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 said!
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.
Like I said. Read.
The letter linked in the original MacRumors article is from the U.S. Trade Representative, NOT the President of the United States. In the letter, he clearly states that the President delegates authority to the U.S. Trade Representative to "disapprove", "approve", or "take no action" on the exclusion order.
The President didn't do anything. And the U.S. Trade Representative DID NOT issue a "veto" - he can't. He only "disapproved" the order.
Just because MacRumors puts a misleading headline claiming a Presidential veto doesn't mean you should blindly believe it without doing a little reading.
Why you telling me? I only pointed out why the other guy may be thinking it wasn't vetoed.
EDIT: As said above, the letter clearly does not state the words veto, but states they disapprove of the UTIC decision..
Apple certainly aren't the lovable underdog anymore that's for sure.
Dear Apple, as thanks for your continued and expanding contribution to PRISM, we have vetoed your competitors lawful claim against you.
Everyone else is paying more than Apple's 33 cent offer.
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.
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).
This is the part that confuses me. The component manufacturer already paid Samsung the license fee so this is the case that Samsung is double dipping the fee.
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?
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?
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.
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.
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.
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, ...
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.
The usual ETSI rate is calculated by the price of the entire device.
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?
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.
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.
View attachment 427183
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.
Is 1 billion dollars in market value a lot of money?