So Samsung won't need to pay that billion dollar fine, either?
Turn-about is fair play.
The South Korean government has said that it's concerned about the decision by President Barack Obama not to go through with a ban on Apple iDevices that were found by the ITC to infringe on a Samsung patent. "The Ministry of Trade, Industry and Energy expresses concerns over the negative effect the decision by the US Trade …
So Samsung won't need to pay that billion dollar fine, either?
Turn-about is fair play.
Samsung wont need to pay the billion dollar fine because the patents have been mostly chucked out.
"Turn-about is fair play."
No. Fair play would be not abusing FRAND patents in the way Samsung attempted to. The problem is two fold, the USITC showed contempt for the fact that the patents were SEP and there was a FRAND requirement and that Samsung had already agreed reasonable terms with a third party. The ITC should've recommended that Samsung were investigated for antitrust - much like the European Commision threatened to do. It's not difficult to understand, however this will fall on deaf ears. Seems that fandroids are extremely hard of thinking.
Fair play would actually be paying for the patents that had been shown by the ITC to have been negotiated in good faith.
Or perhaps we don't have to pay for Apple products, now. In fact just don't buy any US stuff, as far as you're able. Or. buy it secondhand and deny the first sale.
Bear with me, pls.
This is just another example of the USA bullying US competitors with their ｀champion companies'.
A long history is behind it （attack on Japan's DRAM production and the very good TRON OS, visits from Gates and the Googleoids to the White House where they always get exactly what they want, while not creating work for their fellow countrymen).
Most recently (before the attack on Samsung), the massive propaganda attack on the Airbus superjumbn in contrast with just about no critical comment about the much greater lateness and tendency to catch fire for no reason stated in the manual (like the Xbox and several Apple i-devices) of the 'Dreamliner' was a pretty startling example.
... and all are dedicated to inflated stock value, no interest in decent jobs for US workers (alright, admit that doesn't entirely to contract-bloated Boeing, but lovely how their lies dominate the media, innit?）
Samsung DID NOT negotiate in good faith. The dissenting judge pointed out that Samsung made one offer and one only. That is not negotiating. And in that offer, Samsung demanded that Apple turn over some of its best iPhone patents in return for allowing Apple to use its patent. The law specifically prohibits attaching such strings to Frand patents. Such strings are expressly viewed as not fair, reasonable and nondiscriminatory.
If you're going to write about this stuff, at least get do enough digging to get the facts, rather than just report what Samsung said in a press release.
Samsung DID NOT negotiate in good faith.
No, Samsung DID negotiate in good faith. This WAS the finding of ITC.
The dissenting judge pointed out that Samsung made one offer and one only.
What did the reamaing five judges say?
You see the whole FRAND saga is being circulated for a long time now. We have the main fat cats like MS and Apple to abuse the fucked up patent system the most of all. They have almost no real tech patents that often are FRAND. So they usually advise others to put the FRAND stuff in their own arse, whilst, have a lot of "rounded corner" patents they are allowed to abuse the way they want.
First Apple used patents by Nokia without paying. if you read between the lines, Apple were not willing to pay the standard rate. So Nokia filed suit and and Apple then complained that Nokia wanted substantially more than what others were paying. The fact is, Apple were using patents they knew that had to pay for. Why didn't they go and secure the use of the patents before they even released the device? They knew what needed to be licensed and they wait until the patent holders comes along and even then Apple doesn't want to pay. Was it Nokia and Samsung playing the system or is it Apple?
Why are so many people taking the word of an extremely vocal dissenter to the ITC decision at face value? Pinkert does make a case, but he does not seem to accept that the other five members of the panel disagreed with him.
Certainly, sometimes the dissenting view may turn out to be the right one in hindsight, but rarely on a 5:1 decision. What exactly makes Pinkert, and those supporting his view, think that he has some specific insight into the law that should be preferred over five other people hearing exactly the same evidence? Remember, exceptional claims demand exceptional evidence, and being the one dissenter out of a panel of six means that his view requires a hell of a lot of evidence ...
... but then, this is a country where almost a third of the population believe in creationism. What does evidence have to do with it?
they dont have to negotiate:
HTC pay $10
Nokia pay $10
apple ask, samsung says "pay $10".
apple respond with "GIVE DISCOUNT"
samsung say fuck off.
apple cries to court.
Whats the point in all this patent nonsense if when a decision is made, Obama can just step in and say no thanks.... Think there needs to be a good look into how patents are being abused. This Apple vs Samsung stuff is just ridiculous.
I suspect this the White House was thinking less of "Apple vs Samsung" and more "America (f$%k yeah!) vs anyone else"
There's not many american voters in South Korea...
It's being used to try to short-circute the legal system and get a fast ruling to disadvantage a competitor.
Samsung have these same patents included in a court case. They are FRAND encumbered, so at worst the court can decide that they are infringed, that Apple have to pay damages and a court decided licence rate.
The real reason that the ruling was vetoed however is nicely described over here http://tech.fortune.cnn.com/2013/08/05/apple-samsung-itc-pinkert/ and is down to a dissenting opinion by one of the ITC judges involved.
The same conclusion is drawn here: http://www.radiofreemobile.com/ipr-apple-vs-samsung-the-weakness-of-essential-part-v/.
A SEP holder is also NOT supposed to seek injunctive relief as this is deemed to be a breach of the FRAND principle. (see here)
FRAND but seems people thought Samsung were not being fair, reasonable and non discriminatory. For a standards patents they can't ask x cents from one company then ask for much more from someone else - Apple or otherwise. Samsung are the ones who should be investigated for anti-trust here.
Ridiculous indeed, but the key questions are which player installed, maintains, and extends limits in the system as it corruptly stands?
Hint, it's not Sth. Korea.
I would like to vote anything above my own post down, but it takes too long.
... also would vote many lower posts up.
To lower-posting people whose comments I like, consider just replying to a top post, relevant or not, seems to be the favoured method of the system-gaming Norde Americano propaganda crowd, who, lord knows why, flood the place with crap on any contentious point (I like the Reg, been reading it for years before even one post).
How does one obtain a 'badge' so that one can edit one's own posts?
I omitted two words in my last, as an obsessive I can't stand it!
Last time I checked, there were still several tens of thousands of US soldiers in Sth. Korea, they don't appear to have announced a sudden massive withdrawal of late.
"...still several tens of thousands of US soldiers in Sth. Korea..."
...which is precisely why the Sth Korean Govt has little power or influence over the USA Govt. If the USA pulled all it's armed forces, Nth Korea would march straight in.
Neither Sth Korea nor the USA want that, but it's a pretty big stick to be holding.
vt. If the USA pulled all it's armed forces, Nth Korea would march straight in.
Neither Sth Korea nor the USA want that, bu
You must be joking, the South Koreans want peace (with their ethnic racial brethren), the US govt. wants to make trouble, mainly to piss in China's nose.
Also a double-standard at play here, Sth. Korea has, like Japan, a population collapse in progress, but liKe Japan-accepts almost no non-natives, sure isn't interested in imposing arseholes from the worst places they can flnd on the less well-off portions of the local populations, unlike western countries.
"I suspect this the White House was thinking less of "Apple vs Samsung" and more "America (f$%k yeah!) vs anyone else"
I'm American and have not liked Apple for over 25 years, but I'm failing to see how banning a device that millions own is going to benefit millions of people.
In a time with little love for my country...
jai: "There's not many american voters in South Korea..."
That word starts with a capital "A" bitch!!
Do all American countries have a voting system?
Don't hold your breath
As usual, America thinks the rules do not apply to it.
America's nearly as bad as France, these days...
What you mean a country favoring its own companies, next you will be telling us bears crap in the woods!
All that is needed to end this is for Samsung to tell everyone , what they normally charge other people for these FRAND patents. If its the same for other companies, then Apple won't have a leg to stand on. However if they rachet it up just becuase if Apple , they can go do one!
!" The patent in question was part -- and only a tiny part -- of an international standard, and as such Samsung had agreed to make it available for licensing under terms that are fair, reasonable and nondiscriminatory (FRAND).
Samsung had made no effort to demonstrate that the licensing terms it offered Apple "satisfied an objective standard of reasonableness."
That the only time Samsung made such an offer -- in oral discussions in December 2012 -- it came with strings attached to which Apple could not agree.
What those strings were are blacked out in the document, but Pinkert adds in the next sentence: "it is neither fair nor non-discriminatory for the holder of the FRAND-encumbered patent to require licenses to non-FRAND-encumberd patents as a condition for licensing its patent" (emphasis his)."
Reading between the lines, it sounds like Samsung had refused to license its standard-essential patents (SEPs) unless Apple offered its non-essential iPhone patents -- the company's crown jewels -- in return.
As usual, FOSS Patent's Florian Mueller was on top of the case. In early July he obtained a copy of Pinkert's dissent, painstakingly transcribed it into HTML, and published it in a post that began:
"I'm outraged. The underlying rationale of the ITC ruling is a serious threat to innovation and competition. Among other things, it represents a radical departure from well-established antitrust principles concerning the illegal practice of tying (in this case, a Samsung proposal that required Apple to license its non-standard-essential patents to Samsung in order to get an SEP license). This totally runs counter to the ITC's mission to protect the domestic industry."
But hey lets not let that get in the way of Yank / Apple bashing
You (and Florian Mueller) are entitled to your opinion, but surely isn't the key issue that the US ITC holds a different view and banned the Apple products? The US Administration blocked the importation ban on the grounds of "public interest", not the rights and wrongs of any licence negotiations.
Sure, because the public is currently buying more iPhone 4 and 3GS than iPhone 5. We wouldn't want to ban products that will be obsoleted in a month. That's a month of obsolete product sales that idiots who can't wait for the new iPhone, will want.
France...I saw that country in that film The Patriot the other day. Annoyingly for a Brit like me they stepped in and won the War of
It's rules don't have to apply if they don't want them to. That's kinda the point of running a nation, isn't it?
It's not ethical, but I can't think of many nations who don't favour their own interests over other's.
The ITC thought one thing but Obama disagreed and he trumps them - end of.
Indeed. Also, a French ship cunningly retconned from a US ship for Hollywoodian purposes treacherously attacked Captain "Lucky" Jack Aubrey's "HMS Surprise" out of the fog in "Master and Commander". Les bâtards!
'What you mean a country favoring its own companies'
Wouldn't that make it tantamount to protectionism...
Yankee lawyer = liar.
Truly a joke, the US national champion companies vigorously ask the state for handouts and importation of cheap labour, while throwing talented programmers in regional states onto the scrapheap of crap jobs at fast-food places and, at best, crap jobs in shopping malls.
Not from there, but have enough 'net friends (and enough nous to judge) to know.
Hey, let's not let it get in the way of your juggernaut.
"It's not ethical, but I can't think of many nations who don't favour their own interests over other's."
They are nor defending American interests, they are defending Apple. A company that outsources all of its production AND evades most of its taxes. If they were really protecting American interests this would be the last company they should help, for very obvious reasons.
Actually the REAL problem is a (cough, cough) leader who fails to focus on what his job is and continues to butt in where his nose does not belong IMO.
I keep trying to trade Obama to Canada and we'll take Quebec off their hands. Still no deal.
Best wishes on keeping what you earned.
Unfortunately Canada would only take Obama if we took Beiber.
Yeah, micromanagement of trade now, good idea.
Are we out of Iraq yet?
Well done Obama for ensuring Apple products are still on sale in the US and ensuring Apple can continue to innovate*
*Innovate: Get your accountants to come up with clever new ways to avoid paying tax, and lawyers to come up with new ways to avoid having to pay patent licenses
Is anyone really surprised?
Does anyone think America, specifically the American administration is about anything other than looking out for American business interests? We now know about how their "anti-terrorism capture everyone in the worlds internet data" has been used to steal the ideas of no American companies, as well as steal the negotiating positions of other countries trade delegations.
Are we are reaching the point where other countries are going to actually stand up and say, "Fuck you, we don't want to trade with you, you backwards, protectionist arseholes"?
How much impact on the Dollar, do we all think other countries manufacturing bases refusing to export to America would have?
How much impact on the Dollar do we think other countries refusing to deal financially in or with the Dollar would have?
Isn't it about time the rest of the world realised that America is engaged in a trade war against them, that they're using nasty dirty spying little games (under the guise of Anti-terrorism) to do it? Isn't it about time they started to respond in kind?
Not only trade but blackmail. Whose phones do you think that they would tap. Not yours or mine but politicians and leaders.
On an unrelated note* I wonder why Mr. Blair was so keen to get into Iraq?
*terms and conditions may apply.
"Would tap" ?
They already did the UN building (or NATO?) as uncovered recently.
Meant to reply to the OP who referred to the probabilty that the US spying programs might also shuffle info. back to their national champ companies, I have no doubt they do, but is there a case where it's been proven?
One might hope that Mr. Snowden's files include such an example, but it seems to have been out of his scope ... or if not, out of the scope of things the Grauniad is willing to publish.
As I said in an earlier post, all of lt does sweet FA for the many talented americans being thrown onto the scrapheap. it's all about stock values for the holders, most of whom have not done a day of productive work in their lives.
Current pres. case in point, also a massive real-estate swindle, quetly shovelled under the carpet by an obedient media machne.
Beer ... the usual reason.
Before leaving for now, even more off-topic, an Irish friend asked me why Blair had converted to Catholicism, l half-passed in my attempted replies.
Friend's explanation was sweet and to the point, the Catholic church offers absolution, and Blair had made a major war criminal of himself, so was desperate to be absolved.
Personally, I doubt that Blair has the human quality my friend credited him with, but it's a theory worth spreading.
Off the topic but not the thread, mayhaps food for thought.
Blair ( I think) was always a catholic. It's just we're not America and the banging of that kind of drum in politics holds no sway here. It would, probably, have an adverse effect on any political campaign.
When it actually comes down to an economic interest, e.g. oil, it's officially democracy or MWDs.
And now the official reason is the economic impact (and customer choice), what is it really?
What trumps economic reasoning, national security?
So, best NSA-spyware integration that "just works"?
What's all the commotion? This is proof that free trade is alive and well, it's never been easier to buy a presidents influence.
"Froman also said that in future, the commission should be certain that in any of its cases involving standards-essential patents, the public interest was considered "thoroughly and carefully"."
No comment needed.
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2017