRAND.

Huh? Please tell me you're joking. Do you even have a clue about SEP and FRAND requirements?

 

[UBS28]

Samsung said they will fight Apple on the market place rather than in the courtroom. They seem to be confident that they can win from Apple without the courtrooms. I don't think Apple really won this.

Samsung is much more than just a design company like Apple is. While Tim Cook is celebrating his biased courtroom victory, Samsung will just continue taking over the market.

 

[the8thark]

Is this the article -- Strategy Analytics: Strategy Analytics: Samsung Becomes World's Most Profitable Handset Vendor in Q2 2013 -- 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:

"Looked at honestly, Apple and the entirety of Samsung Electronics are both making nearly equal amounts of money, but Samsung is relying on much larger volumes of lower quality products to keep up."

That is from the articles I quoted. And that is the truth here.

 

[mccldwll]

----------



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.

IIRC, that "independent analyst" was Strategy Analytics. Strategy Analytics essentially operates as a subsidiary of Samsung and should never be referred to as "independent". Samsung hasn't released smartphone shipments for a couple years now, instead relying on Strategy Analytics to release "estimates", which are subject to neither review nor verification, but which come to be accepted as actual estimates by what used to be considered reputable business publications, such as Forbes, which has become a complete joke.

 

[UBS28]

"Looked at honestly, Apple and the entirety of Samsung Electronics are both making nearly equal amounts of money, but Samsung is relying on much larger volumes of lower quality products to keep up."

That is from the articles I quoted. And that is the truth here.

If Apple makes equal amount of money from less devices sold, I don't see this as good news. It means that Apple has far higher profit margins, thus Apple products are far more overpriced than Samsung products.

 

[pirg]

If Apple makes equal amount of money from less devices sold, I don't see this as good news. It means that Apple has far higher profit margins, thus Apple products are far more overpriced than Samsung products.

Or it means that the majority of Samsung products sold are cheap lower end android phones that are used as feature phones. (And yes, that is the case)

Some higher end Samsung phones cost more than the iPhone. But let's not let those pesky facts get in the way.

 

[UBS28]

Or it means that the majority of Samsung products sold are cheap lower end android phones that are used as feature phones. (And yes, that is the case)

Some higher end Samsung phones cost more than the iPhone. But let's not let those pesky facts get in the way.

The 1 year old iPhone 5 is still the most expensive phone over here on the market ... I repeat a 1 year old iPhone 5, despite being technically inferior to the latest android phones. The iPhone 5 doesn't even work on most 4G networks.

Don't present ideas in your head as facts.

 

[pirg]

The 1 year old iPhone 5 is still the most expensive phone over here ... I repeat a 1 year old iPhone 5, despite being technically inferior to the latest android phones. The iPhone 5 doesn't even work on most 4G networks.

Sure it might be more expensive in some markets and samsung phones are more expensive in others. Not sure what your point is

And what ideas in my head have I presented as fact, pray tell

 

[UBS28]

Sure it might be more expensive in some markets and samsung phones are more expensive in others. Not sure what your point is

You're saying that some higher end Samsung phones cost more than an iPhone which you presented as a fact. Can't you see how your so called fact is invalidated?

 

[pirg]

You're saying that some higher end Samsung phones cost more than an iPhone which you presented as a fact.

Sigh. What I actually said was:

Some higher end Samsung phones cost more than the iPhone. But let's not let those pesky facts get in the way

Can't you see how your so called fact is invalidated?

No because SOME higher end Samsung phones cost more than the iPhone. Again, not sure what you think you're disputing here...

 

[kdarling]

anyone know which samsung products got banned?

The accused devices were the Galaxy S 4G, Fascinate, Transform, Captivate, Intercept, Infuse 4G, Galaxy Tab (original) and Galaxy Tab 10.1 (second model).

I don't think any of them are sold any more.

 

[pirg]

The accused devices were the Galaxy S 4G, Fascinate, Transform, Captivate, Intercept, Infuse 4G, Galaxy Tab (original) and Galaxy Tab 10.1 (second model).

I don't think any of them are sold any more.

Best Buy still sells the galaxy tab 10.1, but the rest are probably not sold. Of course the ban is not what's important.