ITC delays final decision on Samsung's claim against Apple; seeks public input on iPhone and iPad import ban
Samsung is seeking a prohibitive 2.4% royalty rate for the patent, which covers the "apparatus and method for encoding/decoding transport format combination indicator in CDMA mobile communication system". It would seem that the ITC is going to rule that Apple did infringe on one of the claims involving the patent. Why else inquire about a possible import ban? The bad news for Samsung though, is that the royalty demand that Samsung has made could really backfire. The ITC is looking at Samsung's SEP licensing history with Apple and it is not favorable for the Korean tech giant. The problem is that Samsung appears to be asking for a high licensing fee in a take-it-or-leave it situation on standards essential patents with the possibility of a sales ban staring Apple in the face if it does't sign off on the deal. In plain English, Samsung is using its leverage to try to force Apple to agree to a ridiculously high royalty fee.
Around the globe, Samsung is seen as abusing the FRAND process. For example, even though in Tokyo District Court Apple was found guilty of infringing on a Samsung patent, the Court found that Sammy had abused the process and failed to negotiate a FRAND patent in good faith. Last year, a Dutch Court ruled against giving Samsung injunctive relief without even looking at its allegations. The decision was made solely on the size of Samsung's royalty demand.
3. MartianMe posted on 14 Mar 2013, 04:14 2 0
so you are telling me that apple doesn't abuse with that army of lawyers they got ?....suing every body they want at any time.
4. roscuthiii posted on 14 Mar 2013, 04:36 1 0
Is this really so difficult? Can't the judge just find out from Samsung what the average rate is that it licenses to others, not even the specific royalty amounts, just the average...as long as the stipulation is kept that it's court room eyes only?
As much as I feel the public should be involved in or at least taken into account of for most governmental proceedings, I'm not sure we are the best qualified to weigh in on contractual law. Unless of course these companies would be willing to open up all their files for all of to take a look at, that is. Otherwise, we simply don't have enough information to make an informed judgement.
5. tedkord posted on 14 Mar 2013, 04:45 3 0
Alan, how do you know 2.4% is prohibitive? What are others paying?
Did you not read the story last week about a Apple trying to lowball the music industry, offering half the lowest royally rate? Do you not recall Apple offering Samsung 1/2 a penny per device for all their patents? What about Apple telling a judge they wouldn't be bound by her decision if they didn't like it?
Its much more likely that Apple is refusing to pay what others are paying. They are a very arrogant company that believes themselves above the law.
7. Aeires (unregistered) posted on 14 Mar 2013, 07:15 2 0
My thoughts also, 2.4% isn't a high percentage, especially when you take into consideration what Apple asks for their patents.
10. Droid_X_Doug posted on 14 Mar 2013, 08:20 3 0
2.4% is somewhere in the range of $1.50/ iPhone. Given that MS is getting around $10/phone from the likes of Sammy and HTC, it would seem to be reasonable.
If ITC is requesting comment on the impact of a sales ban, they are trying to send a signal to Apple. Unfortunately, I doubt that Apple will hear it. Too much hubris and what-not.
16. tedkord posted on 14 Mar 2013, 18:33 0 0
I think your math is off a bit. Assuming the iPhone sells for $800 retail, the 2.4% would come to about $20.
6. networkdood posted on 14 Mar 2013, 05:40 2 0
A ban will never happen. The ruling is being stalled, so that Apple can decide how much money is needed to bribe the gov't...jk :-)
8. Aeires (unregistered) posted on 14 Mar 2013, 07:17 0 0
"The problem is that Samsung appears to be asking for a high licensing fee in a take-it-or-leave it situation on standards essential patents with the possibility of a sales ban staring Apple in the face if it does't sign off on the deal."
You could reverse the company names and still remain completely true.
9. InspectorGadget80 posted on 14 Mar 2013, 07:59 2 1
Itc is probably counting their money from apple which is taking them longer
11. -box- posted on 14 Mar 2013, 08:50 1 0
Hey, a pro-apple article by Alan F! I'm shocked!
12. MartyK posted on 14 Mar 2013, 08:53 1 0
And Samsung should be allow to go back and charge (to 2007) with interest!, for these thieves stealing and using their technology.
14. dragonscourgex posted on 14 Mar 2013, 09:30 2 0
Okay...Apple is seeking a sale ban on Samsung for having a square phone. So, what's wrong with Samsung seeking a sale ban on tech that is required for the phone to work. Apple has been asking for it . They should hand the ban out. Maybe it will get Apple to stop suing over non important stuff. I would much prefer all of them drop all of their court battle and let the consumer choose which phone they want to use. But, Apple seem contend on keeping it up until the only phone a person can get is their iPhone. Just think all the money they have spent on court and lawyers, would have been put to R&D...no telling what kind of tech we could have now.
15. Droid_X_Doug posted on 14 Mar 2013, 14:11 0 0
With a sales ban on both Sammy and Apple, next tier manufacturers (HTC, Sony, Nokia, BB, etc.) get some breathing room. Another reason to grant both Sammy and Apple a sales ban is it forces both of them to compromise - 'cause otherwise, they are out of the phone business.