Verizon asks the President to veto the upcoming ITC sales ban of Apple iPhone 4
0. phoneArena 25 Jul 2013, 13:43 posted on
An ITC ordered sales ban against certain older Apple devices is supposed to take effect starting August 5th; out of the models affected by the order, only the Apple iPhone 4 and the Apple iPad 2 remain on retailer's shelves. Because Apple uses the iPhone 4 as a low cost version of its smartphone (similar to how the Apple iPhone Lite will be positioned), a sales ban on the phone will have ramifications on Cupertino...
This is a discussion for a news. To read the whole news, click here
2. Reluctant_Human (Posts: 878; Member since: 28 Jun 2012)
"The version of the Apple iPhone 4 involved in the sales ban is the AT&T flavored model, so Big Red doesn't have an interest in this case at all, but Milch's editorial says that Verizon is concerned about the precedent that a sales ban would set."
Not understanding your anger at Verizon as it pertains to this article.
10. ardent1 (Posts: 2000; Member since: 16 Apr 2011)
Verizon is playing BOTH sides of the fence. If you recall, Verizon filed an amicus brief asking the court to deny Apple's request to ban certain Samsung products.
13. MartyK (Posts: 732; Member since: 11 Apr 2012)
You mean like they did when HTC phone was stop at the border?..
This is what Apple wanted, they made their bed, let them lay in it!
19. PAPINYC (banned) (Posts: 2315; Member since: 30 Jul 2011)
Thank you, I couldn't think of a more magnanimous company than Verizon. Personally, I would ask the ITC to ban all iDudz not only the iDud 4 but the OG iDud as well as the 3G, GS, 4S and 5, respectively!
29. roldefol (Posts: 3359; Member since: 28 Jan 2011)
If he really wants to help the country, Obama should support a ban on all phones not assembled in the US. You're welcome, Motorola.
25. Droid_X_Doug (Posts: 5993; Member since: 22 Dec 2010)
"Milch's editorial says that Verizon is concerned about the precedent that a sales ban would set."
Where was Milch with his concern when Apple embargoed HTC smartphones? As with HTC, a sales ban is the one thing that could compel Apple to enter a global settlement.
41. PAPINYC (banned) (Posts: 2315; Member since: 30 Jul 2011)
Thank you !!! +1
For future reference, he's an iMilch!
53. joey_sfb (Posts: 4464; Member since: 29 Mar 2012)
Apple has when on record that its doe not need to pay for Samsung's fraud patent which lead to their current situation. All they need to do is to license it like everyone else. Its a standard 3G patents.
This is sheer arrogance on Apple part and they deserved to be ban so that they know they are not above the law and have to play by the book just like everyone else.
If the US president intervene Apple product from being ban while doing for Samsung phone/tablet was being ban in 2011. Its biased pure and simple.
60. cheetah2k (Posts: 1184; Member since: 16 Jan 2011)
The problem is, it is very likely that Apple will just happen to make a substantial donation to Camp David... Then Obama will overturn the courts decision.. H3ll, Apple could even call on all the donations they made to Obama in the last election...
..and so is the way of the U S of A..
22. Droid_X_Doug (Posts: 5993; Member since: 22 Dec 2010)
Sounds like Apple got VZW to do its bidding. Sorry, but when Apple goes and abuses the ITC enforcement process, it has to live with the consequences when Sammy responds in kind. Barry would do well to pass on the request. Sauce for the goose being sauce for the gander and what-not.
56. stealthd (Posts: 1067; Member since: 12 Jun 2011)
Not really. Sounds more like Verizon just doesn't want it to become easier for products they sell the get banned. Same thing happened when a Samsung phone was banned.
46. InspectorGadget80 (Posts: 7043; Member since: 26 Mar 2011)
Hey ITC stop kissing the govt a$$. They deserve a BAN.
64. willard12 (Posts: 1247; Member since: 04 Jul 2012)
The ITC is the government. I think you mean Verizon.
54. stealthd (Posts: 1067; Member since: 12 Jun 2011)
They did the same thing when a Samsung phone was banned, so it's not really surprising.
4. o0Exia0o (Posts: 654; Member since: 01 Feb 2013)
I dont understand.... Verizon does not have a dog in this fight to begin with.....What are they soo concerned about? You would thank that given the competition between VZW and ATT that VZW might chalk this up as a win as thier version of the Iphone 4 has nothing to do with this.
7. Lousclues (Posts: 34; Member since: 02 Mar 2012)
"Verizon is concerned about the precedent that a sales ban would set"
11. o0Exia0o (Posts: 654; Member since: 01 Feb 2013)
Which would be what?
Honestly I cant say.
Is the precedent in which you refer the one that would be set by the president if he were to veto the ITC import ban there by telling all OEMs that is is ok to steal from each other with out worry that they will have to negotiate and pay a for tech owned by others because nothing will be done to them if they dont?
Is that the precedent that you refer to?
21. Lousclues (Posts: 34; Member since: 02 Mar 2012)
Don't get your panties tide in a knot man, I'm not taking any sides. I'm just pointing out for you why Verizon is concerned lol
28. o0Exia0o (Posts: 654; Member since: 01 Feb 2013)
I am not upset...
But you have yet to say anything (Besides what the artical says) about why Verizon is even concerned with this which tells me that you have NO CLUE as to what this is all about.
So to me it just looks like your troling. Thanks for playing anyway and have a good day. ;)
35. Lousclues (Posts: 34; Member since: 02 Mar 2012)
Damn you're a bitter guy lol. You need some p*ssy like right now.
You have yourself a splendid day too sir.
40. o0Exia0o (Posts: 654; Member since: 01 Feb 2013)
Not bitter just looking for mental stimulation in an arguement, which it seems you are unable provide.
Thank you any ways though. Have a wonderful day.
33. Commentator (Posts: 3040; Member since: 16 Aug 2011)
I think that pretty much sums up the precedent right there. I'm not sure Verizon would outright admit to being in favor of companies stealing ideas from each other, but they more or less imply it when they say the industry "is too high-stakes a game for patent disputes."
39. o0Exia0o (Posts: 654; Member since: 01 Feb 2013)
OK, and Ill agree with you on that.
My point is this though, Apple got caught with stolen tech, that they implemented it in to thier products and sold said products for a profit. Why should they get a free pass?
think of it like this, if you get caught robbing your EX's house (red handed with stolen property on you as you try to escape), witnesses to the crime pick you out of a line up and your finger prints are all over the crime scene. Does it make it right if you have a have a friend that is buddies with the Governor to ask him to throw out the verdict in your case and for you not to get punshed?
The way I look at it is Apple got caught red handed. If the roles were reversed and Samsung was in Apples position I would still say the same thing, but this has to stop. All of these patent trials and patent trolls need to be shut down. In this day and age with as much money as these companys have you would think that they would be able to come to an agreement that would be profitable for both. And I am not just tired of hearing about the Apple/Samsung BS, but all of it between every company.
And while I agree with you on your point I still dont see what VZW's stake in this whole thing. They just need to mind thier own buisness.
62. McLTE (Posts: 760; Member since: 18 Oct 2011)
it's obvious. Verizon's stake in this whole thing is this: They are in the business to sell phones. If this phone gets banned, they are worried that there will be a slew of future phone that get banned that just may be on Verizon.
This clearly shows that verizon doesn't care who does what.. they just want to sell phones!
5. roldefol (Posts: 3359; Member since: 28 Jan 2011)
Don't you think the president has more pressing matters on his mind than bans against particular models of phone? Don't we want the government OUT of business matters?
6. Reluctant_Human (Posts: 878; Member since: 28 Jun 2012)
He needs something to cover all the horrible press he's getting between the NSA, Guantanemo, IRS scandal, etc
8. roldefol (Posts: 3359; Member since: 28 Jan 2011)
Yet another second term scandal. Vietnam, Watergate, Iran-Contra, Monica, Katrina...
18. quakan (Posts: 1293; Member since: 02 Mar 2011)
All 3 haven't really been scandals with the President at the center of them. All of those have targets of separate entities. He's actually managed to keep those targets off his back.
38. guest (Posts: 241; Member since: 13 Jun 2012)
Not to turn this into a political discussion but Obama is not even close to Regan just on jobs alone:
"The Reagan recovery, encompassing a period of 72 months, resulted in the creation of 24,833,000 net new jobs, or approximately 344,900 jobs per month. Over that same period the total number of people of working age who were either unemployed or not in the workforce decreased by 5,234,000, or approximately 72,700 per month.
The Obama recovery, encompassing a period of 31 months, has resulted in the creation of 6,317,000 net new jobs, or approximately 203,800 jobs per month. Over that same period, the total number of people of working age who are either unemployed or not in the labor force increased by 205,000, or approximately 6,600 per month."
Who cares about scandals if you can't find a job to feed your family? Regan used the government to advance causes he thought would help the people. Obama used the government against the people. Nice try but they couldn't be more different.
52. roldefol (Posts: 3359; Member since: 28 Jan 2011)
That was SUPPOSED to be a complete joke.
59. InspectorGadget80 (Posts: 7043; Member since: 26 Mar 2011)
exactly my point. if Apple hadn't started this LAW SUIT B.S. and BANS non of this crap wouldn't of happened. I think the IPH4 deserve A BAN for once after what they did too the GALAXY NEXUS
9. PermanentHiatus (Posts: 267; Member since: 22 Jun 2012)
Obama is an Apple fanboy.
So it's highly possible that it will get vetoed.
15. rallyguy (Posts: 620; Member since: 13 Mar 2012)
He gave the Queen of England an Ipod. What an insult.
17. o0Exia0o (Posts: 654; Member since: 01 Feb 2013)
And I guess that Berry told you that when you all were playing B-Ball at the White House the other day. I bet he even showed you his BB A-10 didnt he?
20. PermanentHiatus (Posts: 267; Member since: 22 Jun 2012)
Maybe not an iPhone, but he uses an iPad and Macbook. And drives a Chevy Volt. Definitely a hippie.
26. quakan (Posts: 1293; Member since: 02 Mar 2011)
"He appears to be a platform 'agnostic', like many by not endorsing or using a single platform. Instead, he uses what works best for the occasion."
Doesn't sound like a hippie to me...also driving...when do you think was the last time he drove anywhere?
65. willard12 (Posts: 1247; Member since: 04 Jul 2012)
I don't think he drives a volt as it came out in 2010 and he's had limo drivers since 2009. But hey...if it fits your narrative then, cool.
23. Googler (Posts: 813; Member since: 10 Jun 2013)
He invited Tim Cook to the State of the Union address and called out Apple as a company bringing jobs back to the US. A ban is NOT going to happen.
44. PAPINYC (banned) (Posts: 2315; Member since: 30 Jul 2011)
I thought that dinner was in honour and in support of gay marriage??
24. PAPINYC (banned) (Posts: 2315; Member since: 30 Jul 2011)
Wrong, he gave up his Blackberry last year. He even got his kids iPhones; Sasha and Malika were playing with their iPhones at his 2nd iNauguration.
Personally, I think ANY President who uses an iPhone should be iMpeached on that criteria alone; "We The People" stand for Freedom and Democracy, not DiCtAtorship!!
43. PAPINYC (banned) (Posts: 2315; Member since: 30 Jul 2011)
No I don't, your fiAnceé took care of me last night (but, I had to put a bag on her head) ____!
55. darkkjedii (Posts: 16304; Member since: 05 Feb 2011)
No she didn't. She's in Vegas where she belongs lol. Dude what's with the jealousy towards my fiancé, myself and our marriage? This is an everyday thing with you, jealousy is a weak trait dude. Get yourself a girl bro...seriously. Everyday you attack with the same lines, now your buddies don't even respond to your wack insults with lol. C'mon pap you should be happy for me pal. Don't hate...imitate. Here I'll +1 you, since that's what you do this for.
58. InspectorGadget80 (Posts: 7043; Member since: 26 Mar 2011)
He actually OWNS A B.B just like Hilary Clinton if u ever saw him own a phone. he's a BLACK BERRY lover not no IFAN
31. wildcard (Posts: 65; Member since: 15 Jan 2013)
why is verizon and not AT&T hmmm something stinks here well if their veto this phone is no cases about samsung either ....lol
32. rightcue805 (Posts: 55; Member since: 08 Jul 2013)
Milch wants President Obama to veto the ITC decision, a move that no president has taken since 1987..... does this not tell you anything milch? GOOD LUCK WITH THAT!
34. bittertruth247 (Posts: 31; Member since: 03 May 2013)
Anyone who sells cellphones like me knows the reason Verizon is trying to intervene is because Apple charges carriers full price for their phones unlike other companies that cut deals so any ban on Apple products would hit Verizon in their wallets so that's what this is all about! Apple should have left Samsung and others alone, now it's payback time and I'm so glad for them to get a taste of their own medicine!
42. o0Exia0o (Posts: 654; Member since: 01 Feb 2013)
The trial is about the GSM Iphone 4 and Ipad 2. Verizons Iphone 4 is CDMA version and is not even included in the import ban because it does not infringe on the Samsung patent that got the ITC to put an import ban on the GSM version. So what stake does VZW have in all of this? Apple cant make VZW and Sprint pay more because the GSM verson (ATT and T-mobile among many others that use the GSM standard in thier cell networks) got banned from import.
45. o0Exia0o (Posts: 654; Member since: 01 Feb 2013)
And to be honest carriers that have the Iphone sign a contract with Apple for how many I phones Apple sells them. The carriers are on the hook to pay for the contracted amount that they agree to sell on thier network. I doubt if Appe were unable to secure the phones for the carriers to sell that the carriers would just blindly pay Apple for not holding up thier end of the contract.
47. Taters (Posts: 5099; Member since: 28 Jan 2013)
Apples be lawsuit against Samsung should have been vetod. They need to let this through or otherwise Samsung won't rest until they have some form of payback. This would only help diffuse the situation.