Apple v ITC should have never come to a "presidential reprieve" via the US Trade Representative.
Apple's iPhone 4 gets a last-minute reprieve
It should have never gotten this far
How the ITC forced a veto in the Samsung-Apple patent case
The International Trade Commission blew it by ignoring Dean Pinkert dissent.
Among the reasons he cites:
- 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.
What the Samsung v Apple ban was all about:
Samsung's vetoed push for an ITC ban against Apple, Inc., in pictures
"Samsung claimed infringement of a radio technique implemented in low level code and related to the GSM / UMTS 3G networking standard. That code was sold to Apple as part of a finished product, embedded in the PMB9801 baseband chips (shown above) it purchased from Infineon to solder into the logic boards of its iPhone 4 (shown below) and iPad 2. "
Bottom line: Apple v. Samsung
Why Samsung may fear Obama's ITC Apple ban
Something is really screwy with the DOJ and this obscenely Amazon-manufactured eBook fiasco
DOJ Wants to Force Apple to Let You Buy E-Books Directly from Amazon
"Along with the 33 state attorneys general involved, the DOJ submitted a proposal on Friday that would require Apple to immediately terminate its agreements with the five book publishers it's been working with since the launch of the iPad. It would also bar Apple from entering into any new agreements with publishers for five-years as well as entering into agreements with other content providers that would cause prices to rise."
E-Book case reminds Apple its biggest enemy isn't Samsung or Google
Et tu, Barach?
Amazon to launch Kindle singles ebook of Barack Obama interview
Isn't his ebook available on iBooks?
Why didn't the President visit an Apple Store to give a speech on jobs?
Apple proposes what the DOJ can do with their "sanctions"
Apple dismisses DOJ's proposed e-book penalties as 'a draconian and punitive intrusion'
Apple E-Book Price Fixing Fix Would Help Amazon Even More
Piling on
Apple Fires Back at DOJ with New Terms for E-Books
Apple gets attacked by the DOJ
Apple keeps them in at T-Mobile
Why We're Not Doing Android — Yet
The product that started the hand-held device movement, The Apple Newton.
Remembering the Apple Newton's Prophetic Failure and Lasting Impact
Microsoft Store 1:30 PM Saturday Aug. 3 Fashion Mall
Apple Store 1:30 PM Saturday Aug. 3 Fashion Mall
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.