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.
Samsung Loses $1 Billion in Market Value After U.S. Veto on Apple Ban, Files Appeal Against Patent Ruling
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
I encourage them to do so as I'm sure the administration will overturn any and all sales bans against Samsung as well now, right?
No I'm not kidding you. Would you like to provide your sources that there were behind the scenes dealings? Or are you just making things up?
Do you not understand that the actual law states that companies are not allowed to attach conditions to their SEPs? In this case, Samsung would only allow Apple to use their SEPs if Apple gave Samsung access to their NON-SEPs. This is against the law. Apple felt that these conditions were unacceptable ( rightly so) and created the products without licensing these patents that Samsung wouldn't allow them to license even though it was illegal for Samsung to do that.
Some people failed to understand the importance of this case. If you allow this ban to happen on some trivial patent that's standard/essential, a lot of companies will copy the same tactics to hinder their competitors. That'll definitely hurt the consumers.
MOD NOTE: I missed a word in my first mod note.
Overtly partisan political posts will be removed as Off Topic in this thread.
We do not need to know who you will vote for in 2016, whose election in 2012 might have led to a different outcome, that the members of party X support or reject this, etc....
Posts like that just lead to endless bickering and derail threads.
B
Precisely. It truly is amazing that ppl are arguing FOR this injunction. Ironically a lot of these people are the ones preaching "freedom"and "choice" from the rafters.
Correct me if I'm wrong but I think iPhone 3GS and iPads (both original and 2) are only GSM models I believe.
Only iPhone 4 was available at some point prior to the release of 4S with CDMA.
Either there's something I don't get it or... huh????
Well lets face it, you have to protect YOUR companies. Who else would supply NSA/CIA and other agencies with all those personal information
I know it's a joke but...
BOO!
By the by, to add on to my earlier comments. Here, read this.
http://www.fosspatents.com/2013/08/south-korean-government-fails-to.html
http://www.fosspatents.com/2013/08/south-korean-government-fails-to.html
and who pays 2.4%? If Apple and Samsung has a dispute for FRAND patents payments they can use the courts to resolve it.
Motorola and Microsoft had a dispute, where Motorola asked for 2.25% tried a similar ban via ITC for FRAND patents violations. The courts were able to make a ruling in time ... the court-determined royalty was pennies (0.555 cents for per unit for H.264 and 3.471 cents for 802.11) not even close to 2.25%.
The point is Apple owes Samsung and the courts should resolve it; but requesting 2.4% plus tying non-SEP into the offer; or getting their products banned is considered abuse.
For?...
----------
You clearly didn't read up on this patent case at all or you wouldn't be saying that (or you would still be saying that and look even worse).
----------
I'm not going to have enough time to respond to everyone's ignorant posts. Please read the article linked above before posting babble about how Apple is above the law and that the President was acting like Apple's parents and blah blah. Right prevailed in this case. If you look at the facts you will see that. Apple still needs to pay Samsung for the Standards Essentials Patent used in these products but not until Samsung can offer something that is FAIR.
Yes it's particularly bothersome to watch as Apple who's already stashed over 80 billion in off shore tax shelters, plus continues to sell massive quantities of their product, isn't impacted to any great degree by Samsung. Not only that Apples already ahead of the game with their stores, all the press that are on their side, and able to sell anything they build.
It's about setting limits. If Apple buys a chip from Samsung, and that chip includes firmware that Samsung wants money to use. They are asking for $16 in royalties on that, when the chip itself bought FROM Samsung costs $12. The "infringing" code is a tiny piece of that $12 chip's firmware, so they (Samsung) are REALLY overreaching, and should be very careful not to be cited for antitrust in this country. It's like the days when AT&T made the phones you had to rent in order to use the service you pay for on their phone lines.
I love Apple, but these are things better suited for courts. These sort of things backfire so easily and frequently. I think it is a grave and serious mistake. What kind of argument can we make when China or anyone else screws an American company?
Mistake, mistake mistake.
Mistake, mistake mistake.
Agree.
Anyone remember the Next Generation Aerial refueling tankers?
3 times Boeing proposed a smaller 767 based tanker.
Its competition was the larger Airbus A330 candidate.
Last time the Congress got involved and overturned the A330 design.
All the corruption around the Boeing model alone should have been grounds for dismissal, but kept going.
I guess you missed the part where Verizon and a dozen other telcoms voiced support against the ban, saying it will set precedent by other lawyers to start banning all kinds of devices for the smallest infringement.
Verizon stood to gain from this ban.