ITC pushes final decision on Samsung claim against Apple back to February 6th
anti-competitive behavior by the FTC in the states and the EC in Europe by using FRAND patents to seek sales bans against Apple and Microsoft in what appears as revenge for being accused of infringing on non-FRAND patents belonging to those two tech titans. Google and its Motorola subsidiary have been accused of doing the exact same thing leading to investigations of both companies by U.S. and European agencies.
Samsung suddenly dropped all of its FRAND related sales injunction claims in Europe, seeking to avoid a high fine by the EC that could have been in the billions. This change led Apple to file a "Notice of New Facts," which details Samsung's decision to drop its request for an injunction in Europe, to avoid sanctions. Apple's filing might have led the ITC to delay winding up the case until it can take a deeper look at Samsung's actions. When the final ruling is made, it can be appealed to the U.S. Federal Court.
With third party tech companies filing briefs to the ITC about how FRAND licensing should be handles, perhaps some new standards will result including a set royalty on FRAND patents. Samsung and Motorola have sought licensing fees in the 2% range while Apple and Microsoft have said that this is too high.
1. Mxyzptlk posted on 01 Jan 2013, 02:39 4 14
Exactly what I said before, another company trying to abuse FRAND patents because of unrelated patent lawsuits.
You can't put a price on fair and reasonable.
5. blingblingthing posted on 01 Jan 2013, 02:54 10 1
So in your view apple should sue and seek product bans for the rubber band effect and other crap, but should not pay FRAND rates for essential product patents.
Essential product patents are more important that the non essential ones apple seeks to ban products with.
7. anywherehome posted on 01 Jan 2013, 04:49 7 1
Exactly, Microsoft + Apple obviously have bribed almost every judge.....facts how rotten they are everywhere:
bit [dot] ly/RYzOPP
12. MartyK posted on 01 Jan 2013, 08:59 0 0
Only the Judges in California and Washington State.
6. frydaexiii posted on 01 Jan 2013, 03:50 10 0
Sorry, "fair & reasonable" went out the windows when Apple tried to sue their competitors over a rectangle.
17. tedkord posted on 01 Jan 2013, 16:05 3 0
You keep saying that. Care to explain why you can't put a price on fair and reasonable? By definition, you can put a price on it - the same price that every one else is paying.
What you mean is Apple should not have to pay anything for the tech that their devices world not work without, but should be paid handsomely for things like basic geometric shapes. You think FRAND stands for Free is Reasonable if Apple Needs it for Devices.
Your hypocrisy is the stuff of legends.
19. _.Apple.Royally._ posted on 01 Jan 2013, 21:05 0 1
We agree, and We like that, We will win®
2. blingblingthing posted on 01 Jan 2013, 02:49 2 0
Kind of a weird defense.
Oh the patents we aren't paying for are standard essential ones. If the patent is deemed standard essential, why not discuss a rate and tell the other to pay it if they intend to use it?
3. Izzy_V posted on 01 Jan 2013, 02:50 0 0
Exactly what I said before, a company trying to retaliate against an abuser of FRAND patents because of related patent lawsuits.
You can put a price on greed and selfishness.
8. darkkjedii posted on 01 Jan 2013, 07:39 3 1
We'll know when the dust settles. Personally I'd like to see apple, and Sammy squash this and get on with biz. Sammy's becoming just as suit happy as apple is, and I didn't think that was possible. These suits hurt tech.
10. PAPINYC posted on 01 Jan 2013, 08:31 1 2
Yeah, agreed, it's kinda' hard to imagine another company being as vicious, nasty or as miserable as that fruitful company of yours' but, I guess that's the world we live in: do onto others as they do onto you; do or die; AnniHiLate the competition before they annihilate you...... yeah, pretty much sums it up!
15. darkkjedii posted on 01 Jan 2013, 15:55 1 2
Not my company bro, I'm a techie not a fanboy. Remember I also use android, so that makes the multi colored letter company mine also lol... I get your point though.
9. Nathan_ingx posted on 01 Jan 2013, 08:30 1 0
Why can't techno giants remain calm and be mature?
I'm hearing too much now...
I actually don't care who's at fault anymore or who copied who.
16. darkkjedii posted on 01 Jan 2013, 15:59 2 1
Exactly bro... It's gone so far beyond that now that's its not even important. These two giants, who r the best n the field have taken design q's from each other, that much is obvious. It's time to put an end to this, cuz personally I love Sammy and apple, and will continue to use both... TRUCE.
11. PAPINYC posted on 01 Jan 2013, 08:33 1 1
No wonder those people at the ITC are so damn uptight, just look at where they work. Looks like some sort of asylum or mental institution.
13. InspectorGadget80 posted on 01 Jan 2013, 11:33 1 3
ITC LEAVE SAMSUNG THE FCK ALONE. Getting sick and tired of your acusations against Samsung and stop taking money from Apple
14. johnbftl posted on 01 Jan 2013, 12:25 0 0
Ok, so first off there's no such thing as a "FRAND Patent." There are Standard Essential Patents which an industry categorizes as eligible for Fair, Reasonable, And Non-Discriminatory (FRAND) licensing. The term FRAND Patent gets thrown around rather loosely here.
What is really upsetting and unnerving is how these judges are coming to these conclusions. Logic would dictate if one would need to make a ruling on a FRAND situation, the court would request that said offender provide documentation of licensing agreements with other companies. The plaintiff in this matter would then also need to provide the licensing agreement presented to them by the offending company. If licensing for both are similar, then case dismissed, licensing must be paid. If it is egregious, then the offending company is fined.
18. techguy22 posted on 01 Jan 2013, 16:55 0 0
we know ITC gonna side with apple. sammy will lose as always our government don't play fair with companies aren't their own. its a fact.