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
You know what you should do? Hack into Apple's servers, get addresses for all the people who have bought their products, and go around and punch each one of us. No doubt that will make you feel better.
----------
Not according to laws of countries. Perhaps you have a higher source?
The problem with Apple is when ITC wanted the two companies to settle, Apple said that it is only willing to pay one penny a device for these patents together, which is at the other side of extreme ridiculous. Basically Apple was saying to ITC that "We no longer want to pay license fees for these patents".
Sounds lofty, but do you honestly think, that'll work in the dog-eat-dog real world? After all, there are Billions at stake here. With mission statements like that, company's could be having a patent free-for-all.
How is this possible? Without Apple no modern smart phones at all. What the heck was Samsung doing so big at 2007 that they think they have a huge patent deal?
Needs to be blocked, but for other reasons.
The import ban needs to be blocked. Even IF (not though) Apple did infringe on Samsung, the ban needs to be blocked.
The US ITC falls under the Executive branch. The Executive branch carries out our daily business according to the current laws.
Because the current patents are in question, they cannot act on this until the questions are answered in THE CURRENT lawsuits, in the JUDICIAL BRANCH. The US ITC cannot determine if patents were infringed until a federal court, the Judicial branch, decides if patents were infringed on by the current laws put in place by the Legislative branch.
If the US ITC is able to ban imports based on a decision they make; and the decisions and questions are working its ways through courts; THEN they are overstepping their boundaries and acting like a court without any oversight. They are setting a very dangerous president.
I know the court system sucks, but it does protect us (pick one{All/Most/Many/Some/Few/None) of the time.
The import ban needs to be blocked. Even IF (not though) Apple did infringe on Samsung, the ban needs to be blocked.
The US ITC falls under the Executive branch. The Executive branch carries out our daily business according to the current laws.
Because the current patents are in question, they cannot act on this until the questions are answered in THE CURRENT lawsuits, in the JUDICIAL BRANCH. The US ITC cannot determine if patents were infringed until a federal court, the Judicial branch, decides if patents were infringed on by the current laws put in place by the Legislative branch.
If the US ITC is able to ban imports based on a decision they make; and the decisions and questions are working its ways through courts; THEN they are overstepping their boundaries and acting like a court without any oversight. They are setting a very dangerous president.
I know the court system sucks, but it does protect us (pick one{All/Most/Many/Some/Few/None) of the time.
Last edited:
Hmmm. You realize that's not true, right? Just wishful thinking?
Also - no matter what a company does - that doesn't excuse them from violating patents. No matter how much you love the company.
Do you realize the # of patents involved, the R&D costs and YEARS of innovation in the cell industry that came BEFORE the iPhone which made the iPhone possible? You want to ignore that, go ahead. I'm glad others don't.
Yea, and Bush wouldn't have intervened if he didn't think it will help him politically.
I am not a democrat, but I know it's not about our "current" president; all politicians are the same regardless which party they come from
sorry but the people that actually live here want their president focused on things that actually matter.
The ITC specifically exists to determine if imported goods infringe on US patents. This means that it has a lot of patent experience... certainly far, far more than most courts and juries.
That experience is why the Federal Courts will often defer a patent trial until the ITC has made an infringement determination. The courts don't have to follow the ITC decision, but it can be a big influence on companies settling ahead of time.
That's why Apple is a big user of the ITC. For example, they used it to leverage HTC into a deal, by getting a ban on their imports.
That precedent was set decades ago. As for oversight, you can appeal their decisions to the President and to the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC).
Note that the ITC can only ban imports. They cannot award damages etc... that's for the Federal courts.
The fact that they can only ban imports has another ramification that no one has mentioned yet: Motorola's latest phones are being built in the US. They cannot be banned by the ITC! That might be one reason why Apple is also thinking of moving some production back here.
Full disclosure: I'm against software patents, so I don't believe in the bans, either. Just repeating what the facts are, not supporting them.
Last edited:
except once the patent is granted it is presumed valid. I don't know that the question is whether or not apple is using the patent as much as it is what should they pay to license it.
----------
Why should he start now?
Wow Bold and Useful statement, also first time I have seen anyone be Proactive rather that re-active
So we have a massive NSA/CIA scandal. Still fighting at least one war overseas. Messed up economy and this asshat wants the president to worry about celll phones?
True, although patents can be (and often are) challenged. (In fact, only 22% of patents make it through a formal reexamination process with all their original claims intact.)
In patent lawsuits, the rebuttal almost always lists possible invalidity as one of the defenses being raised. Doesn't work very often, but it's always worth a shot with the judge
During actual trials, defenses usually just try to prove that the particular claims don't apply to their product.
Exactly.
Agreed but the current president seems to be swayed by political concerns more than past presidents I'm familiar with.
Isn't that what's happening already? Companies are absorbing lawsuits and doing whatever the heck they want? What's 100 billion when yor profit is 300 billon?
Yes, don't forget Sinbad....
Anyway, if you dance on the line and it's legal, you are not a cheat. You just take advantage of every opportunity the tax laws allow.
If on the other hand you don't pay and it's illegal, then you are a cheat.
Apple has good tax accountants.
I find myself siding with those who see this as the most likely outcome:
The President will stay in line with most of his predecessors, letting the date pass without intervening in ways that would create arguments of either protectionism or fealty to foreigners.
In the meantime, Apple will file for an appeal, the appeal will gain a stay on the injunction, and by the time the matter is settled Apple will have replaced their low-end line anyway so none of it will have any material impact beyond a few million in legal fees.
The President will stay in line with most of his predecessors, letting the date pass without intervening in ways that would create arguments of either protectionism or fealty to foreigners.
In the meantime, Apple will file for an appeal, the appeal will gain a stay on the injunction, and by the time the matter is settled Apple will have replaced their low-end line anyway so none of it will have any material impact beyond a few million in legal fees.
G20 already decided to take care of so called "tax-cheaters-in-law". You might be correct as accountant from current law and loop holes prospective. But those cheaters are falsifying fake subsidiary economic status/impact/role in order to game the system. For example, I could run entire retail empire in your country, make huge profit and pay zero tax, by setting up subsidiary in Bermuda and funneling all supply chain orders through it, negating all profit with matching markup on supply made by subsidiary entity. Tax law should not attempt to cover all possible arrangement to avoid paying taxes, it should make any of such attempts illegal.
But, I was referring to the president, and he knows tax cheats depriving his treasury of revenue.
G20 do not need any law to make it leaving hell for tax cheaters, just keep suspending cheaters accounts and investigate endlessly, with every country taking turn. They will have no place to hide...
Last edited:
Verizon is asking this because it will F them big time if it goes through,they have a huge contract with apple and need to sell billions of iphones this year and next year and Verizon uses 3g cdma tech on there network and guess witch phones will be getting banned by this patent dispute?
ding ding ding
all the older iphones that Verizon is still using and selling to hit there quota with apple.
this lawyer is a joke and is only looking out for its companies sales as this patent will affect them big time.
ding ding ding
all the older iphones that Verizon is still using and selling to hit there quota with apple.
this lawyer is a joke and is only looking out for its companies sales as this patent will affect them big time.
Nope.
First off, GSM phones also use forms of CDMA for 3G. Surprise!
Secondly, the ban only affects phones with a broadband chip made by Infineon.
Verizon and later iPhones used the Qualcomm broadband chip and are not affected.