Verizon asks the President to veto the upcoming ITC sales ban of Apple iPhone 4

Verizon asks the President to veto the upcoming ITC sales ban of Apple iPhone 4
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.

The sales ban comes after the the ITC ruled against Apple in a patent infringement suit. Right now, the sales ban is on hold pending a 60 day presidential review that expires on August 4th. Speaking of President Obama, Verizon's general counsel, Randal S. Milch, had an editorial published in the Wall Street Journal earlier this week, asking for the president to intervene in this case. 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.

Milch wants President Obama to veto the ITC decision, a move that no president has taken since 1987. He also pointed out three situations where the president needs to step in. One is when the patent holder isn't using the patented technology. Another would be when the patent holder has already agreed to license a patent on FRAND terms. The third situation is when the infringing part isn't important to the overall product and isn't what drives consumer demand for it. You can read the entire editorial at the sourcelink.

Apple has appealed the order with the U.S. Court of Appeals, which is hearing arguments from both sides on August 9th.


source: WSJ via AppleInsider   

Related phones

iPhone 4
  • Display 3.5" 640 x 960 pixels
  • Camera 5 MP / 0.3 MP VGA front
  • Processor Apple A4, Single core, 1000 MHz
  • Storage 32 GB
  • Battery 1420 mAh(7.00h 3G talk time)
iPad 2
  • Display 9.7" 1024 x 768 pixels
  • Camera 0.7 MP / 0.3 MP VGA front
  • Processor Apple A5, Dual-core, 1000 MHz
  • Storage 64 GB
  • Battery 6944 mAh

FEATURED VIDEO

67 Comments

1. ckoch125

Posts: 192; Member since: Oct 29, 2012

Hey Verizon..... F U you greedy bastards

2. Reluctant_Human

Posts: 910; Member since: Jun 28, 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: Apr 16, 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: 1043; Member since: Apr 11, 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

Posts: 2315; Member since: Jul 30, 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: 4744; Member since: Jan 28, 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: Dec 22, 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

Posts: 2315; Member since: Jul 30, 2011

Thank you !!! +1 For future reference, he's an iMilch!

53. joey_sfb

Posts: 6794; Member since: Mar 29, 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: 2144; Member since: Jan 16, 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: Dec 22, 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 unregistered

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 unregistered

Hey ITC stop kissing the govt a$$. They deserve a BAN.

64. willard12 unregistered

The ITC is the government. I think you mean Verizon.

3. PapaSmurf

Posts: 10457; Member since: May 14, 2012

Well that was unexpected.

54. stealthd unregistered

They did the same thing when a Samsung phone was banned, so it's not really surprising.

4. o0Exia0o

Posts: 903; Member since: Feb 01, 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: 35; Member since: Mar 02, 2012

"Verizon is concerned about the precedent that a sales ban would set" Right there.

11. o0Exia0o

Posts: 903; Member since: Feb 01, 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: 35; Member since: Mar 02, 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: 903; Member since: Feb 01, 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: 35; Member since: Mar 02, 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: 903; Member since: Feb 01, 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: 3722; Member since: Aug 16, 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: 903; Member since: Feb 01, 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: 922; Member since: Oct 18, 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: 4744; Member since: Jan 28, 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: 910; Member since: Jun 28, 2012

He needs something to cover all the horrible press he's getting between the NSA, Guantanemo, IRS scandal, etc

8. roldefol

Posts: 4744; Member since: Jan 28, 2011

Yet another second term scandal. Vietnam, Watergate, Iran-Contra, Monica, Katrina...

18. quakan

Posts: 1418; Member since: Mar 02, 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.

Latest Stories

This copy is for your personal, non-commercial use only. You can order presentation-ready copies for distribution to your colleagues, clients or customers at https://www.parsintl.com/phonearena or use the Reprints & Permissions tool that appears at the bottom of each web page. Visit https://www.parsintl.com/ for samples and additional information.