ITC makes preliminary ruling in favor of Apple in patent infringement case with HTC
HTC's General Counsel Grace Lei said in a statement that the ITC's ruling is "just one step in the process" and Lei is confident that HTC has a "strong case for the ITC appeals process". But more important rulings lie ahead, according to the Wall Street Journal. The big financial daily says that upcoming rulings will decide whether or not HTC's products can be banned from entering the States. On November 13th, the ITC will decide on a preliminary ruling if Apple infringed on a pair of patents owned by S3 Graphics, a company HTC is in the process of acquiring. December 6th should bring the aforementioned final ruling on the pair of Apple patents that the ITC said in a preliminary ruling that HTC infringed upon.
Apple's goal with these suits is to get an injunction against HTC devices from entering the States. Birdy Lu, an analyst for Samsung Securities (that's the real name of the firm, folks!) says that a cross-licensing agreement between Apple and HTC is probably in the cards especially after HTC earlier sued Apple over patents that Google had transferred over to the Taiwan based manufacturer. Lu believes that HTC has a strong case against Apple in that suit, although a decision is about a year away.
1. biophone (Posts: 1879; Member since: 15 Jun 2011)
I was wondering when you were going to post this as you are a bit behind on the storry. I was hopping mike would post this however alan you did a good job yourself. As for my opinion on the case i don't have alot of knowledge of these patents or what it says so i really cant comment about that. However i do hope for the patent wars to come to an end and hope the companies can negiotate a fair deal instead of letting the courts decide.
4. Sniggly (Posts: 6400; Member since: 05 Dec 2009)
The only issue with that is that Apple is not interested in a fair deal in the slightest. The only fair deal to Apple is a deal where nobody but Apple benefits. This is their business philosophy with their competitors and even their business partners. Both places I've worked at now which sell iPhones get little to nothing from Apple to sell them, forcing me and my coworkers to sell pretty much every accessory/insurance/everything just to make up the money we lose by not selling a non Apple product. In fact, where I work now, we receive a gigantic goose egg from Apple, while every other manufacturer gives us 200 dollars. Granted, the insurance on Apple products gives us more than on other phones, but it's still far less than what we would make selling even a basic phone to someone.
And quite frankly, when I present facts like these to the worst iFanboys, they shrug it off and essentially agree that Apple deserves to keep every red cent for the leg work we have to do as retailers. I literally feel like a slave owned by Apple when I have to activate one of their phones for a customer.
And by the way, I'm not asking you to change your opinion on Apple in any way. You're a good guy, Biophone. I respect you even if we disagree.
7. Lucas777 (Posts: 2121; Member since: 06 Jan 2011)
u r a bit wrong with the fact that apple doesnt make amends.. it is documented that they tried to settle with samsung numerous times, so i am sure they did that for htc as well.. and i think your sales point is invalid becuase why wud verizon att and sprint all promote and want the iphone so badly if it didnt make them any money… and i dont see what u mean with "agree"… its a fact about how much apple makes… and dont u get paid a salary? or does it depend on how many iphones you sell (ironic)?
11. sethyvball (Posts: 46; Member since: 16 Sep 2011)
I think its pretty obvious why carriers promote iphones. They want people to be on their network and to be on their plans, and they want to gain popularity. I don't understand why you fail to see this.
14. Lucas777 (Posts: 2121; Member since: 06 Jan 2011)
exactly… i am saying that is exactly what it is… why am i failing to see that carriers want the iphone? thats kind of my point…
13. Sniggly (Posts: 6400; Member since: 05 Dec 2009)
I get paid a salary right now. I'm not on personal commission, but I get a monthly bonus based on how much money the store makes compared to our expenditures budget. Since we get zero extra revenue on the iPhone compared to what we have to pay for it, it comes up as a 0 and hurts that percentage my income depends on. In order to make up for it, I absolutely have to try to sell as many extras as I can on an iPhone just so we make SOMETHING for the store. Fortunately, we currently make plenty off of other phones right now, but if Apple were to get what it wanted and ban all other smartphone manufacturers from the market, we'd face a serious cut in our revenue.
Oh yeah, and that percentage also determines how many hours our manager gets to split between us. The lower the percentage, the fewer hours we get to work.
At my previous iPhone related job, the retailer got 25 bucks for each iPhone sold, with no revenue for the attached data plan. At 14 percent personal commission, that meant I literally got about 3 bucks on my paycheck for selling an iPhone. Again, it came down to what extras I could sell. On the other hand, even the least profitable Android phone got us at least 80 to 90 bucks, PLUS a commission on the data plan we sold. Which obviously meant a bare minimum of 11 bucks on my paycheck for an Android phone.
And even going past the obvious effect on my income, I consider it incredibly insulting that Apple thinks so little of the people who sell their devices and do all the interaction with their customers that they give us so little. It's like a big middle finger to us, like saying "we could put these in a f**king vending machine if we wanted to. You serve no more purpose than a mechanical arm would if it was handing our products out of a basket."
Now the carriers would make some money because they automatically get their revenue from the customers' monthly bills. As long as the customer doesn't completely default on the bill, the carriers get all the money they need, no matter what phone is on the account. All they need is the warm body coming in and signing the contract. And to be fair, Apple brings in a TON of warm bodies to carriers. But rest assured, in the end, no one is making more money than Apple. Riddle me this: who's been making the obscene profits over the last four years, and who's been doing okay, but not great despite being the second largest mobile carrier by a narrow margin? At&t, or Apple?
15. Lucas777 (Posts: 2121; Member since: 06 Jan 2011)
hm.. i see what ur saying but i have to say i think it is more a fault with the carrier… it is not really up to apple about ur commission… carriers promote the iphone so heavily and they literally put commercials everywhere, so they should give you an incentive to sell them… i suppose it cud be thought of as apples fault but i think it is more the carrier knowing that they dont have to upush u to sell iphones because they will get enough buyers already…
yes apple has done very well, but so has att, verizon, htc, and samsung… none of them make money by selling devices cheap… all i can say is apple does what apple needs to do to be a top knotch business and i respect it greatly for that… although i certainly think your salary thing is more of a carrier choice than an apple choice…
22. Sniggly (Posts: 6400; Member since: 05 Dec 2009)
Actually, it IS Apple's fault, because in order for the carrier to not pay us any money for selling the phone (or in the case of the previous employer, pay us the 25 bucks) Apple had to negotiate it. Another thing Apple negotiated was to force my previous employers to buy a 3000 dollar display for each store in order to keep selling it. Guess where that 3 grand went? Apple. Guess how many iPhones each store had to sell to pay for that display? 136. 136 iPhones have to be sold at each store in their chain JUST to pay for the Apple display that Apple forced them to buy.
So yes, since the effect on my salary at each time has been unique to Apple, due to terms that APPLE NEGOTIATED TO SECURE WITH THE CARRIERS, it is MOST CERTAINLY Apple's doing and not the carriers.
Lucas, sometimes you just can't ignore the darkness. Sometimes it stares you in the face and laughs, and no matter what you do, you can't get rid of it.
Again, are the carriers making the super record profits that no other company on Earth can make? No. In fact, they're only doing okay. It's Apple that is making these super profits, by making sure that every cent possible goes into the company treasury.
29. Lucas777 (Posts: 2121; Member since: 06 Jan 2011)
as i said before, if the iphone was not making them money, why would they spend so much money and effort on it?
please dont try and pretend to be metaphorical with me… it doesnt make u seem more intelligent…
and i really dont see why u r so against a succesful american business… thats what a business is for… are u a commy? hahahahaha
32. Sniggly (Posts: 6400; Member since: 05 Dec 2009)
Come on, Lucas, you were doing really well before.
The carriers do make money because their money comes from the monthly bill, not from the sale of the phone itself. Therefore if they know a phone is popular, they will use it to sell their service.
I wasn't attempting to sound smarter. It's just the way I write.
And no, I'm a free market anarchist. Apple is no friend to the free market. They want a market locked down for them and them alone, although they'll toss a bone here and there to a business partner.
52. Lucas777 (Posts: 2121; Member since: 06 Jan 2011)
again with the condescending talk...
okay so when you work in a carrier business, im sorry you get the blunt end of the deal... i am simply saying i dont see how everything is all apples fault that you dont make money when you sell an iphone...
apple is a great friend to the free market... every company wants a monopoly of their product!!!!! (AHEM GOOGLE IRONIC) cough google cough... did i meantion how google wants a monopoly on search and how they want a monopoly on phones? if what ur saying is true, why doesnty google just make their procuts worse so they loose some marketshare and make it a more "free market"
16. taco50 (banned) (Posts: 5506; Member since: 08 Oct 2009)
So why does your store sell Apple stuff?
18. Sniggly (Posts: 6400; Member since: 05 Dec 2009)
Well, probably because we're contractually obligated to, and also because we're still able to make money off of them as long as we sell the accessories.
Taco, I work for the store. Are you really going to tell me that you know more about how the store makes its money than I do?
20. taco50 (banned) (Posts: 5506; Member since: 08 Oct 2009)
I just asked a question. If the store made no money off Apple they'd be better off not selling Apple stuff at all it seems. As far as I know you work at an indirect store so they don't have to sell anything they don't want to.
23. Sniggly (Posts: 6400; Member since: 05 Dec 2009)
Incorrect. Indirect stores absolutely have to sell the iPhone. This is not negotiable. And again, while we don't make money off the phone itself, if we sell accessories/insurance we do make money. Just not nearly as much as if those extras were attached to a phone we were actually being paid to sell.
And the solution isn't simply "go work for corporate." I know they don't get the raw deal that indirects do (though they have plenty of other bulls**t rules to make up for that). Sometimes, Taco, someone submits an application only to be told there are better candidates available. Sometimes, corporate doesn't want to hire the guy who just moved into the area with no college degree and a few more jobs per year than he should have in his history.
I'm not going to turn this into a sob story, but your suggested solution implies that Apple's policy of f**king over everyone it can for an extra buck is A-ok, and it's my problem that they have such a policy.
25. taco50 (banned) (Posts: 5506; Member since: 08 Oct 2009)
All I'm saying is if Apple was screwing everyone as you claim no one would do business with them.
27. Sniggly (Posts: 6400; Member since: 05 Dec 2009)
Again, the carriers' revenue is independent of Apple's payouts to indirect retailers, and the indirects can still make up for the lack of direct revenue by extras. If the iPhone was not as insanely popular as it is, then no, companies wouldn't deal with them.
As a matter of fact, last year when Verizon got the iPad, the indirect store I worked for sent the iPads we were shipped back. At the time, we DID refuse to sell them, probably for the same damn reason. Nowadays, I know that chain has to sell the iPhone because I checked and they sell it.
For the indirects, it's a matter of two factors: 1) they don't have a choice and 2) their asses are saved by potential extras sales. For the carriers, it's a matter of their revenue being independent mostly of the money Apple gets off their products, and because of the extras they get to sell.
So no, right now no one is screwed, but it's not for lack of effort on Apple's part. And I know that as salespeople at both jobs my coworkers and I did strive to sell anything but the iPhone if we could help it (though I still refuse to sell phones I know are bad/non satisfactory- for instance, I shy away from selling Blackberry as well).
40. Snapdude (Posts: 128; Member since: 27 Aug 2009)
i feel your pain sniggly. my company as well has to deal with low profit margins on iphone, but it brings in people who potentially buy other things and promote the business through word of mouth. so we endure the apple corporate raping in order to reap the secondary benfefits.. its just the way the world works. apple does really push the bounds of patent infringement litigation with trying to limit competitotrs product availability and in the end it will only hurt them by choking the life out of their front lines, us, the sales people in the retail chain will have nothing to sustain our business with because there will only be apple products and they do not bring in the revenue needed to operate a business... slipperly slope they are heading towards with this litigation.
21. taco50 (banned) (Posts: 5506; Member since: 08 Oct 2009)
I actually do work in an environment where I understand commission structure for cell phone carriers. Sales reps get paid the same commission for selling an iPhone as any other phone. Indirect may be different. Get a corporate job.
51. JGuinan007 (Posts: 598; Member since: 19 May 2011)
Sprint, Verison, and AT&T don't make money off the Iphones themselves they make money on the locked in two year contracts with them the price of the phone goes right to Apple.
35. ardent1 (Posts: 1968; Member since: 16 Apr 2011)
1. Hey sniggly, why don't you cry me a river at some other website. If you don't like your job, find one that you do like.
2. "The only issue with that is that Apple is not interested in a fair deal in the slightest. The only fair deal to Apple is a deal where nobody but Apple benefits. This is their business philosophy with their competitors and even their business partners."
That is such bullsh*t and it came from sniggly no less. Hey sniggly, look up webkit as it is something that Apple developed. Even Android and Chrome uses webkit.
This is what wikipedia.org had to say about webkit: "WebKit is a layout engine designed to allow web browsers to render web pages. WebKit powers Apple Safari and Google Chrome and by August 2011 held nearly 30% of desktop browser market share between them. It is also used as the basis for the experimental browser included with the Amazon Kindle ebook reader, as well as the default browser in the iOS and Android mobile operating systems."
This is what the late Steve Jobs said about webkit: "Apple even creates open standards for the web. For example, Apple began with a small open source project and created WebKit, a complete open-source HTML5 rendering engine that is the heart of the Safari web browser used in all our products. WebKit has been widely adopted. Google uses it for Android’s browser, Palm uses it, Nokia uses it, and RIM (Blackberry) has announced they will use it too. Almost every smartphone web browser other than Microsoft’s uses WebKit. By making its WebKit technology open, Apple has set the standard for mobile web browsers."
The next time you surf the web on your android device, thank Apple for their technology. Don't choke on this fact.
37. protozeloz (Posts: 5284; Member since: 16 Sep 2010)
If you read the whole thing web kit is based on a linux repository, Apple took it and added a few stuff:
And also google added its own stuff to the webkit and have their own version, webkit is open source because of the licence agreement apple had to take with the open source groups. Also. Check the webkit it. Bases some stuff on a similar approach to. The one in Chromium. So thank all those hard working needs for their hard work and apple for making it popular
45. ardent1 (Posts: 1968; Member since: 16 Apr 2011)
That's correct that the android web browsers is based on Apple's webkit. You hear about how Apple doesn't share anything and it's B.S.
I wonder if sniggly or other android fanboys every get this point that they are using Apple IP.
2. taco50 (banned) (Posts: 5506; Member since: 08 Oct 2009)
I expect a lot of hate in moderation, pun intendeded, on this article. Really good to see Apple winning their cases. They spend a lot of money, effort and sweat on innovation. They make amazing products and deserve to profit from their hard work. Back to the drawing table HTC and Samsung.
9. Lucas777 (Posts: 2121; Member since: 06 Jan 2011)
they really do… and for anybody who says how can apple get away with this, well, its not really apple its the US court… and i am forced to believe the court of law becuase if not, what would our country come to…
3. Sniggly (Posts: 6400; Member since: 05 Dec 2009)
Yep, great to see that Apple gets away with infringing on other peoples' patents, but everyone else supposedly infringes on them.
I mean, what is Apple's goal here? A monopoly on smartphone sales in the U.S.? How absolutely f**king monstrous. This goes beyond protecting intellectual property; this is about cornering the market and eliminating choice so that consumers feel that they HAVE to buy from Apple. And considering that these other manufacturers earn retailers much more up front money than they earn from sales of Apple products, such an eventuality will eventually damage wireless retailers and support companies across countries and borders.
But that's the future Apple is aiming for: an Appleocracy. They're not interested in the free market. They're interested in BEING the market.
Fortunately, they will probably ultimately fail at this goal. Even if they win, Samsung, HTC, Motorola, LG, Huawei, Sony, and anyone I forgot will work twice as hard to put out non "infringing" handsets quickly, and their products will only continue to get better while Apple runs out of patents to sue over.
Freedom will win in the end. It may be a struggle at times, but freedom and light will win over the cage Apple wants the market to be in.
Yeah, this is a diatribe. But I have a strong sense of justice and morality, and I feel very strongly about cases where I feel justice has not prevailed. And I see any actions taken to restrict freedom or the free market (barring restrictions on hurting others) as completely immoral.
6. tomast (Posts: 50; Member since: 16 Oct 2011)
i think apple use to be one of the underdogs the company every one was cheering for but now there just drunk with power.
10. sethyvball (Posts: 46; Member since: 16 Sep 2011)
Truly a good comment, couldn't agree with you more.
19. taco50 (banned) (Posts: 5506; Member since: 08 Oct 2009)
" Samsung, HTC, Motorola, LG, Huawei, Sony, and anyone I forgot will work twice as hard to put out non "infringing" handsets quickly"
If they'd have done this in the first place there would be no lawsuits. I fail to see the logic of Apple is hurting innovation. They're forcing other companies to innovate instead of letting them copy Apple's ideas.
You only feel justice has not prevailed because Apple won. To be honest you don't understand the patents and have no real knowledge of patent law. You're whole rant is based on your nonsensical hatred of Apple.
24. Sniggly (Posts: 6400; Member since: 05 Dec 2009)
No, Taco. Those other companies have done plenty to create unique products that work in their own ways and offer options for customers which the iPhone simply doesn't.
Apple doesn't want these other companies to innovate, they want them to either be gone or to go back to making stuff that doesn't compete with the iPhone. If the end result is that these companies innovate even more than they have, that will be completely unintentional on Apple's part, and you know it. To want other companies to innovate would be completely contradictory to Apple's track record of "MUST HAVE ALL MONEY."
I understand that Apple has patents, and I respect the idea of IP. What I have explained to you more times than I can count is that all of these companies have been making phones and parts long before Apple, and they have plenty of patents too, but the only cell phone royalty payment Apple has ever paid was to Nokia after a knock down, drag out lawsuit that was finally settled this year. As much as you bitch about other companies ripping off of Apple, these other companies have been flipped off by Apple in regards to their own IP. Yet with the exception of Motorola, the Android manufacturers have only filed lawsuits defensively against Apple after Apple filed injunction requests against them. And hell, Motorola's been in the business the longest, and only filed their lawsuit after Apple repeatedly ignored their requests for royalties on their IP.
So please spare me this bull about Apple trying to force innovation or simply standing up for IP rights. If they had any honor they'd have acquiesced to requests for royalty payments or negotiated cross licensing deals. They don't though because they don't even want these companies to exist. It's why they made that (unlawful) deal with Microsoft to buy out that patent package and outbid Google, in order to get even more patents they could use to attack Android.
Come ON, Taco. You have to recognize facts on some level here.
26. taco50 (banned) (Posts: 5506; Member since: 08 Oct 2009)
So if Apple is so wrong why do they keep winning? You don't see me whining when Apple loses a lawsuit.
28. Sniggly (Posts: 6400; Member since: 05 Dec 2009)
Because, apart from the monopolistic partnership with Microsoft over the patent bid, Apple is still keeping within the bounds of legality. As a Cracked article once quipped, "The Court can only rule on what's legal, not on what's s**tty."
It's common knowledge that the patent system in the U.S. is in need of serious overhaul, and bills have already gone through to take steps in that direction.
So while I am arguing that Apple's actions are morally bankrupt, I am not arguing that they are committing anything illegal. Do you understand the distinction here?
36. ardent1 (Posts: 1968; Member since: 16 Apr 2011)
"But that's the future Apple is aiming for: an Appleocracy. They're not interested in the free market. They're interested in BEING the market."
Apple has made it clear to Samsung it will license some technology. This is a KNOWN FACT.
Here is the source:http://fosspatents.blogspot.co
m/2011/10/apple-told-samsung-it-owns-thicket-of.htmlThe key phrase from the article (besides the title) is:
"There you have it: Apple is prepared to give Android device makers a license to "some lower level patents" but it wants to reserve various design elements and functionalities exclusively for iOS."
There is NO Appleocracy. sniggly is conducting a witchhunt on Apple because he has a personal grudge against Apple.
39. Sniggly (Posts: 6400; Member since: 05 Dec 2009)
You know, if I respond to you, you'll ignore it anyway. So my question is: what's the f**king point? You never responded to the multiple posts I wrote in the last thread you attacked me on.
Why should I expend ANY effort on your ass if you can't muster the intellectual integrity to read my answers to you?
44. ardent1 (Posts: 1968; Member since: 16 Apr 2011)
My f**king point is you put your mouth in your foot all the time.
You have horrible job and horrible life and you blame Apple for it so much rather than get a better job. You insult your customers since you called them "villiage idiots". You fail to tell them key security breaches so you can "make a sale." Real UNCTUOUS of you.
You don't have any intellectual integrity. In case you don't remember, for the first ten responses or so when I found mistakes in your post, all YOU DID WAS FLAME AT ME. So f**k youself and get off your high horse you petty loser salesman.
50. Sniggly (Posts: 6400; Member since: 05 Dec 2009)
See, this is what I'm talking about.
I didn't call my customers village idiots. I was referring to someone who'd be idiotic enough to try and take/gain physical access to someone else's phone to begin with.
I was not aware of any such issue with the fingerprint scanner on the Atrix, and guess what? YOU STILL HAVE YET TO VERIFY THIS ISSUE EXISTS.
You don't know me, you don't know what my job or my life are like, so for you to make these assumptions about my character are pretty damn arrogant of you.
I don't even remember what our original argument was about. If I was unnecessarily hostile I apologize; however, you've been extremely hostile to me ever since.
So how about we start fresh?
46. ardent1 (Posts: 1968; Member since: 16 Apr 2011)
One more thing sniggly, why it is when you attack someone, it's OKAY in sniggly's book but it's NOT OKAY for someone to attack you back in response!
You never appologize and made amends during your first 10 or so flames. You think I am going to stick around so I can read more of your flames. I am not that stupid like you and I don't want to waste my time. I pointed out faults in sniggly's posts and I moved on.
Don't talk to me about "intellectual integrity" since that was never your intent. If you really believed in "intellectual integrity," you should have exercised it but you don't.
Remember the golden rule, you flame someone, someone will flame you back and for some reason you don't liked to be flamed. Well, don't flame in the first place. You reap what you sow.
48. gallitoking (Posts: 4627; Member since: 17 May 2011)
"Freedom will win in the end. It may be a struggle at times, but freedom and light will win over the cage Apple wants the market to be in."
now you sound more like Ilia.
12. Whateverman (Posts: 3150; Member since: 17 May 2009)
Like I said, seems weird that all these rulings are coming down so soon after Steve Jobs death, and they are all in favor of Apple. Molly Wood even brought it up on the Buzz report.
17. taco50 (banned) (Posts: 5506; Member since: 08 Oct 2009)
Yes we know Apple is paying the judges Judges are fanboys It's Steve Job's dying You're really naive if you really believe this
30. Whateverman (Posts: 3150; Member since: 17 May 2009)
Again, just pointing out what seems to be obvious to many people. It just kinda funny how this whole process has been drawn out for so long, yet right after SJ dies, ruling come raining down all over the world.
You would be the naive one here if you thing paying judges or sympathy for a company that just lost its CEO wouldn't happen. But the truth is you love anything Apple and you're anti-anything else.
31. taco50 (banned) (Posts: 5506; Member since: 08 Oct 2009)
I actually love watching this play out. Every lawsuit filed against Apple is followed by fanboys declaring how Apple has already lost. Then when Apple wins the excuses start pouring in. I never knew androids could ride a bike backwards so fast.
41. Whateverman (Posts: 3150; Member since: 17 May 2009)
What's also funny is watching you cheerleader for Apple with such extreme prejudice. I haven't made any excuses for Samsung at all, I merely asked a question. But any questioning of Apple triggers a typical response from you that I'm hating on Apple, or I'm a fanboy, or the one that just really stings...that I'm a Phandroid!
Sniggly said that the dates were predetermined, which seems feasible to me, but it seems that SJ's death may be effecting those outcomes. I could be wrong, but present me with an argument that has some substance to it, because "you're a fanboy" doesn't do much to convience me of your point. Elevate the conversation man!
33. Sniggly (Posts: 6400; Member since: 05 Dec 2009)
Whateverman, I do believe these rulings were scheduled to take place on these dates anyway, but I see your suspicion.
Whatever you do, don't suggest that it's possible Apple is cooking their quarterly sales numbers either.
38. arcq12 (Posts: 733; Member since: 13 Oct 2011)
HTC is a threat to Apple. Apple's been very clever lately.
42. 530gemini (Posts: 2198; Member since: 09 Sep 2010)
As usual, android fanboys flock in dismissing the court's decision and making their own to be a fact instead, lol.
Android fanboys think that the court consists of people who never went to law school and don't know anything about patent infringement, and that android fanboys know better, lol.
43. downphoenix (Posts: 2134; Member since: 19 Jun 2010)
The ITC has chosen their path. They chose the path of Apple fanboyism.
49. gallitoking (Posts: 4627; Member since: 17 May 2011)
"The school of Sniggly".... cook up excuses... hmm I see lots of possible graduates. here..