ITC pushes final decision on Samsung claim against Apple back to February 6th
0. phoneArena 01 Jan 2013, 02:35 posted on
A final ruling by the ITC on Samsung's complaint against Apple has now been delayed until February 6th instead of the January 14th date originally scheduled and while the delay doesn't mean anything in terms of how the ITC will rule on the case, some are saying that the delay would be considered unusual if the full commission was simply going to go along with Judge Gildea's preliminary ruling which criticized Samsung for abusing FRAND patent law...
This is a discussion for a news. To read the whole news, click here
1. Mxyzptlk (limited) (Posts: 2846; Member since: 21 Apr 2012)
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 (Posts: 379; Member since: 23 Oct 2012)
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 (Posts: 971; Member since: 13 Dec 2011)
Exactly, Microsoft + Apple obviously have bribed almost every judge.....facts how rotten they are everywhere:
bit [dot] ly/RYzOPP
12. MartyK (Posts: 669; Member since: 11 Apr 2012)
Only the Judges in California and Washington State.
6. frydaexiii (Posts: 1156; Member since: 01 Dec 2011)
Sorry, "fair & reasonable" went out the windows when Apple tried to sue their competitors over a rectangle.
17. tedkord (Posts: 3908; Member since: 17 Jun 2009)
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._ (Posts: 8; Member since: 29 Dec 2012)
We agree, and We like that, We will win®
2. blingblingthing (Posts: 379; Member since: 23 Oct 2012)
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 (Posts: 216; Member since: 07 Jul 2012)
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 (Posts: 9262; Member since: 05 Feb 2011)
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 (limited) (Posts: 2044; Member since: 30 Jul 2011)
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 (Posts: 9262; Member since: 05 Feb 2011)
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 (Posts: 2964; Member since: 07 Mar 2012)
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 (Posts: 9262; Member since: 05 Feb 2011)
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 (limited) (Posts: 2044; Member since: 30 Jul 2011)
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 (Posts: 5636; Member since: 26 Mar 2011)
ITC LEAVE SAMSUNG THE FCK ALONE. Getting sick and tired of your acusations against Samsung and stop taking money from Apple
14. johnbftl (Posts: 163; Member since: 09 Jun 2012)
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 (Posts: 226; Member since: 09 Aug 2012)
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.