No arguments, what the US government did is legal, but the next time Apple slaps a legitimate claim on Samsung in foreign countries this has got to be at the back of your mind. On the one hand, yes, the US needs to nurture American interests, but it also needs to weigh up the gain of preventing a small, relatively insignificant sales ban with the detractment to the legitimacy of patents globally which this intervention brings.
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 $1 Billion in Market Value After U.S. Veto on Apple Ban, Files Appeal Against Patent Ruling
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
No arguments, what the US government did is legal, but the next time Apple slaps a legitimate claim on Samsung in foreign countries this has got to be at the back of your mind. On the one hand, yes, the US needs to nurture American interests, but it also needs to weigh up the gain of preventing a small, relatively insignificant sales ban with the detractment to the legitimacy of patents globally which this intervention brings.
You want less competition? Notice how Samsung is the only company that is real competition for Apple in the mobile space. They're the only ones making real money.
Maybe that's why you hate them.
I think it's the implication that Samsung is not going to win one way or the other.
ASAP in the appeals world is next year!
----------
Not sure if Apple needs to pay backwards for the older models!
Yes it is a HUGE mistake by the ITC, but this is something that should have been further appealed and disputed in it's proper place. It should have gone through the proper channels.
In a huge surprise to no-one, the US government has sided with the US company in this trade dispute.
That said Samsung is full of it, probably bribed a few people in the ITC to get this ruling in the first place (hello they bribed a British judge too and got away with it, it's basically modus operandi for Sam$ung). So I suppose it is a case where two evils make a good.
In addition to a staunch defense of an American company vs. foreigners, this is also Washington's siren call to Apple... "hello, come on over, join the gang, it's not too late. You didn't think we do favors for free now did you?"
Samsung has clearly not managed to buy itself into the white house just yet. It's a signal that they need to do more. There'll be a Samsung factory on US soil soon, just wait for it....
That said Samsung is full of it, probably bribed a few people in the ITC to get this ruling in the first place (hello they bribed a British judge too and got away with it, it's basically modus operandi for Sam$ung). So I suppose it is a case where two evils make a good.
In addition to a staunch defense of an American company vs. foreigners, this is also Washington's siren call to Apple... "hello, come on over, join the gang, it's not too late. You didn't think we do favors for free now did you?"
Samsung has clearly not managed to buy itself into the white house just yet. It's a signal that they need to do more. There'll be a Samsung factory on US soil soon, just wait for it....
I hate SS because they blatantly ripped off Apples design's and on top of that, continue a deceptive and corrupt practice of lies, deceit and illegal activities, especially in Korea. On top of that, their President has already been convicted of corruption charges in the past.
Great company there they have.
At least MS has their own look with their devices and OS.
Licensing fees for the patent that they are infringing, have admitted they are infringing, and for which the ITC have said that Samsung's licensing offer is fair and reasonable.
Mistake - please. Money was flowing, that's all. It's blatantly obvious that this should never have gone through. Miraculously, it happened. Follow the money to know why.
Many are not arguing FOR this injunction, many are arguing that this is not the only case when a sales ban due to patent infringement is most likely excessive, yet is the only case in recent history where the government decided to intervene.
For what is at least the tenth time in this very thread, this is not the same as all the other sales bans. This has to do with SEPs and it is the first time a ban was granted on SEPs.
Why do ppl refuse to understand the difference??
The number of people who completely do not know what Samsung did here is mind boggling. The patents in question relate to the 2G/3G GSM/UMTS radios in the Apple products. These were provided by Infineon who had legally licensed the patents from Samsung, including the licensing on behalf of another company that their (Infineons) products were part of. After the success of the 3G/3GS/4, Samsung made the unilateral decision to invalidate the contract that Infineon had for the patents, and then asked Apple for a crazy amount (2.4 or 2.7% depending on where you read it) for each phone sold, and that was to be determined against the ENTIRE cost of the phone (almost $16 for a 16GB model!)! Are you NUTS! They could certainly ask for 2.4% of the cost of the part from Infineon, which was estimated at $11.72, which would have amounted to about 28 cents per phone, but NOT the whole cost of the iPhone. Not realistic and not fair. I would never agree to such robbery either. That is certainly NOT negotiating in good faith by Samsung.
True, but even in non-SEP cases a sales ban should be considered an extreme measure, and the government should have posed a veto. Patents in general are out of control and SEPs are simply the most egregious abuse of the system. It's good that the government finally seems to be taking action, but the whole system needs a review and a reform.
Yep. Anyone rooting for Samsung - or looking for a sinister corporation to hate - should do a little research into Samsung's history and business practices.
And we have Google to thank for providing the free weaponry with which to bulldoze every other CE company on the planet.
Not newsworthy
I adore MR, and abhor when people say "not newsworthy", but this one is bad, so for the first time I'm going to step on that pulpit that I hate.
Samsung's current Market Cap is $150 Billion dollars. A loss of $1B is less than 1% move. Leading article titles with a less than 1% move is not a good policy.
I adore MR, and abhor when people say "not newsworthy", but this one is bad, so for the first time I'm going to step on that pulpit that I hate.
Samsung's current Market Cap is $150 Billion dollars. A loss of $1B is less than 1% move. Leading article titles with a less than 1% move is not a good policy.
I respectfully disagree. Protecting patents, essentially the R&D and/or IP, of any company anywhere in the world is very, very important. Stealing is stealing and it is wrong. It can cost companies billions of dollars and jobs.
From what I've read in this case Apple is in the right, however if in another case or cases they weren't I would fully expect them to be punished.
While this is primarily a FRAND issue it sounds like you're tired of the ongoing Apple v Samsung litigations...aren't we all. However Samsung is notorious for their slavish copying of Apple (and other) products. To expect Apple to give up protecting what is rightfully theirs would be child-like.
Last edited:
I don't see anything wrong with the US government protecting our interests. Everyone else does it - EU, China or South Korea.. With import walls and localization requirements. Moreover, South Korea is no basket case agrarian economy - you should have seen them celebrating visa-free entry status into US (recognized as a sign of entering the first world). If they want to play in the big leagues, they better act like they belong and completely open up their economy.
These companies need to grow up.
Remember the 90s, with the Apple vs Microsoft battle? They made a stock deal, shared some intellectual property, and all has been well since.
Why not do the same thing with Samsung? Surely that would have a far better financial impact for both companies than wasting billions on this silly patent war.
Remember the 90s, with the Apple vs Microsoft battle? They made a stock deal, shared some intellectual property, and all has been well since.
Why not do the same thing with Samsung? Surely that would have a far better financial impact for both companies than wasting billions on this silly patent war.