This seems far too straight forward and reasonable...could that sort of comment actully work?
Where's the threat to sue Apple for loss of profit or the buying a company full of patents or is that too 'last week'?!?
Verizon Wireless has taken a legal stand on the side of Samsung in the ongoing war between the South Korean company and Apple over smartphones and fondleslabs. The company filed an amicus brief* at the Californian court that is hearing Apple's request for a US-wide ban on Samsung's 4G mobile products. The fruity iPhone maker …
'Interestingly, Verizon Wireless also points out that the bid to ban Samsung devices is only on those products that use next-generation networks, even though the patent at the heart of the dispute covers the way documents can be viewed on devices:'
It's not that interesting, or hard to explain. Apple can't get a preliminary injunction without being able to claim urgency. It can't claim urgency on models that had been out for a long time already. For the most part the more recent models are LTE.
This is exactly the same reason why Samsung is able to go after fast-track injunctions on the iPhone 5 but not the iPhone-4.
"In order to grant the extraordinary remedy of a preliminary injunction, this court must find that the requested relief will not do serious harm to the public interest."
I thought that Apple's whole point for bringing this case was to do serious harm to the public interest! Competition is a good thing, especially when it seems that the companies involved would rather take a flame thrower to their opposition rather than collude in price fixing with them, so surely the heart of all of these cases brought by Apple against Samsung, and vice versa are purely designed to deny the public a choice in this matter.
I don't know why Apple can't accept that the customer can tell the difference between two similar products and make an educated choice. I'm disappointed to see that Samsung have responded in kind, surely the smart move here would of been to fight Apple in another way rather than sink to their level.
By highlighting that Apple are being selective to take advantage of the urgency flag they are hoping to blunt the attack. Quite cunning really as it is appears to threaten both sides (Samsung could be hit on all offending items - Apple could lose the Urgent tag) but is most likely to achieve a breathing space which is very much in Samsung's favour as the FUD could evaporate with a bit of daylight on it.
Can you come up with a realistic, sensible approach that might have worked? It seems to me that Samsung have taken the only path that was open to them, and in using a selection of proper, defensible patents based on technological innovation rather than the stupid look n' feel ones that Apple chose, Samsung have usefully highlighted just how desperate and vicious Apple are being.
"It seems to me that Samsung have taken the only path that was open to them, and in using a selection of proper, defensible patents based on technological innovation "
All fine and dandy, save for the fact that the the patents Samsung are using to "protect themselves" are part of the 3G standard, so they are committed to licensing them on FRAND terms. That basically means if someone comes along with a better way of doing a mobile phone you cannot then use those patents to try and pull off a special deal to use their designs, their techniques. It certainly doesn't give Samsung the opportunity to lift Apple's designs for both hardware and software (skinning Android to look like iOS? Nobody else bothers to do the) even down to the design of the USB charger.
Samsung hardware tends to ship with horribly obsolete firmware which never seems to get updated no matter how many gaping security holes are found-- and whoever they have for testing needs better training wheels. Maybe a decent injunction will give them time to get their software up to snuff.
Verizon Wireless is a telco? The landline variant of the telco can't provide service beyond minimal POTS in many cases, so perhaps a bit of a timeout tiff will give "Verizon" a chance to bring the old wireline business up to scratch instead of bleeding customers white whilst chasing LTE.
Speaking as someone who has Verizon as a telco, I think that is wishful thinking. I tried getting them to provide a T1 and they quoted over 20k for line conditioning on THEIR side of the demarc. Granted we are very rural, but that is BS. Verizon Business (different business unit apparently) was awesome though.
Aren't all software patents counter to the best interests of consumers? We've gotten to the point where you can't build anything that needs software without tripping over someone's patent. Innovation, the thing patents were supposed to be protecting, is being killed off by them. They're little more than a way to enfore a legal monopoly now, which, as we all know, is not good for anyone except the company that owns the monopoly (and perhaps the politicians that get 'campaign contributions' *coughbribescough* to protect it).
Verizon Wireless said it supports "without reservation" the protection of intellectual property rights
How does Verizon define "without reservation? "any factors on the side of the ban have to be outweighed by the public interest in protecting competition and consumers."
Sounds like a reservation to me, and one obviously in Verizon's own best interests.
Copyright exists to:
1) Protect small inventors from having their ideas nicked / exploited without them getting money.
2) To guarantee revenue / investment cycle for big companies.
Point 1) is obviously a matter of social contract between a citizen and the State. The State encourages inventors by guaranteeing a fair share of any money made from their invention. Point 2) is justified on the basis that it serves society to allow big companies to restrict the use of their inventions. By ensuring employment and encouraging innovation, we all benefit from companies saying who can and can't use their ideas. However, the moment at which a company's use of intellectual property rights stops being beneficial to society, that company loses the moral right to control its intellectual property.
I'd argue that whilst Apple is sticking to the letter of the law, it's not sticking to the principle of the law. It's abusing a well-intentioned system and making a mockery of US and EU legislators, basically thumbing its nose at those who allow it to hold intellectual property rights in the first place (ie, us voters). By selectively using property rights to stifle competition and protect its own revenue at the expense of innovation from other manufacturers, Apple is acting in a way that directly contradicts the basic principle of an intellectual rights system. Modern tech companies are inherently interdepenent on each others ideas and if Apple does not stop willingly, then the laws need to change. Guarantee revenue, yes, but don't prevent others developing products underpinned by a particular idea. Imagine how much long-term damage would have been done to Western society if ideas such as using four wheels on a car or having a CRT screen in a TV had been as highly restricted as Apple's current patents are being. We'd probably all be speaking Russian and driving around in Ladas.
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2019