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
Are you seriously arguing that there is a difference between disapproving the order and a veto?
And the difference between the president issuing an order and someone acting with his authority?
Not only are you wrong, but even if you were right, you are arguing a semantic distinction without a difference.
And Samesung is demanding 16 DOLLARS when the whole Infineon chip itself only costs $11... On top of that, Infineon already pays Samesung a licensing fee for resale of the chip. See the problem now? Samesung wants to double dip, but they also want an extreme amount of money while doing it.
You, Samesung and the many, MANY Samesung shills among you, don't understand how FRAND works.
I doubt anyone at Samsung will care, given as Apple are going to have to go crawling back to them for screens.
Given the new breakthrough Samsung have made with the thickness issues, Apple will be asking for them to supply the new iPad Mini's and iPads.
Given the new breakthrough Samsung have made with the thickness issues, Apple will be asking for them to supply the new iPad Mini's and iPads.
You guys really don't understand the case...
Keep falling back on ONE analysis by Dean Pinkert. That's an opinion filed by Dean Pinkert, one of the ITC's SIX commissioners.
Which might even have been interesting, were it not for the fact that the five other commissioners thought his reasoning was total BS, and even gave a substantial explanation of just why it was bollocks in the final judgement.
There was no reason that Samsung should have made any 'effort to demonstrate that the licensing terms it offered Apple "satisfied an objective standard of reasonableness."' Apple infringed, and the onus was upon them to demonstrate that Samsung refused to negotiate a FRAND licensing settlement, and the ITC concluded that:
The Administrative Law Judge concludes that the evidence does not support Apple's allegation that Samsung failed to offer Apple licenses to Samsung's declared-essential patents on FRAND terms with a side-order of irritation at Apple's arrogance: it is not enough for Apple to say that Samsung's license offer was unreasonable based on Apple's rationale.
Furthermore, Samsung didn't require licenses in return: it may, allegedly, have proposed negotiating a cross-licensing deal, but so what? As the ITC points out, " negotiations often involve a process of offer and counteroffer before the parties arrive at an agreed price."
In fact, the ITC concludes that Apple made no effort to negotiate:
Apple's evidence does not demonstrate that Apple put forth a sincere, bona fide effort to bargain with Samsung.
Remarkably, even though Apple complains that Samsung's license offer was not FRAND, Apple has not shown that, as a member to ETSI, it ever availed itself of the process and procedures of the ETSI under Clause 4.3 of the ETSI Guide on IPRs, which provides for mediation by ETSI Members or the Secretariat.
I'm no fan of SEPs myself, but just striking down judgements because they might hit your rich donors and lobbyists is crony favouritism at best, and in many countries would be called as the blatant corruption that it is.
The ITC is the only venue in the US system that can offer time-sensistive investigation of infringement of FRAND patents, and also the only venue where the public interest is as important as the private agendas of litigants: these are the reasons it exists at all. If Obama thinks that these functions are unnecessary then he could propose to lawmakers that they modify its authorising statues (effectively abolishing it) ... but he seems to prefer to act autocratically to protect his donors rather than offering any legal argument (as usual, one might even say).
I don't think the question is whether or not the 4 is still relevant, but what the stock drop would be if their injunction was over turned. I think Apple new that would have much more of an impact.
All of that may be true, but it ignores the simple issue at the heart of the veto. Should a sales ban be used for SEPs? Any damages to Samsung can be remedied through the courts, so why is a sales ban necessary?
Not just double dipping. The usual "fair" rate is about 2% of the component, in this case 2% of about $11. Samsung wanted 2% of the whole iPhone. That means for example if you buy an iPhone with 64 GB memory instead of 16 GB, Samsung wanted more money because your phone had more RAM - which has nothing whatsoever to do with the patent.
This kind of demand would make devices that combine multiple capabilities impossible to build. Let's assume for argument's sake that a $500 iPhone is made from 50 components, each costing $10, and each covered by some patent. Apple should then pay 2% of $10 = 20 cent to each of 50 patent holders, that is $10 in total. According to Samsung's calculation, they should pay 2% of $500 = $10 to each of 50 patent holders; that's $500. In other words the total price of the phone. So Apple would have to sell it for more, say $1,000. But then everyone wants 2% of $1,000 which is 50 times $20 or $1,000 in total. You see where this goes.
----------
And the EU told Samsung that trying to get a sales ban would be anti-competitive, and if they insist on trying, there could be massive fines.
To me surely having Barack Obama vetoeing this ban means the patent system is effectively useless and doesn't mean anything anymore. If either company or any company infringes on a patent they should pay the price.
Even though this FRAND means that it has to be fair and reasonable, Barack Obama only vetoed this ban for monetary reasons as it would essentially affect the economy. It had nothing to do with whether it was fair or not towards Apple as a company. It was lifted because it didn't benefit America, which to me takes the point away from having patents.
So what happens when Apple sues Samsung for some patents and South Korea comes back and says well sorry we can't do that because it wouldn't benefit us a country?
Even though this FRAND means that it has to be fair and reasonable, Barack Obama only vetoed this ban for monetary reasons as it would essentially affect the economy. It had nothing to do with whether it was fair or not towards Apple as a company. It was lifted because it didn't benefit America, which to me takes the point away from having patents.
So what happens when Apple sues Samsung for some patents and South Korea comes back and says well sorry we can't do that because it wouldn't benefit us a country?
Apple will still pay the price. There just won't be a sales ban in the meantime.
Why would Apple sue Samsung in South Korea?
But, more important to this discussion, you should probably read more on the topic in this thread or somewhere else before assuming that the veto was arbitrary or driven by favoritism.
why are these two tech GIANTS, fighting like some 5 year olds, it's really silly.
one more thing that seems strange is that the courts also help these companies keep on fighting by letting them appeal again and again. and why are the hearing dates set so far away, looks like they love seeing these fights.
one more thing that seems strange is that the courts also help these companies keep on fighting by letting them appeal again and again. and why are the hearing dates set so far away, looks like they love seeing these fights.
the veto was unfair, apple's the one who always starts the fight, why not let them see what happens when you get beat up in a fight, an unfair and disappointing decision.
Based on what? Samsung sued Apple in this instance. In the major smartphone lawsuits, Nokia and Motorola sued Apple first. Apple sued HTC and Samsung first.
How does that equate to "always"?
What was unfair about the decision?
first samsung copies apple an then they try to ban apple's products, not in this wolrd! the $1 billion isn't the loss, it's the punishment for copying apple and then trying to ban their products. apple is the best!
. apple is the best!You mean, Sharp's IGZO screen for phone and tablets will never arrive because Sharp used up the cash from Apple to bail itself out instead?
If true, that would explain a lot.
I really don't understand why Samsung wont cut off apple completely. Hit them where it hurts as there is a shortage and Apple has no choice but to deal with Samsung.
See the latest Mini story, yet again Samsung are the only one that can match the demand from Apple.
The ITC imposed the ban because Apple could not show that it had been negotiating in good faith. Even parties that oppose injunctive relief for FRAND patents, always add that not negotiating or paying are exceptions.
So did the Executive letter that overturned the ban:
No sir. That rate idea is something Apple made up. It doesn't even make sense, as chip prices change all
the time, but the value of the IP does not.
(Btw, this was also not a case of double-dipping, as Infineon didn't have a license for the patent.)
The usual ETSI rate is calculated by the price of the entire device. As the ITC ruling noted:
This is so that the burden is fairly distributed between those makers who only profit a few dollars per phone, versus those who make far more. Otherwise, there would not have been the mass adoption of cellular by billions around the world... something that has later helped newcomers like Apple to make an incredible hundred billion dollars in profit in a few years.
Btw, this method was approved by the DOJ back in 2002:
And was later noted in testimony to Congress in 2012:
It's public record that Qualcomm charges this way. Apple pays both for the physical chip, and also pays a royalty for the IP needed to run it. However, there are reports that Apple only pays on the price they pay Foxconn per finished device (~$240), not on what Apple charges their own retailers.
Here's the order:
http://www.usitc.gov/secretary/fed_reg_notices/337/337-794_notice06042013sgl.pdf
I don't see anything about that. How do you prove that anyway?
Samsung: "I want $1 trillion. I won't consider anything less."
Apple: "No."
Does that mean Apple wasn't negotiating in good faith?
But there is no precedent. There's never been a sales ban over SEPs.
There is no useful reason for the sales ban over a SEP, since the negotiation is over price and not whether or not the patent will be licensed. Something that the courts can easily resolve without any additional harm to the SEP holder because of a lack of a sales ban.
Just because it was this way, doesn't mean it's fair now. If a car dealer was to integrate a 3G radio, should the rate be calculated on the price of the car? What about an alarm system integrated into a house?
That's just the import ban order. You have to look at the ruling that led up to it. That's where the ITC judges found that Apple had not engaged in sincere negotiations. Instead, they complained about the initial offers.
In this case, it does, since no one said they wouldn't consider anything less.
As I already noted, everyone (even the Trade Commissioner and Apple's own experts) acknowledge that reverse-holdup is cause for injunctive relief.
Otherwise potential licensees could drag things out for years.
Personally, I like what the FTC proposed for Google's FRAND patents: that if a licensee doesn't negotiate a rate within six months, then Google can proceed to try for forced arbitration. If that doesn't work, then (as the FTC said) an injunction is available.
People keep trying to bring up silly comparisons like this.
There's a clear difference between a product, and what that product is installed or carried in.
It doesn't matter if the product is installed in a car, or an airplane, or the ISS, or just carried in your hand. The rate applies to only the product.
Last edited:
Thanks!
Evidently, there is some sticking point.
I disagree. Any effect of dragging things out for years could be compensated as a result of litigation.
Seems reasonable to me.
Clear difference? How do you figure? I said it was integrated into the car or house. I didn't specify how.
Why isn't the radio the product? Why does it have to be the whole phone? How is a phone with integrated 3G different from a car with integrated 3G?
If Apple added sparkly diamonds to the case of the iPhone and sold it for $100,000, should they have to pay even more?
No. Apple dropped 3.6 billion just today - and no headlines in MacRumours over that....
(Apple has over 900 million shares outstanding - so each dollar that it rises or falls is almost a billion dollars in market value.)