Samsung Loses $1 Billion in Market Value After U.S. Veto on Apple Ban, Files Appeal Against Patent Ruling

[pirg]

It's the opposite. Apple's suing Samsung came back and bit them in the ass with this ITC ruling, but due to unknown behind the scenes dealings the President showed that Apple is above the law. This will not go down well with a lot of people and at the end, it will hurt Apple more than you'd think.

Oh boy the conspiracy theorists have arrived. No there were no behind the scenes dealing. You should brush up on the law before making statements like this.

It should have been obvious to everyone (and it was to me) that this ridiculous ruling would be vetoed.

No point in inventing fantasies now that the law actually protected a company, apple or not.

 

[jm001]

But someone else found what is likely the reason for the government rejection of the ITC decision which you can check out at here:

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

Dissenting opinion by one of the ITC judges involved. According to this, the ITC decision was very, very wrong in the first place.

I also read that the govt. wanted them to settle this financially not with threats of import bans. As others have said these two companies have to stop already. Mind you I agree with the veto after having read that article, but the govt. stepping in is like your parents coming to your aid in a playground dispute.

 

[Noctilux.95]

Samsung would be worth 25% of its current value if it wasn't for some "Inspirational" material from its rivals.

 

[Hattig]

Samsung needs to give up.

Apple needs to pay up.

 

[mw360]

It's the opposite. Apple's suing Samsung came back and bit them in the ass with this ITC ruling, but due to unknown behind the scenes dealings the President showed that Apple is above the law. This will not go down well with a lot of people and at the end, it will hurt Apple more than you'd think.

Not really, this is just another in the long list of failures and backfires that Samsung and Motorola have suffered in their attempts to use FRAND patents as a counter-attack to Apple (and Microsoft and others). They've fared even worse in the EU where regulators were threatening to come down on them hard. Their tactic just isn't working an they're just going to have to find another. Like for example, following HTC or Nokia's lead and not stalking Apple's every move in the market.

 

[kis]

They may have bamboozled the courts, but Samsung's obvious copying of the iPhone/iPad have finally come to bite them in the ass.

Karma's a bitch.

Well, Apple was found guilty of infringing on Samsung patents. So it was Apple copying Samsung in this case, not the other way round. Honestly, if I were Samsung, I'd probably stop doing business in the US, as the US no longer offers legal equality. US laws apparently only apply to US citizens - if you're a foreigner or a foreign company living in the US or doing business there, you're toast.

 

[NanoTubeReturns]

This is getting ugly... they need to settle it asap.

 

[Toltepeceno]

It's the opposite. Apple's suing Samsung came back and bit them in the ass with this ITC ruling, but due to unknown behind the scenes dealings the President showed that Apple is above the law. This will not go down well with a lot of people and at the end, it will hurt Apple more than you'd think.

People say that Mexico is corrupt. It looks like Chicago thug politics is protecting Apple. Maybe Karma will get apple when other countries see apple is above the law in the US.

 

[Jibbajabba]

I don't even understand how this is a big deal.. Those iPads are obsolete, so is the iPhone 3G, 3GS, and the 4 will be as well in a few weeks.

I see how a 3+ year old trial, which cost millions for Apple and Samsung, should simply be cancelled based on that

 

[Hattig]

I think it is more a reaction to that Samsung's future SEP litigations will also fail.

What about what happens to companies that invest in developing patents that become SEP?

Why put your patent into a SEP pool if that means anyone can steal it and never pay, and be protected by their government?

It's a really damaging precedent.

OTOH it's clear that FRAND has worked well in the past between established parties who are happy to cross-license to reduce the fees (to token amounts), but it is a barrier to entry for other parties that don't have or wish to give up patents, because the "fair" price is high, and based upon retail price (which would tend to infinity if all licensed patents applied like that).

Note that the ITC found that Apple had infringed, and that Samsung had negotiated fairly. Those findings were not negated by the overturning of the ban. The issue is how Samsung can enforce their patent now.

 

[singhjeet29]

So Samsung loses >1% in value, that happens all day everyday all over the world with market fluctuations. Colour that inconsequential.

 

[KPOM]

Oh good grief. Samsung stock was down ~1% today. Big deal. Apple had lost billions in market value in a single day for no reason many times. This really is a non story.

Agreed. This looks like normal market fluctuations. It's mostly a moot point since it's likely the iPhone 4 is off the market next month, and all newer phones are in the clear since they are covered by existing licenses.

That said, while mostly symbolic, the veto was a fairly significant move since it is a signal that companies should avoid seeking ITC sanctions over FRAND patents.

 

[martygras9]

Samsung, Apple, and their lawyers should just pass a twenty dollar bill around in a circle. There. We're done.

 

[pirg]

Apple needs to pay up.

Pay what? And why?

 

[oliversl]

Just don't buy anything with Samsung sticker on it. Buy HTC o Motorola or LG.

 

[BaldiMac]

What about what happens to companies that invest in developing patents that become SEP?

Why put your patent into a SEP pool if that means anyone can steal it and never pay, and be protected by their government?

It's a really damaging precedent.

OTOH it's clear that FRAND has worked well in the past between established parties who are happy to cross-license to reduce the fees (to token amounts), but it is a barrier to entry for other parties that don't have or wish to give up patents, because the "fair" price is high, and based upon retail price (which would tend to infinity if all licensed patents applied like that).

Note that the ITC found that Apple had infringed, and that Samsung had negotiated fairly. Those findings were not negated by the overturning of the ban. The issue is how Samsung can enforce their patent now.

They can enforce it through a court of law and receive financial compensation. I'm not sure why this is a controversial question to you.

 

[paul4339]

Apple needs to pay up.

Yup. Apple needs to pay up ... the same price that everyone else pays.

 

[Plutonius]

I don't even understand how this is a big deal.. Those iPads are obsolete, so is the iPhone 3G, 3GS, and the 4 will be as well in a few weeks.

It's all about future litigations and FRAND.

 

[kis]

Just don't buy anything with Samsung sticker on it. Buy HTC o Motorola or LG.

My next phone is a Nokia. I like Apple hardware and I like some Android handsets (although not necessarily those made by Samsung) - but by now, I just can't stand Apple, Samsung, Google etc. anymore.

 

[bwillwall]

Not surprised. The veto was a really, really stupid thing to do. These devices aren't on sale anymore, with the exception of the iPhone 4 which is soon to be redundant too. It looks like Apple is being uniquely protected by the American government - its the sort of thing you might expect of a news report out of China, not the States.

Laws are laws; whether the patent battles are silly or not, a judge rules that a sales ban was necessary and the US government just went over their heads.

Except it's a patent they shouldn't be allowed to hold. A few weeks or not Samsung should not have won and big American companies seem to agree.

 

[pirg]

My next phone is a Nokia. I like Apple hardware and I like some Android handsets (although not necessarily those made by Samsung) - but by now, I just can't stand Apple, Samsung, Google etc. anymore.

Google is not a bad company relative to Samsung, but there are a lot of apologists for them.

Samsung is just a whole other level. Shady practices, anticompetitive behavior, stealing. Hell over the weekend they were just outed for yet ANOTHER astroturfing attempt at stackoverflow

 

[lazard]

Yup. Apple needs to pay up ... the same price that everyone else pays.

Everyone else is paying more than Apple's 33 cent offer.

 

[Josheh]

Well, Apple was found guilty of infringing on Samsung patents. So it was Apple copying Samsung in this case, not the other way round. Honestly, if I were Samsung, I'd probably stop doing business in the US, as the US no longer offers legal equality. US laws apparently only apply to US citizens - if you're a foreigner or a foreign company living in the US or doing business there, you're toast.

They were standard essential patents that couldn't be worked around. Samsung didn't engage in goof faith negations and made demands of Apple that were unrealistic.

So, apple didn't copy Samsung, not in the way that Samsung copied Apple. Like I said, standard essential patents. They're part of an industry standard. Can't be worked around. Samsung is required to license those patents to apple on fair terms, which they refused to do. This is one of the big issues that is going on, it's one of the reasons Motorola is in so much crap right now.

----------

It's the opposite. Apple's suing Samsung came back and bit them in the ass with this ITC ruling, but due to unknown behind the scenes dealings the President showed that Apple is above the law. This will not go down well with a lot of people and at the end, it will hurt Apple more than you'd think.

Apple isn't above the law. This injunction should have never been granted. Samsung was trying to extort money/patent licensing out of Apple over standard essential patents. You understand what that is right?

When there's an industry standard that gets put into place and companies sign up, they're required to license their portion of the tech under fair and reasonable terms. They can't reject anyone because it'd cause unfair competition. Samsung has been trying to bully Apple into paying unreasonable prices and has also been said to be trying to push Apple into licensing non-standard essential patents. This injunction should have never been granted. Apple didn't rip Samsung off, all they did was implement an industry standard. Samsung refused to license the patents fairly and at reasonable cost.

 

[bsolar]

It should have been obvious to everyone (and it was to me) that this ridiculous ruling would be vetoed.

I agree on the veto of the sales ban. The government has the right to veto this ridiculous ruling like it did in all other sales ban rulings due to patent infringements made in the recent past... wait a minute!

 

[Josheh]

You seem to think that the US government acted somehow outside the law. But what they did was actually exactly what they are supposed to do: When the USITC makes a decision, it is actually up to the government to either accept or reject the decision.

You should also note the fact that in the EU, Samsung was threatened with major (multi billion dollar) fines if they should attempt to ban iOS devices over standard essential patents, which is exactly what they managed to do in the USA. If Samsung had gone to a German or French equivalent of the ITC and not the US one, _Samsung_ would have received a major fine.

But someone else found what is likely the reason for the government rejection of the ITC decision which you can check out at here:

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

Dissenting opinion by one of the ITC judges involved. According to this, the ITC decision was very, very wrong in the first place.

I'm glad somebody in here gets it. Seriously people around here need to read up on this stuff before they start spouting their mouth. I'm not saying Apple acted the best during all of this, but the injunction should have never been granted. There's a reason a lot of companies stepped up and backed Apple on this.

I suggestion that all of you start following the FOSS Patents blog. http://www.fosspatents.com/ Maybe you'll gain a little better of an understanding as to what's going on between these companies.

I'm of the personal opinion that watching the patent litigation between companies shows more about those companies than the PR does. Apple has shown how childish it can be, but generally it's in the right, despite it's actions. The lawsuits it brought against Samsung were over non-essential patents. Samsung is the one that has been pushing apple over standard essential patents. The litigation between Motorola and Apple is interesting too. Another case where Apple was in the right, but played childishly and it bit them. Microsoft and Motorola on the other hand, they've been grown up about it and Motorola has been losing hard in the courts because of it. If Apple stopped playing so childishly they'd probably fair a little better.