right, politicians don't care about keeping huge corporations happy. Were you born yesterday?
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.
Verizon Lawyer Calls for Apple v. Samsung Presidential Intervention to Prevent iPhone Ban
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
right, politicians don't care about keeping huge corporations happy. Were you born yesterday?
"If the ITC finds that a product infringes even a single one, it can stop the product at the border."
So, how many planes full of iPhone 4's can Apple get in the country before August 5th? Once they are in, they're ok?
So, how many planes full of iPhone 4's can Apple get in the country before August 5th? Once they are in, they're ok?
The big problem with this whole thing is that Samsung got slapped with the same kind of import ban and had to comply.
Apple will need to comply.
What this article didnt mention is that Apple refused to license the patent from Samsung and that is why the ban was approved along with finding that they did infringe on the patent. And for those asking why wasn't Verizon phones covered, if I remember correctly, the patent was related to GSM 3G technology.
Was it for the same type of minor patent or some other major component?
What was Samsung trying to charge for the license fee? Maybe they wanted $50B. Do we have any way of know if the offer was anywhere close to reasonable?
This could be a very pressing matter if Verizon can't meet their iPhone sales commitments due to not being able to get and sell the iPhone 4/4S. I think that $14B should be a pressing matter for any corporate president.
https://www.macrumors.com/2013/07/1...-unsold-iphone-purchase-commitments-for-2013/
GL
https://www.macrumors.com/2013/07/1...-unsold-iphone-purchase-commitments-for-2013/
GL
Last edited:
Dont know what they were asking for but it is a FRAND(fair, reasonable, and non-discriminatory terms) patent so they cant ask anyone who is willing to license the patent outrageous terms. I presume it means they also cant try and charge someone more for it if they offered it for less to someone else.
I am a bit rusty -it's been ages since I worked on stuff like that- but GSM's 3G data is actually a type of CMDA, developed by Qualcomm. GSM voice uses an enhanced version of TDMA (Time division Multiple Access) that is great for voice, but does not provide a continous stream required for data, hence the data portion of GSM is actually a version of CDMA (Code division multiple access).
Can you hear me now?
It is time to reduce the legal clutter. How about legally requiring software patent trolls without an actual product or any significant ongoing work to show for a product be required to transfer the patent to the public domain rather than invalidate the patent? No opportunity to sell the trolled patent and reduced to no opportunity to regain the patent based on prior offenses. Also based on prior offenses, reduce the number of patents a party can apply for or be transferred to, creating a time based probationary period. The transfer to public domain portion would afford the opportunity to clean up multiple cases in the court system at the same time. If a party as a valid patent but is unable to prove they had been working on it or actively using it in products, while they may loose rights to sell and license, they maintain the ability to market products within the lost patent because it is not available to anyone. Basically it has some potential to hurt the good guy but has a great deal more potential to hurt the troll guy.
It will eventually create an environment where individual owners can assess the value of an individual patent and actively clean up shop and put them in the PD when the usefulness is over.
In simpler terms, some kid cannot come to the playground, claim the big red ball as his own and share with nobody. This adds a playground whistle and time out with possible after school detention for that kid, and there are no balls in time out.
As I understand the current system there isn't much of a time out area and the bully can take the ball as long as he knows he is bigger or can run better.
Perhaps Verzion has seen the future of where patent bickering is going and has seen this as a possible outcome.
It is time to reduce the legal clutter. How about legally requiring software patent trolls without an actual product or any significant ongoing work to show for a product be required to transfer the patent to the public domain rather than invalidate the patent? No opportunity to sell the trolled patent and reduced to no opportunity to regain the patent based on prior offenses. Also based on prior offenses, reduce the number of patents a party can apply for or be transferred to, creating a time based probationary period. The transfer to public domain portion would afford the opportunity to clean up multiple cases in the court system at the same time. If a party as a valid patent but is unable to prove they had been working on it or actively using it in products, while they may loose rights to sell and license, they maintain the ability to market products within the lost patent because it is not available to anyone. Basically it has some potential to hurt the good guy but has a great deal more potential to hurt the troll guy.
It will eventually create an environment where individual owners can assess the value of an individual patent and actively clean up shop and put them in the PD when the usefulness is over.
In simpler terms, some kid cannot come to the playground, claim the big red ball as his own and share with nobody. This adds a playground whistle and time out with possible after school detention for that kid, and there are no balls in time out.
As I understand the current system there isn't much of a time out area and the bully can take the ball as long as he knows he is bigger or can run better.
Perhaps Verzion has seen the future of where patent bickering is going and has seen this as a possible outcome.
I think the White House should veto the ban but might not want to because they still hold a grudge from other disputes they've had with Apple.
Well yeah, and then he'll remember he's president and the lobbyists will come calling. Come on man...
Apple already stated that same song asked too much for this frand license. Also, recent news said that Samsung is pressing apple for broad cross-licensing agreement. Probably samsung wants access to all important apple patents.
Take that as you will but what i clearly meant is that exact replicas are obviously not ok, but things as simple as pinch to zoom, or square icons, or a camera on the left side of the display are not things to argue over.
when i was a kid my best friend rode his bike passed my house with 2 wheels, i turned to my father and said take the training wheels off. so he did and guess what? i jumped on and rode as well as my friend. I even went on to become a road biker and he a hockey player. Does that mean my accomplishment wasn't as good as his? because i was second? If anything, his move to two wheels showed me that i could go even further than two wheels.
The fact that it's a rumor and not a confirmation is a pretty good reason for it to still matter for a lawyer...
Patent abuse? If it's not apple pushing people around it's patent abuse?
*Yes, I know it's not YOUR statement.
No, not the same kind of ban.
This is about Standard Essential Patents, and the threat to use them to against a company that does not agree with the terms or the amount of the royalty. It is not about whether royalty payments must be made.
The ITC is in error on this, plain and simple.