iPhone 4, iPad 2 Get US Import Ban

Bent Spoke writes "The U.S. trade agency has banned the import of older Apple iPhone and iPad models due to the violation of a patent held by Samsung (PDF). 'The president can overturn the import ban on public-policy grounds, though that rarely happens. Apple can keep selling the devices during the 60-day review period. ... Apple pledged to appeal the ITC decision. The underlying findings will be reviewed by a U.S. appeals court specializing in patent cases. ... The decision could mean fewer choices for AT&T and T-Mobile customers who want to get an iPhone without paying the higher cost of the iPhone 5. Samsung told the commission that Cupertino, California-based Apple could drop the price of the iPhone 5 if it was worried about losing potential customers. All of the iPhones are made in Asia.' It's getting so complicated we need a scorecard to keep track of who's winning these offensive patent battles in the smartphone coliseum."

Comments

You know what they say..

[OhANameWhatName]

.. those who can't compete, litigate.

Re:You know what they say..

[myurr]

If we're lucky Apple will realise that patent reform is in their best interests as well as ours. More likely though is that this will be seen by Apple as a sign they need to step up their legal activities even further.

I know there will be apologists but Apple really brought this upon themselves with their frivolous lawsuits based on patenting rounded corners and their seeking of bans of other devices. Whilst the rest of the phone manufacturers have all joined in the same rotten game, and many were playing at it before Apple, it was the Cupertino based company that (in my view) turned to the courts as their primary competitive strategy.

Let the flamewar begin!!

Re:You know what they say..

[fredgiblet]

Which is why Apple spends so much time litigating amirite?

Re:You know what they say..

[Anonymous Coward]

What strikes me as how both the interviewee's in the news clip shown in the TFA constantly confuse the terms "around the country" and "around the world". Americans' are bred thinking that the country and the world are one of the same. These Freudian slips are just proof of their cultural ignorance.

If Obama did overturn the ITC I'd ask the question, why even allow Samsung the freedom to file cases against Apple in the first place? I'd say if Obama did overturn the decision (no matter the ethics behind the decision) it's just proof that the USA is doomed. Ideally the Govt should be held accountable to it's respective laws, that fact a committee even exists for this sort of thing just highlights how Totalitarian the US has become.

And someone explain WTF "public-policy" is?

Re:You know what they say..

[GNious]

If we're lucky Apple will realise that patent reform is in their best interests as well as ours. More likely though is that this will be seen by Apple as a sign they need to step up their legal activities even further.

If Apple and others conclude that Patent Reform is unavoidable, or in their interest, they will refocus part of their lobby and legal teams to ensure that it is as much in their interests(...) as possible, and as little-as-possible in ours (the public).

Re:You know what they say..

[Grey Ninja]

Are you honestly suggesting that Apple had Samsung make their iPhones and then Samsung took those designs and made identical copies on their own?

Re:You know what they say..

[exomondo]

.. those who can't compete, litigate.

Seems like something morons say, if that was the case then it suggests nobody is capable of competing, all these companies are suing and counter-suing eachother.

Re:You know what they say..

[Anonymous Coward]

1. Phones exist (very important logical point I believe).

What a revelation.

2. American company asks an Asian company to make a new type of phone based on a set of blue prints that the American company provides.

Yeah.

3. Asian company builds a machine that makes said blue prints.

'said blue prints'? So a machine that makes the exact blueprints that were sent to them such that the american company did nothing other than turn on the machine that makes the blue prints and sent the output to the asian company? Or did the american company create them somewhere and just print them out on the blue print making machine?

4. American company asks for X number of phones to be built. Asian company delivers X number of phones.

That's generally how it works.

5. Asian company realises they can make Y number of phones which is x2 as much as X.

Y number of what phones? The ones the American company contracted them to make? Or different ones? Or are they built from the output of the asian blue print making machine?

6. Asian company sells X-Y=Z phones

So they sell -X phones? According to point 5 Y = 2X so given the above Z = -X.

which in turn pisses off the American company.

Damn straight, they're selling negative phones instead of building phones they were contracted to build!

So who sues who?

The guy who came up with the idiotic math, then we praise the blue print making machine that made the Americans redundant and wonder what the fuck the Asians are doing.

Re:You know what they say..

[Anonymous Coward]

The Apple Sect believes that.

Re:You know what they say..

[oztiks]

I'm not saying that at all. Though I can see that if you take my 6 dot points 100% literally you could say that I am making that judgement :)

It's not as if way back when Steve Jobs had his first keynote showcasing his new iPhone creation it had a "Powered by Samsung" logo underneath the iPhone logo. Why not? I've seen plenty of PC's with "Intel Inside" stickers plastered on it.

Samsung created the IP that ensured that Apple's IP would work. I guess you could then argue that Samsung should be sued by the creator of the screwdriver that was used in the creation of creating their IP but sufficed to say here in lays the problem.

If Apple gets the rights to sue, Samsung should get equal rights to do so as well. Don't allow favouritism via product preference or country of origin allow you to be swayed.

Re:You know what they say..

[oztiks]

The guy who came up with the idiotic math, then we praise the blue print making machine that made the Americans redundant and wonder what the fuck the Asians are doing.

Sorry about the simple math X-Y. I didn't proof my text before sending it.

Asian's I've found to be very philosophical when it comes to doing business. Provided both companies benefit from their transactions and you don't mistreat them they make life pretty easy.

I find it totally mind boggling that after an American organisation shows an Asian company how to create a successful product and when the Asian company actually does so the American's get pissed off? Haven't you guys learned anything from the catastrophes in the middle easy?

Re:You know what they say..

[TrollstonButterbeans]

Patent reform actually isn't in anyone's interest --- not anyone who would take the time and effort and initiative to do something about it, except possibly Google (which is against all intellectual property and internet laws as a nature of their business model).

This crazy patent system rewards large companies, individuals, lawyers and politicians --- and does not hurt non-commercial works (open source included) because lawyers don't sue where there is no money (#1 rule of lawyers).

There is no evidence any of these anti-patent sentiments are going anywhere, and our messed up patent system generates short term monopolies which spur business growth.

It is a terrible system, but one with no true losers except in theory --- but this theory can't manifest in reality (i.e. no one will bother to sue you unless you make it big, if you made it big you were successful anyway).

An occasional patent troll annoys Microsoft or RIM, gets a settlement that is of no practical concern to target (Microsoft doesn't cry over 60 million). If you are a growing company, you pay the license fees for patents you need and expense it and move on.

Re:You know what they say..

[oztiks]

east

Re:You know what they say..

[AmiMoJo]

It's actually worse than that.

Apple's patents are on design, silly things like rounded corners and page bounce. They are easy to work around. Everyone else's patents are on the technology needed to connect to mobile networks and other standards essential stuff which, as demonstrated here, is clearly enforceable and impossible to avoid.

Samsung did offer to license the patent to Apple, as they are required to do under FRAND rules. Most companies don't pay cash for this, they just cross license their own technology patents and call it even. Apple doesn't have any tech patents to bargain with and its design patents are worthless, so they have to pay $$$ instead. Apple didn't like the fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory rates so refused to pay, and now the court is punishing them for it.

Patent reform won't help them. Patent reform is only going to destroy their own design patents, not the technology patents they don't want to pay for.

Re:You know what they say..

[Anonymous Coward]

5. Asian company realises they can make Y number of phones which is x2 as much as X.
6. Asian company sells X-Y=Z phones which in turn pisses off the American company.

Why would that annoy the American company? If Y is x2 as much as X and X-Y=Z then Z must be negative X. So the Asian company must be buying up all the surplus phones. The American company doesn't lose out.

Re:You know what they say..

[erroneus]

It's interesting that all this mention of Obama is being mentioned. It's as if they are literally calling on him to intervene... or announcing it.

He would do well to steer clear of this one. After all, his push for patent reform is in no small part addressing the issue of software patents among other things like patent trolls. Samsung is a practicing and participating entity. Ideologically, they are precisely what Obama's patent reform push would serve to protect. For Obama to act against the ITC now would be hyp... oh, okay... I see it now. Nevermind.... business as usual.

Re:You know what they say..

[Savage-Rabbit]

I'm not saying that at all. Though I can see that if you take my 6 dot points 100% literally...

Religious fundamentalists tend to do that ;-)

Re:You know what they say..

[Anonymous Coward]

Apple has more than 400 FRAND patents mostly acquired from Nortel, but they decided to never sue based on FRAND patents.

Samsung ask 2.5% of the price of the whole iPhone as a "reasonable and fair" price. This is exactly what Motorola ask to Apple and Microsoft as well for FRAND patentd. Recently, a court has considered that in a Motorola vs Microsoft case, a fair price would be 1/2000 to what Motorola asked.

Nobody can seriously think that 2.5% rate is a fair price as there are thousands of FRAND patents involved in any smartphone concerning 3G, 4G, WiFi, Bluetooth etc.

Re:You know what they say..

[Anonymous Coward]

Which is not always possible. Sometimes you have to be good before you can become bad.

Re:You know what they say..

[jo_ham]

Are you honestly suggesting that Apple had Samsung make their iPhones and then Samsung took those designs and made identical copies on their own?

What... are you stupid? No, of course not. Samsung had no choice. Apple forced Samsung to copy Apple's innovations... by innovating in the first place. You have a lot to learn about Chinese culture, my friend.

What does Chinese culture have to do with it? Samsung are a Korean company.

Re:You know what they say..

[jo_ham]

Nice spin. You can say that the rate was "fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory" but that doesn't make it so. Apple certainly didn't believe so, hence the lawsuit. If they felt it was fair they would have paid up right away, like they did for the many, many hundreds of other FRAND patents that are essential to the iPhone's function.

Re:You know what they say..

[oztiks]

It was a dumb typo, I know that, most level headed people would see that. I'm concerned that you don't.

Re:You know what they say..

[gaiageek]

Are you actually trying to make the argument that Samsung's success as an Android device manufacturer, which largely came with the devices released after the "copied Apple" ones in question (which, it's been shown, Apple used Photoshopped evidence in making its case for), is entirely based upon the fact that, under your assumption, their first generation devices looked more like an Apple's than the devices released by other manufacturers? Really?

Re:You know what they say..

[Anonymous Coward]

Seeing as Apple stoke the iPhone format from Sony, even creating blue prints, and has been shown to be the case in court, I find it bizarre that Apple fans still bleat on about copying.

Re:You know what they say..

[stealth_finger]

Apple's patents are on design, silly things like rounded corners and page bounce. They are easy to work around.

Of course they are easy to work around. The problem is Samsung didn't want to work around them, they wanted their products to look like iPhones and iPads. And look what happened: All those companies that didn't sell iPhone and iPad lookalikes are not selling. The one company that copied Apple's designs became the most successful.

I never got this. Samsungs look no more familiar to iphones than other smart phones. A rectangle with rounder corners. Ive recently upgraded to a sony xperia z and thats the most different looking to an iphone I've had but only because it doesnt have a physical button at the bottom middle. Before this I had a nokia e7 which had most of the physical features and an iphone. Take any of the flagship models really, describe them to a blind person and they'll probably think they all look the same.

Re:You know what they say..

[Anonymous Coward]

A "dumb typo" is when you hit the "T" key instead of the "R" key. What you did was just the first word.

Re:You know what they say..

[Attila Dimedici]

You do know that it was Apple that sued Samsung first, right? That this particular suit was a response to Apple suing Samsung for violating their "look and feel"?

Re:You know what they say..

[Anonymous Coward]

I presume you're referring to Apple, who started this entire litigation war rather than rely on the merits of their products.

Re:You know what they say..

[charles2678]

Nobody can seriously think that 2.5% rate is a fair price as there are thousands of FRAND patents involved in any smartphone concerning 3G, 4G, WiFi, Bluetooth etc.

Not per patent. For an entire portfolio, it seems an entirely reasonable place to start bargaining from. And that's what happened in the Microsoft/Motorola case -- Motorola put in an opening bid, and Microsoft immediately (with no counteroffer) when running to friendly local court asking that court to decide that the negotiations (to which they'd declined to respond at all) were innately unfair.

Re:You know what they say..

[the_B0fh]

Does it have to be identical? Designing and building the parts give you knowledge on how your competitor's phone work.

Additionally, did you not see the 250 pages of competitive design notes that Samsung created, *FROM THE TEAM THAT MADE PARTS FOR THE IPHONE*?

Re:You know what they say..

[the_B0fh]

When your starting point of negotiation is a magnitude of 2000 points away from reality, what sort of negotiations are you really having? Wait, wait, you must be one of those republican negotiators!

Re:You know what they say..

[the_B0fh]

You did not see the S1 and S2 packagings and shape and look of the phones as well as icons and so on?

You might just want to do a simple google search. Plenty of things like the following exist:

http://samsungcopiesapple.tumblr.com/

Re:You know what they say..

[Arrogant Monkey]

Irrelevant. Doesn't put apple in a bad light, therefore no play with the /r/slashdot crowd on this story.

Re:You know what they say..

[ganjadude]

Right, Because I am going to trust a site called "samgsung copies apple" to be unbiased... on tumblr no less

Re:You know what they say..

[Electricity Likes Me]

And you clearly never owned a smartphone pre-iPhone.

Hint: the rounded corner button-at-the-bottom design predates the iPhone by a lot. I have an iPaQ and an HTC Win CE phone both of which predate the iPhone by years which had that design.

Re:You know what they say..

[Anonymous Coward]

Are you honestly suggesting that Apple had Samsung make their iPhones and then Samsung took those designs and made identical copies on their own?

What... are you stupid? No, of course not. Samsung had no choice. Apple forced Samsung to copy Apple's innovations... by innovating in the first place. You have a lot to learn about Chinese culture, my friend.

What does Chinese culture have to do with it? Samsung are a Korean company.

That's extremely ignorant. That's like saying the British or French can't possibly have anything to do with Greco-Roman culture because they are in neither Greece nor Italy.

Re:You know what they say..

[stackOVFL]

I think that can be said of most successful businesses (patent trolls are an exception to this of course). Apple and Samsung are acting no different than any other corporation in suing for what will make them money or protect their perceived property. Until patents reform takes place it's just how the game is played. I'd like to believe, like the OP, that corporations would realize that focusing on their products and not on litigation is what they'd rather do but I've been wrong before.

Re:You know what they say..

[AmiMoJo]

Clearly the court disagrees.

Re: You know what they say..

[Anonymous Coward]

Nice try Fandroid. The Sony phone you're referring to never existed. It was a mock up, created by Apple, based on how they thought Sony would design it. Samsung on the other hand had an internal memo where they essentially said "our interface sucks, make it more like the iPhone" and included reference photos of iOS beside their flavor of Android.

Re:You know what they say..

[the_B0fh]

You are either claiming the site forged those pictures, if so, just show evidence, since Samsung's so popular, pictures of undoctored Galaxy Android phones must be easy to find.

Or for whatever reason, you simply cannot believe they are true, in which case, collect your fandroid pass on your way out.

Re:You know what they say..

[the_B0fh]

Are you still going on about that? Samsung would really love for you and everyone else to believe the case is about rounded corners, but, do try to base your criticisms on reality. Read the actual lawsuits, and what the jury and judge actually wrote in their decisions rather than Samsung talking points, ok?

Re:You know what they say..

[Anonymous Coward]

Sorry about the simple math X-Y. I didn't proof my text before sending it.
Asian's

Your English isn't much better than your math. Late night last night?

Re:You know what they say..

[keytoe]

When your starting point of negotiation is a magnitude of 2000 points away from reality, what sort of negotiations are you really having? Wait, wait, you must be one of those republican negotiators!

Microsoft running to the courts seems pretty much inline with that sort of opening offer. Bring a gun to a knife fight...

Re:You know what they say..

[Shagg]

You mean multiple manufacturers build devices which perform a similar function, and they have similar traits in common (especially the obvious/trivial ones)? I'm shocked!

Re:You know what they say..

[the_B0fh]

How quickly people forget what smartphones were like before the iPhone. Blackberry's CEO was quoted as saying he didn't believe the iPhone was real because what he saw couldn't really be done.

Android v1 and v2 sucked rats ass, and it wasn't until ICSW where it was decent. And yet fandroids everywhere always conveniently forgets that.

Re:You know what they say..

[cheesybagel]

IMO the only justification for the President to intervene on such a case would be for national security concerns. This case is clearly not national security related.

Re:You know what they say..

[Anonymous Coward]

Let's also remember that the only angle in which they do share a resemblance is from directly front on, from the side or back they look nothing alike.

Re:You know what they say..

[exomondo]

Plenty of things like the following exist:

http://samsungcopiesapple.tumblr.com/

That's about as much evidence as you need to see that free sharing of information and the FOSS movement is going virtually nowhere. You can't even make products that look similar to other products and the funny thing is it even angers people that aren't associated with the companies in question, why do such people get so emotional and angry about that? What sort of person buys a device and ends up so defined by their ownership of it that they get angry when another company makes something that looks similar?

Re:You know what they say..

[exomondo]

Who really gives a fuck? Unless they start calling it an iphone and calling themselves apple it doesn't matter and it certainly doesn't matter to end users.

Re:You know what they say..

[Maritz]

You have a lot to learn about Chinese culture, my friend.

Too easy. Bet you're glad you posted AC as you look a right fucking numpty now. ;)

Re:You know what they say..

[Maritz]

It's a bit more like saying: "Samsung are a Korean company." The previous poster clearly thought they were Chinese, making him a fool (at least in terms of expressing strong, sarcastic opinions on this).

Re:You know what they say..

[exomondo]

How quickly people forget what smartphones were like before the iPhone.

Who cares? The iPhone was built from the products and innovation of others just as post-iPhone products have built upon the innovation of it, look at the similarities across the dumbphones of different manufacturers of years past, or how Motorola's invention of the flip phone spawned so many others of that form factor from different manufacturers, or the common "menu button -> grid of icons" workflow that ended up spreading to virtually every phone (not sure who had that first and it doesn't matter anyway), nobody cares so why do some people get so anal about Apple?

Re:You know what they say..

[Anonymous Coward]

You can say that the rate was "fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory" but that doesn't make it so.

He isn't saying it, obviously the court is. You're right on the court's side if the decision favors Apple but when the shoe's on the other foot you say it's 'spin'. I could see that from somebody employed by Apple and to be honest I wouldn't hold it against you to be biased if that were the case, but it's pretty pathetic if you just own Apple products and defend them because you define yourself by your use and ownership of them.

Re:You know what they say..

[Anonymous Coward]

The Court has had nothing to do with this decision. This was a ruling by the International Trade Commission. Apple can still appeal to the courts to overrule this decision.

Re:You know what they say..

[the_B0fh]

And you jumped in multiple times to tell us how much you don't care.

Aren't you protesting a little too much...?

Re:You know what they say..

[exomondo]

And you jumped in multiple times to tell us how much you don't care.

Aren't you protesting a little too much...?

Protesting? No, I'm not protesting at all. I'm just interested to know why everybody is so nuts over Apple on stuff like this, is it that they are unaware of products and product categories before the iPhone came along or is it something specifically about Apple?

Re:You know what they say..

[Electricity Likes Me]

Yeah I did. And it was based on "gee this looks a bit like this".

Shall we discuss the angle of the corners? Shape of the screen? Curvature of the back shell? Which part of the geometric shape was patented and "too close" to Apple's?

Re:You know what they say..

[Plumpaquatsch]

Are you honestly suggesting that Apple had Samsung make their iPhones and then Samsung took those designs and made identical copies on their own?

What... are you stupid? No, of course not. Samsung had no choice. Apple forced Samsung to copy Apple's innovations... by innovating in the first place. You have a lot to learn about Chinese culture, my friend.

What does Chinese culture have to do with it? Samsung are a Korean company.

See, they even copy Chines culture.

Re:You know what they say..

[the_B0fh]

Seeing that I have the original Palm Pilot, the Newton, the HP Ipaq, I wouldn't call myself ignorant of the category.

On the other hand, I see people like you protesting all the time, and I'm curious if you do know the product category.

Re:You know what they say..

[cavebison]

If we're lucky Apple will realise that patent reform is in their best interests as well as ours.

It's not luck. Like any public company, Apple needs to keep shareholders happy and patent reform won't increase market share, lower costs or do anything else companies need to concentrate on to survive. Why would a company do something that is not to their advantage, particularly in such a fast-moving, cut-throat industry?

Re:You know what they say..

[erroneus]

Yes... it has nothing to do with copyright concerns. If it did, we'd know what to expect.

Re:You know what they say..

[exomondo]

Seeing that I have the original Palm Pilot, the Newton, the HP Ipaq, I wouldn't call myself ignorant of the category.

So given the fact that so many dumbphones, laptops, desktops and a myriad of other products in various product categories from different manufacturers look alike why is it that whenever a samsung and apple story comes up there are people that always jump in with the 'samsung copied apple'...why do you even care? I see so many people like you bringing that up all the time and i just can't understand why, if samsung were to come out and say 'yes we copied apple' would that appease you?

On the other hand, I see people like you protesting all the time, and I'm curious if you do know the product category.

It seems you don't know what 'protesting' is, i'm not protesting anything, I'm asking why you're so hung up on this 'samsung copied apple' issue.

Re:You know what they say..

[the_B0fh]

Do you actually think it is right for one company to copy another company's product so much that their own attorneys couldn't tell the difference?

Or, is your alterego GenericMan?

Re:You know what they say..

[exomondo]

Do you actually think it is right for one company to copy another company's product so much that their own attorneys couldn't tell the difference?

I can't say it bothers me, I bought an Apple iPhone and the existence of the Samsung Galaxy didn't confuse me into thinking they were the same product any more than telling the difference between different models and brands of TVs. But even then looking at their current iterations I can't imagine anybody would confuse them now so the the question I have is why does this issue of the past keep getting brought up whenever there is a topic about these two companies? It's as though some people for whatever reason really need closure on this issue to be able to move on with their lives. If Samsung came out and said 'yes we copied them' would that satiate you?

It really is fascinating, I've seen it with the anti-Microsoft stance too, whenever an Microsoft story comes up somebody will hark back 10 years to something they did and fork the discussion down that path as though this time they are going to get closure on the issue or something.

Re:You know what they say..

[Shagg]

How quickly people forget what smartphones were like before the iPhone. Blackberry's CEO was quoted as saying he didn't believe the iPhone was real because what he saw couldn't really be done.

That's because touchscreen technology at the time wasn't mature enough. The iPhone was the first device to use the new touchscreen, but that wasn't an Apple innovation. They were just the first ones to use it in their product.

Nothing New Here

[Anonymous Coward]

Companies exist to generate profit, this means suing each other constantly, no company is your friend, blah blah blah.

Sigh

[centipedes.in.my.vag]

It's shitty when Apple does this, and it's shitty when Samsung does this. With that said I'm astounded. A good share of those iPhone internals are Samsung parts; isn't this biting the hand that feeds a bit for Samsung - indirectly blocking the import of their own parts? When you have your finger in every pie...

Re:Sigh

[fredgiblet]

Apple has been moving away from Samsung parts. It's more lucrative to have the market themselves anyway.

Re:Sigh

[myurr]

Component sales to Apple are a relatively small percentage of Samsung's profits from the mobile sector. They've probably calculated that the potential gain in market share, and related profits, easily outstrips any drop in component orders by Apple.

Re:Sigh

[im_thatoneguy]

Apple presumably will continue manufacturing them and paying Samsung for the parts. And after a $1B payout to Apple I imagine that Samsung just wants vengeance a this point. Both of them are already going to lose when the scorecard gets rung up but I doubt Samsung wants Apple to come out ahead.

Re:Sigh

[Grey Ninja]

Samsung wants to let Apple know that they will not be bullied. They are able to fight them back.

Re:Sigh

[Anonymous Coward]

The ban is only about the USA. World > USA so the loss isn't that big especially compared to teaching Apple a lesson and gaining some negotiation points, which are both worth money.

Re:Sigh

[Anonymous Coward]

When you have your finger in every pie... [?]

You trailed off there — what where you saying?

Re:Sigh

[smash]

Apple also sells a lot more iphones outside of the USA now.

Re:Sigh

[TrollstonButterbeans]

Neither Samsung or Apple lose. Some other company X, Y or Z that would like to grow market-share or compete against Samsung loses because both Apple and Samsung are affirmed by the courts to have patents that "count" to participate in the market in a specific way.

Re:Sigh

[Plumpaquatsch]

It's shitty when Apple does this, and it's shitty when Samsung does this. With that said I'm astounded. A good share of those iPhone internals are Samsung parts; isn't this biting the hand that feeds a bit for Samsung - indirectly blocking the import of their own parts? When you have your finger in every pie...

So what if the components implementing the infringed patent are actually made by Samsung?

Re:Sigh

[gnasher719]

Samsung wants to let Apple know that they will not be bullied. They are able to fight them back.

Apple reacted when Samsung copied the design of their products. That's not exactly "bullying". On the other hand, Samsung seems to be very good at bullying. Like journalists and even members of parliament in Korea losing their jobs when they critisize Samsung.

Re:Sigh

[jo_ham]

Given this involves the 4 and the older iPads, I'm not sure how that follows.

The bulk of Apple's orders from Samsung are for the iPhone 5 and retina iPad (Samsung makes the CPU and other components).

Winning an abuse-the-frand-process lawsuit on a selection of products that Apple barely sells any more (the 4 is still available as an entry level, but it is not long for this world) is hardly beneficial for Samsung.

There's certainly an element of biting the hand that feeds you, but Samsung also knows it is in a relatively strong position - the parts it has available are better than Apple can get from its competitors. This is especially true for displays, so it's not entirely without a bargaining position. It's also in partnership with Apple in some cases - the cash injection into Samsung's Texas plant came from Apple, for example. As with any two giants, they are intertwined and often fight among themselves.

Re:Sigh

[whisper_jeff]

Component sales to Apple are a relatively small percentage of Samsung's profits...

Even assuming the numbers in these two articles are off a bit and slightly dated, I don't think "relatively small" is an accurate representation of Apple's impact on Samsung's revenue. Feel free to cite contradicting numbers if you can find any but I seriously doubt you will - Apple is a massive client for Samsung.

http://www.idownloadblog.com/2012/08/07/apple-now-accounts-for-8-8-of-samsungs-revenue/

http://www.theinquirer.net/inquirer/news/2269565/apples-iphone-and-ipad-chips-generated-83-percent-of-samsungs-processor-revenue

That said, Samsung may have still decided to go for the short term direct profit route of increasing their device sales at the cost of their long term relationship with a massive client, but don't think for a second that Apple is a small part of Samsung's revenue stream.

Re:Sigh

[squiggleslash]

Winning an abuse-the-frand-process lawsuit

It's not abuse-the-frand. Frand doesn't mean license-free, it means a fair and reasonable license. Apple doesn't like the terms of the license, but nothing about them is particularly unfair. The usual claim by Apple apologists is that Apple doesn't pay the same terms as, say, HTC - but there's a reason for that: HTC happily cross licenses technologies of equal value - from Samsung's Point of View - in the same technological arena. If Samsung didn't like HTC's terms, Samsung would charge HTC the same rate as Apple, and most likely HTC wouldn't have a problem with that.

I don't like patents, but am somewhat less sympathetic to hardware makers who refuse to license FRAND patents, especially over something like this. You get two choices, pay the fair rate, or negotiate an alternative. Apple is apparently unwilling to do either.

Re:Sigh

[Anonymous Coward]

More importantly, it's a small win on the whole Apple-Samsung lawsuit. Apple refused to even negotiate terms to license Samsung's patents, but in turn sued Samsung for violating some of Apple's patents. Apple got a questionable jury award of $1B, which has since been chopped to $600M. Now, Samsung not only got a ban but agreement from the ITC that Apple is in violation of at least one of its patents. So it would appear that not only are the older Apple devices banned from import, but also that Apple's violation of Samsung's patent rights might result in a monetary award to Samsung, a very large award. Apple might be forced to pay the same FRAND rate other companies are, which would be around $2/phone. Or, eventually, Apple and Samsung might sign a patent cross-licensing deal, although Apple's been the antagonist throughout and it's unlikely they'll compromise in this manner. The end result is a weakening of the case against Samsung, and likely reduction of total awards to Apple, or at least the effective total award.

Re:Sigh

[Grizzley9]

You get two choices, pay the fair rate, or negotiate an alternative. Apple is apparently unwilling to do either.

Because there are more than just two choices available.

Re:Sigh

[ganjadude]

yeah, he forgot sue

Re:Sigh

[ganjadude]

The only people in the world that think samsung copied apple design are fanbois and aparently a few judges who are not technologically intelligent. even when both are placed in front of my nearly blind grandmother she knew that one was not the same as the other.

Re:Sigh

[timmyf2371]

Please humour me for a moment and take a look at this photo which shows the iPhone 3GS and Galaxy S side by side. Then try to tell me with a straight face that you can't see the similarity.

A few interesting points/questions:

- The Galaxy S interface looks nothing like stock Android. If they felt it necessary to create their own interface, why create one with similar UI elements such as the shaded area for the four icons at the bottom?
- The Galaxy S hardware design has rounded corners with chrome edging. These are not typical features you find on every smartphone, nor are they essential to its operation. How did they coincidentally end up with such a similar design?

The Galaxy S3 and S4, as well as the Nokia Lumia range and HTC's range show that you can make attractive devices with nice UIs. Apart from most HTCs looking the same, and most Lumias looking the same, why is it that no other devices have managed to end up looking like carbon copies of the iPhone?

Re:Sigh

[cheesybagel]

8.8% of Samsung what revenue? The Samsung conglomerate does more than electronics. Not to mention that Samsung has a lot of other clients for their electronics. Its not like Samsung became the #2 electronics manufacturer overnight. They already were #2 before Apple started selling the iPhone.

But sure stay in your little deluded world that Samsung actually needs Apple for anything.

Re:Sigh

[Anonymous Coward]

OMG ROUNDED CORNERS AND CHROME EDGING

Show me again the part where a reasonable person would confuse one with the other?

Was it the square button that you thought was round like every single apple device?

Was it the 2 other buttons at the bottom that were confusing you; did they look like the words "APPLE IPHONE" or something?

Seriously; the 2 pones may bear the same general shape; but fuck man, they are different phones and everyone in the market place fucking knows it. If everyone knows that an "Apple is an Apple and a Samsung is a Samsung" what fucking premise do you need to get the samsung phone shut out of the market of fined for fucks sake.

Re:Sigh

[jo_ham]

They can also dispute the "fair" cost offered to them - which is what they did.

The several hundred other FRAND patents they seem to have paid up for just fine. Odd that the only ones that are in doubt are very specific obscure ones dug out of a FRAND pool belonging to companies they recently were in a design patent suit with, eh?

Re:Sigh

[exomondo]

Please humour me for a moment and take a look at this photo which shows the iPhone 3GS and Galaxy S side by side. Then try to tell me with a straight face that you can't see the similarity.

Of course they look similar, so did many phones from different manufacturers throughout the 90s, then the early non-touchscreen smartphones, PDAs, Laptops, Desktop computers, etc... often look very similar across manufacturers.

Re:Sigh

[Anonymous Coward]

What gain in market share? Winning a patent fight on outdated tech doesn't win you magic karma points that influence consumers to buy your product instead. Apple users would just buy a 4S instead. No big deal.

Shorting APPL

[Anonymous Coward]

Time to short APPL !!!

Re:Shorting APPL

[Savage-Rabbit]

Why?

Who cares if they can't sell their old, dull junk?

Nobody any more - only out of touch wanna-be desperates and old people still use iPhones

I'll try to ignore the juvenile condescension dripping off that post and try to stay factual. Millions of people who do not fit your description still buy the iPhone, the iPhone 4 is Apple's entry level phone and entry level devices are kind of important for enticing new customers. The problem (for Samsung) is that firstly, this will be appealed and secondly, the iPhone 4 is about to be succeeded as the entry level model by the unaffected 4S and possibly the rumoured low cost iPhone model. So for Samsung this is mostly a propaganda victory whose magnitude depends on how much the Samsung PR department and Samsung/Google's army of fanboys can inflate it's importance

I found the article linked to in the summary to be a bit confused, there is a somewhat better analysis available here

U.S. Patent No. 7,706,348 concerns an “apparatus and method for encoding/decoding transport format combination indicator in CDMA mobile communication system” (an allegedly UMTS-essential patent). Newer iPhones and iPads coming with Qualcomm QCOM +0.84% baseband chips (starting with the iPhone 4S) are definitely not affected, limiting the potential impact of this decision on Apple’s revenues — basically, Apple would have to make the iPhone 4S its entry-level iPhone model and discontinue U.S. sales of older iPhones (and the “new iPad 4G”, the third-generation iPad, its entry-level model for iPads with cellular connectivity; WiFi iPads are not affected at all). Formally the decision also relates only to the AT&T versions of those older products, but Samsung reserved the right to allege infringement by Apple products running on other networks (unless they come with Qualcomm baseband chips).”

Re:Shorting APPL

[Anonymous Coward]

You started your post saying you were going to keep it factual, but then you posted about all the problems Samsung has.

Let's keep things in context here. Samsung has lost nothing. Apple has lost the ability to import and sell certain things. Who has the problem?

Re:Shorting APPL

[Anonymous Coward]

Its going to be pointless soon, though. Apple has always kept the 2 gen back model as entry level, and with a new iPhone due out in 4 months or so, the 4S will become the entry level.

Re:Shorting APPL

[Anonymous Coward]

And then they will start arguing over the new technologies. The problem here is that when the elephants fight it is the grass that gets trampled. As an aside, I heard on the radio that Apple is still making a lot of money on these old phones so it is not as trivial as it first sounds.

Re:Shorting APPL

[danomac]

What goes around comes around. Apple did the same thing to Samsung and got a ban on an older Galaxy S model. Even back then the S2 was out so it didn't have much of an affect. No difference here.

Remember, Apple started all this and now they're on the receiving end. No sympathy from me.

Balance

[Anonymous Coward]

Currently, the most agressive parties in patent disputes use trivial and/or overly broad patents. FRAND patents are used more defensively. In this picture, successful FRAND claims are a good thing.

Those who live by the sword...

[mykos]

I wish karma were a real thing.

Re:Those who live by the sword...

[gentryx]

On /. it is.

Re:Those who live by the sword...

[Anonymous Coward]

Sounds like an augmented reality dream. Lots of people walking around with "+5 Helpful", "-3 Arse" and "+/-??? Weirdo" floating above their heads.

Re:Those who live by the sword...

[Anonymous Coward]

If it were a real thing, Apple would be forced to recall all the infringing iPhones they sold and give their owners new Samsung phones. That would be karma.

Instead we get an import ban on obsolete models that I was unaware were still being made in the first place.

Re:Those who live by the sword...

[jkrise]

Not swords, Jobs talked of ThermoNuclear warfare. By definition both parties are destroyed in such a warfare. Jobs foolishness is tanking Apple big time. He deserved to be alive to see his warfare panning out like this.

Re:Those who live by the sword...

[Grizzley9]

Jobs foolishness is tanking Apple big time.

You have an odd definition of tanking.

Re:Those who live by the sword...

[ganjadude]

quick, someone writing google glass apps get on it!

Re:Those who live by the sword...

[Richy_T]

Something's broken with this app. It's only showing "-3 Arse". Oh wait...

Wait, what?

[NettiWelho]

It's getting so complicated we need a scorecard to keep track of who's winning these offensive patent battles

You serious? Whos winning?
My take from past few years is more along the lines of... this

Re:Wait, what?

[NettiWelho]

With proper time in url.

Re:Wait, what?

[sharkey]

I think a different definition of 'offensive' fits better: "repugnant to the moral sense, good taste, or the like"

Fucking racist, man

[Anonymous Coward]

All asians might look same to you, but Samsung (who provided some of chips for iPhones) is a different company from Foxconn (who can be said to "make" iPhones - as in assembles them).

I doubt Samsung ever saw the blueprints for iPhone (if dem slanties could even make anything out in those blueprints with their slit eyes</poes-law>)

Old hardware still being produced??

[dimethylxanthine]

Is this really such a big deal? How long since iPhone 4 / iPad 2 have gone out of production and replaced by newer models? Doubt the ruling will have any serious impact...

Does anybody else find it funny...

[lxs]

...that a US company can't sell their product in the US because of an import ban on that product?

Re:Does anybody else find it funny...

[Anonymous Coward]

Apple is not a US company. It doesn't pay taxes there or in any country.

Re:Does anybody else find it funny...

[stealth_finger]

...that a US company can't sell their product in the US because of an import ban on that product?

Yep. I wonder if they would have the issue if they made the phones in america. They seem pretty proud that the stuff was designed there, but are happy to farm of production to the cheapest option and avoid tax at every term. Anyway I'm convinced steve jobs sold his soul for the massive boom in popularity from the ipod days (even though they were shit), actually, he probably sold the souls of the marketing dept and everyone who clicks I agree. Bollocks to them.

Re:Does anybody else find it funny...

[Anonymous Coward]

Apple is not a US company. It doesn't pay taxes there or in any country.

There's a long-ass list if that is the qualifier...

Re:Does anybody else find it funny...

[aliquis]

At some time "Think different" changed meaning from "take LSD" to "I to must have an iPhone!"

From my perspective Apple has only been interesting for their software, but since it's filled with vendor lock-in it's not all that useful.

Re:Does anybody else find it funny...

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, there is. But we're not talking about any of those.

Re:Does anybody else find it funny...

[jo_ham]

Goodness me, that is the most chafed neckbeard I have ever seen! How do you cope?!

"iPods were popular but shit" is just a weak argument. It works better with hipster glasses, but then, I thought it was all the Apple users who were the hipsters. I get so confused!

The amount of butthurt from nerds on slashdot over the success of the iPod and subsequent iOS devices is hilarious. The tangible sense of "not getting it" swirls around like a dark cloud, just because something became popular that wasn't exactly what you wanted from a product, thus it is impossible to believe that the success is down to anything other than marketing to braindead consumers.

Re:Does anybody else find it funny...

[stealth_finger]

thus it is impossible to believe that the success is down to anything other than marketing to braindead consumers.

That's exactly what it is. They didn't even try to convince people it was the best. It somehow became a style thing. There were plenty of better and cheaper mp3 players on the market. Still are. Sure ipods now are a lot better than they were back then but they're still no better than the competition and more expensive. Loads of people buy apple because of the badge and say oh macs are better for this or that but they can't give a single tangible reason why. Personally, if someone wants to get a mac for either the fact it's 'cooler' or they have a reasoned preference for that machine, that's their issue but don't get all defensive because someone else doesn't like it or want it.

Re:Does anybody else find it funny...

[gtall]

The iPod succeeded because Apple built a store front where you could easily buy music and install music for it. You didn't have to read a bunch of geeky stuff, you didn't have to download stolen music, you just clicked a few buttons. The specs on the device itself only matter to...uh...you and two friends.

Re:Does anybody else find it funny...

[jo_ham]

There were plenty of better and cheaper mp3 players on the market.

In your opinion. This is the point I'm making, and the point that Apple realised. Better in what way?

- Sound quality? At first yes - the amp in the early iPods wasn't as good as some of the others out there, but this is no longer the case (everyone pretty much uses the same chips for standard parts like this now)
- Storage space? Depends what you're looking for. The first iPod didn't have as much space as a Nomad (so lame!) but it was physically smaller.
- Price? It cost more, but if it's still value for money for the people that buy it, what's the issue? You are not obligated to buy one.
- UI? Hands down this is where the iPod beat everything else and the reason it became so popular. It was easy to use, and people loved it.

I can see that you're not going to be swayed from your rock solid opinion that Apple's success is anything other than some sort of black magic marketing and convincing people to buy something over many generations by somehow making them ignore "how shit" it is, over and over and over again, but such is life. If you're unwilling to look at the reasons for the success of a product then there;s not much debate.

Personally, if someone wants to get a mac for either the fact it's 'cooler' or they have a reasoned preference for that machine, that's their issue but don't get all defensive because someone else doesn't like it or want it.

But that's not what you're doing. You are saying that people are being fooled by the marketing and are not buying products that would be better for them. You are free to hate Apple as much as you like. Froth, wail, scrunch up your eyes and wish really, really hard that all their success has nothing to do with making products that people actually want to buy all you like, but don't be surprised if people call you on it.

There's a difference between not liking a product (even call it shit if you like - it's an opinion), and stating that the success of that product and its successors/derivatives in the marketplace over a decade are solely down to clueless sheep falling for a marketing trick.

Marketing will only take you so far before the shit starts to stink. No matter how hard you try to wish it wasn't so, but consumers actually *like* Apple's products. You don;t have to - that's fine - but you can't dismiss people who buy them as somehow being "fooled" because they didn't make the same choices as you did.

Re:Does anybody else find it funny...

[geminidomino]

Sure ipods now are a lot better than they were back then but they're still no better than the competition and more expensive.

Sadly, that's not even true anymore. To my knowledge, the iPod classic is the only hard-drive based music player (not media player) available anymore, and I've been looking. Everything else has either gone to flash, which is all the rage but gives significantly less storage for the price, or the "media player" route, with oversized screens and controls even less suited for eyes-free use than the thumbwheel thing (that I still loathe).

It's a strange, scary world when Apple is wins in "bang-for-the-buck" in anything.

Re:Does anybody else find it funny...

[Anonymous Coward]

Except for the fact that they paid more taxes in the US than any other company.

But why let facts get in the way of anti-Apple spin, amiright.

Re:Does anybody else find it funny...

[H0p313ss]

Except for the fact that they paid more taxes in the US than any other company.

But why let facts get in the way of anti-Apple spin, amiright.

*Looks at sign*

Yes sir, you are in a designated fact-free zone, you may flame at will.

Re:Does anybody else find it funny...

[Anonymous Coward]

They were actually 9th in 2012:
http://www.forbes.com/sites/christopherhelman/2012/04/16/which-megacorps-pay-megataxes/

and 3rd in 2013:
http://www.forbes.com/sites/christopherhelman/2013/04/23/which-corporations-pay-the-most-taxes/

At the prices they charge for their products, and with their margins, I'm not surprised at how much revenue they make and subsequently how much they pay in taxes.

Re:Does anybody else find it funny...

[ganjadude]

not everyone. I cant stand apple but i also note that if apple wasnt sucessful, the droid eco system would probably not be what it is today either. so in that regard I am thankful

Re:Does anybody else find it funny...

[Flodis]

Goodness me, that is the most chafed neckbeard I have ever seen! How do you cope?!

"iPods were popular but shit" is just a weak argument. It works better with hipster glasses, but then, I thought it was all the Apple users who were the hipsters. I get so confused!

The amount of butthurt from nerds on slashdot over the success of the iPod and subsequent iOS devices is hilarious.

oooh. Flamebait if I ever saw one. I think parent was pretty reasonable in his/her comment.

The tangible sense of "not getting it" swirls around like a dark cloud, just because something became popular that wasn't exactly what you wanted from a product, thus it is impossible to believe that the success is down to anything other than marketing to braindead consumers.

Actually, it's quite easy to come up with examples of when the general consumer... consumes... substandard stuff rather than the good stuff.

• Beer. Budweiser (the American variant) is the most sold in the world.
• Audio. Range compression (english term?) makes many pop songs sound loud, but make them lose in dynamic range. Consumers in general don't care.
• Food. Fast food compared to anything else.
• Games. Farmville compared to anything.
• Books. Dan Brown... Sigh.
• Films.
• ... and so on.

So.. What makes you so sure parent isn't "getting it"?

Re: Does anybody else find it funny...

[ToastedRhino]

Complete fucking nonsense rated insightful. Apple has an effective tax rate around 24% which I'd venture is higher than most companies. If course, that doesn't fit the anti-Apple narrative.

Re:Does anybody else find it funny...

[Anonymous Coward]

Freakin Hilarious.

Re:Does anybody else find it funny...

[Anonymous Coward]

If apple had not been so successful then the android ecosystem would look more like the windows one, you coulde update your software when you want and not your carrier.

Re: Does anybody else find it funny...

[Anonymous Coward]

Why does the parent only have a rating of 2 and the liar grand-parent has a +5 insightful?

TIL: slashdot users (on the whole) are fucking idiots.

Re: Does anybody else find it funny...

[TheAmazingChestaro]

Kudo's to Apple for giving up so much money to the government. I'd have a better warm fuzzy about that if I could trust the government to spend those taxes appropriately. Which is really kind of sad, considering how much Apple likely gave to the government due to their huge profits, largely driven by cheap outsourced labor and overpriced products with huge profit margins. Oh don't get me wrong, they are good products, just way overpriced. But hey, as long as people are willing to buy them at those inflated prices, Apple will be more than happy to provide.

Re:Does anybody else find it funny...

[Richy_T]

If Palm had been able to put one foot in front of the other, we would have had an iphone-like device a couple of years earlier. Instead they forfeited that opportunity and instead of the natural fit of integrating telephony into a PDA, we had it shoehorned into a music player instead.

Re:Does anybody else find it funny...

[taharvey]

Totally not true... Apple pays taxes on all of it US activities, at a high rate of 31%. They are the single largest taxpayer in the USA.

They don't pay any taxes on business outside of the USA, because well, IT IS OUTSIDE OF THE USA! When did people decide that products made and sold and profited in one country should be taxed in another country?

Heck, we don't even pay sales tax across state lines. Why then should a company pay income tax on activities outside the borders of the countries in operates in?

Re:Does anybody else find it funny...

[Anonymous Coward]

Riiiiight. Keep on trollin'!

They pay plenty of taxes. A lot actually. You're thinking of GE, who didn't pay any taxes last year.

Yes, they use loopholes. So do everyone else with good accountants. Those loopholes need to be closed. But the only reason Apple was made an example of is because they make so much money, that the amount they are able to save via loopholes is an awful lot. No one cares about the thousands of companies saving tens of millions each in taxes when there's one company actually saving billions.

Pot. Kettle. Black.

[Anubis IV]

“We believe the ITC’s Final Determination has confirmed Apple’s history of free-riding on Samsung’s technological innovations,” Samsung said in a statement to AllThingsD.

http://allthingsd.com/20130604/samsung-wins-import-ban-against-older-iphones-ipads/

I can't imagine them saying it without at least some irony in their voice. Seriously though, Apple has all but confirmed that they're violating patents for various reasons (e.g. FRAND terms were not offered) and has always been rather blasé about much of this stuff, while Samsung has at times blatantly ripped off a number of its competitors, most recently Apple (before Apple, a number of their designs ripped off Blackberry and others), sometimes doing so rather shamelessly yet denying it entirely.

And all of this won't matter much in the end anyway, since sixty days will get us darn close to the post-back-to-school time when Apple typically announces new versions of their devices anyway, including the heavily rumored low-cost iPhone that will be replacing the iPhone 4 (quick note: this injunction only applies to the iPhone 4 model used by AT&T, apparently, since the iPhone 4 had different chipsets for GSM and CDMA in all but one of the models (the late-released white iPhone 4)), and a new version of the iPad and iPad mini, which will be obviating the need to keep the iPad 2 in the lineup.

So, kudos to Samsung for winning a victory where one was deserved, but in the end, it's all just more of the same.

Re:Pot. Kettle. Black.

[MrDoh!]

It's probably one of those things that they're putting the boot in at last. Apple have yelled it from the rafters everytime they've had a win and Samsung's been fairly quiet. Bridges are burnt out now, the relationship between them will never be repaired, so Samsung are trying to set the story straight in the press (who /usually/ tend to veer towards being pro-Apple in their reporting). Plus, it's a nice point to make in other cases still raging around the world.

Re:Pot. Kettle. Black.

[Anonymous Coward]

This is AFAIK the first import ban granted on a FRAND patent: one can expect soon a lot of bans from FRAND patent holders in any standard technology. Nokia for example could become immensely profitable by suing everybody on their FRAND patents and asking for an absurd 2.5% royalty rate as Samsung did. The Pandora box is open: hopefully the ITC ban will be quickly canceled by the appeal court.

Re:Pot. Kettle. Black.

[Anonymous Coward]

The press know who their bosses are... and Apple has done a ton of advertising.

Re:Pot. Kettle. Black.

[AmiMoJo]

FRAND terms were not offered

Yes they were, Apple just didn't like them. Most companies do a patent exchange to avoid paying any actual cash, but Apple doesn't have any tech patents to offer and it refuses to license design patents. So Apple was obliged to pay the same percentage as everyone else, it's just that because Apple products are rather expensive that translated into a several dollars per device which they thought was too much. Well, you know what Apple, too bad, everyone else agreed to this deal and now the court agreed that it was fair.

Samsung has at times blatantly ripped off a number of its competitors, most recently Apple

If you mean that they look somewhat similar then I would direct your attention to Braun's product line which pre-dates Apple's.

And all of this won't matter much in the end anyway

It certainly will because this isn't the only tech patent that falls under FRAND rules which Apple has tried to ignore, and Samsung isn't going to relent on those. Its the nature of litigation that it takes years and in the mean time new products come out, so at the end you apply for a quick judgement on other patents and the new gear based on the arguments that were resolved during the trial. On top of that you can expect Samsung to press for damages and of course the unpaid license fees.

This has been coming to Apple for a long time. You can't just ignore patents vital to implementing standards because you don't like the FRAND terms that everyone else has agreed to. That is the price of joining the club, the alternative being to go set up your own world-wide cell data network.

Re:Pot. Kettle. Black.

[squiggleslash]

What's absurd about 2.5%?

Re:Pot. Kettle. Black.

[Virtucon]

Nothing unless you don't want to pay it for whatever reason. I think because of the legal entanglements of Apple v. Samsung it's probably more of a principal thing than a money issue. Besides Apple can afford to sit on it's massive cash stash and just keep throwing lawyers at Samsung. The same goes for Samsung, they're not going away anytime soon.

Re:Pot. Kettle. Black.

[Anubis IV]

You seem to have a number misconceptions related to the facts of this case and the terms surrounding it. Perhaps I do as well. I'd welcome correction if I'm wrong in some of these.

First off, it wasn't a court case at all. This wasn't the result of a lawsuit, nor will Samsung be receiving lawyers' fees, damages, or tacking on additional judgments for other patents, all of which you've suggested. This was an ITC (International Trade Commission) hearing. I.e. Samsung filed a complaint with an American governmental agency that regulates international imports and exports into and out of the US, claiming that Apple was violating its patents and should be barred from any further imports of the infringing products (Apple did the same thing against Samsung last year with some of Samsung's older models, as I recall, though I may be wrong about that). This is not a sales ban, merely an import ban, so Apple is welcome to use the 60 days to stock up on the products so that they can ride out the gap between when imports cease and they retire each of these products in a few months, which is why I said that this won't impact anything at all.

It's also worth pointing out that the case does not, as best I know, have anything to do with FRAND terms (I was merely referencing Apple's arguments, not making them or suggesting they were related to this case). Besides which, FRAND is primarily a European idea, whereas US standards bodies generally go with RAND instead. Apple's arguments tend to revolve around the F (fair), and the argument you've provided (that everyone else received the same offer, so tough cookies for Apple), while valid, only covers the ND (non-discriminatory) aspect of (F)RAND. As I'm sure we can all imagine, terms can be non-discriminatory while also being unfair if you're offering the same unfair terms to everyone, but that's neither here nor there, since, once again, FRAND is unrelated to this case as far as I know, and I was merely intending to reference reasons that they have provided elsewhere for their actions. I apologize for that confusion.

As for Braun, you're citing designs made by Dieter Rams', who consistently has high praise for Apple and the design work its doing. Similarly, Apple's lead designer, Jony Ives, has repeatedly cited Rams' as one of his inspirations. Also, there's a world of difference between drawing heavy inspiration from the design of a decades-old object in a different product category to make something entirely different that looks superficially similar or contains similar superficial elements, and drawing heavy inspiration from the design of a contemporary object in the same product category to make a product that both looks and functions as close to the original as possible. And, again, they've been doing this for years, with Apple merely being the most recent one (though that's not to say that Samsung is without original designs, since they certainly do have plenty of them).

That also ties in with Picasso's quote (which Jobs' repeated) about good artists copying while great artists steal. In some of these cases, Samsung has been copying designs, without making them their own (to be clear again, I'm not arguing that Samsung lacks any original designs at all). Put differently, they'll copy elements without demonstrating that they have an understanding of why those elements are that way. In contrast, Apple outright stole Braun's/Rams' designs by owning them, in that they demonstrated a clear understanding of why the form of the design was the way it was and then modified it appropriately to suit their different needs.

To better illustrate the idea, I'm reminded of a story I heard from an astronaut friend about the Russians once asking some visiting NASA engineers why NASA's space shuttle rotates 180 after launch. The Americans explained that they did it because they needed to be facing that way for orbit, but they couldn't be facing that way at launch since the tower on the launchpad would get in the way of the shuttle's tail fin. Of course, when the Americans

Re:Pot. Kettle. Black.

[Anonymous Coward]

Nothing, until you realize there are more than 50 holders of standards-essential patents. So, as long as you're willing to pay 110% of your sales price to enter the market, it's all very Fair and Reasonable, isn't it?

Re:Pot. Kettle. Black.

[vux984]

. Put differently, they'll copy elements without demonstrating that they have an understanding of why those elements are that way. In contrast, Apple outright stole Braun's/Rams' designs by owning them, in that they demonstrated a clear understanding of why the form of the design was the way it was and then modified it appropriately to suit their different needs.

That's a pretty bad case of rampant fanboism you seem to have there. :)

I'm reminded of a story I heard from an astronaut friend about the Russians once asking some visiting NASA engineers why NASA's space shuttle rotates 180 after launch...

Do you have a source for that? I'm not denying it, I'm genuinely curious. I find "cargo cult" behavior interesting in all its forms.

However, I don't think much of what Samsung replicated from the iphone was anything other than blindingly obvious. To assert that "only Apple" understood these things is comical.

Especially while Apple's skeuomorphic fetish has been a real turn off, showing that they, perhaps above all others, literally just aped things. Really, while some of it is arguably good and some arguably bad the 'bits of paper' left behind in ical are truly beyond the pale.

Re:Pot. Kettle. Black.

[Anubis IV]

For the shuttle story, I provided the only citation I can: I heard it directly from the mouth of an astronaut who's been a family friend for a number of years (she's flown on four missions and has since retired; living in the suburb immediately adjacent to where JSC is located, pretty much everyone there knows an astronaut or two). As I recall, she was not repeating a firsthand account from her own experiences in Russia, so I'd guess it was simply something she picked up during her time at NASA.

As for Samsung, a lot of it was obvious after the fact, and I'm not asserting that "only Apple" understood those things either. I'm merely suggesting that Samsung grabbed a lot of those ideas and put them into their devices without having worked through the thought processes involved to weave them into a coherent design that carefully considered the various factors. They've certainly come a long way since then, however, and they do have original ideas of their own, including some that Apple has incorporated with varying degrees of "success".

Also, skeuomorphism, while not something I'll defend in many of Apple's uses, is something that can be quite useful when done right, since it can help a user who is used to a preexisting object acclimate to the virtual one much more readily by carrying over similar design elements. The scraps of paper and other frivolities like stitched leather are overwrought details that shouldn't have been included in the first place, but making a calculator app look like a physical calculator is an example of where something like this can work. That said, having a true, native design for a calculator app, such as Soulver, that takes no inspiration from the physical device, can come with a lot of freedom and benefits, but it may come at the expense of a steeper learning curve for people coming from the physical world.

Re:Pot. Kettle. Black.

[cheesybagel]

Buran "looked" like the Shuttle for political reasons. The actual architecture was a lot different. Energia was a standalone booster and they did not use solid rockets. Instead of using the crawler like NASA it was launched using a rotating table. The fact is the original Russian design aka the Vulkan rocket was meant to launch a much smaller spacecraft similar to Spiral. This was changed to a larger vehicle as they heard about the Shuttle design. Some people in the Russian military even thought the Shuttle was meant to be an orbital bomber design because it was so big when the main driver was actually reconnaissance satellite size.

Re:Pot. Kettle. Black.

[shutdown -p now]

In this case, everyone else would also have to pay the same 110% (since even holders have to get patents from other holders), so yeah, sounds reasonable. Those R&D costs have to be factored into the price somehow, after all.

Re:Pot. Kettle. Black.

[taharvey]

I don't think Kudos are deserved at all.

Short memories at work here. When the iPhone 1 was released, it was a clear game changer... there was no doubt by even the most jaded of industry watchers. Was it fundamental science? No. But it was a synergistic approach with a whole new set of design thinking around how mobile devices should work that created a result unlike anything else on the market, and which changed the market forever. Those innovations were rapped up in a bunch design patents by Apple. Yes they sound silly when decomposed (rounded corners), but how else do you protect a design concept?

Samsung (and google) could have avoided Apples design patents by innovating their own design approach rather than directly and shamelessly coping Apples devices. Microsoft deserves some respect here, because they did spend time coming up with a different design approach for Win 8 mobile that wasn't a rip-off of Apples hardware, UI and look and feel. This isn't patent trolling, as Apple is protecting shipping products and only wants one thing: for Android to not copy them. Microsoft did it, Google and Samsung could to.

Samsung has SEP and Apple has SEP. Samsung is clearly abusing their SEP position in this case. Apple has stated that they won't use their SEP patents as a weapon. They are taking a principled stand.

There is no irony here Samsung, is a bad actor in both accounts. When I see comments like these, it make me wonder how much money google and samsung have sunk into astroturfing.

Re:Pot. Kettle. Black.

[Anubis IV]

Funny thing is, my comment appears to be equally abrasive to both sides, since I've gotten similar remarks to yours from Samsung defenders, accusing me of displaying rampant Apple fanboyism.

In truth, I actually am pretty hardcore Apple lover. I don't have my old Mac Classic, Performa 400, or PowerMac 2600 around any more, but I do have my old Titanium PowerBook in a nearby closet, an Aluminum PowerBook on my desk about a foot away (I still used it regularly up until about a month ago, when I migrated to a new piece of software), and a 2011 Mac mini (which replaced a 2009 one) all still around. And that's just the computers that I've used as my primary personal use machines since the late '80s or so. I skipped the iPod line since I never saw much need for one, but there's the iPhone 4 that I still use (which replaced the 3G that I camped out for on launch day with my dad, when I came back from grad school to visit him for his birthday), the iPad 2 that was a gift from a friend, the Time Capsule I picked up somewhere along the way and use for Time Machine, and an Apple TV, all with me and in regular use (though I'm thinking I'll replace the iPhone and iPad within the next year with upgraded models). I use Keynote instead of PowerPoint, Pages instead of Word, and Safari instead of Chrome (and I also have a Safari extension I created published on Apple's official site). I've even held off on purchasing a new watch since I want to see what happens with all of these iWatch rumors, and I'm wondering how much I could get for my 55" TV if the product Apple is inevitably going to make in that market is interesting.

So, yeah, I'm not a Samsung astroturfer, to say the least. If anything, I'm a dyed-in-wool Apple lover (I try not to refer to myself as a fanboy, since I'm not entirely blind to Apple's faults, nor do I give them a free pass in areas where they're clearly coming up short...iCloud, I'm looking at you), and you can check the years' long history of my comments here to readily ascertain that fact. That said, I'm also simply a guy that wants to give credit where it's due. Most of the time I believe that Apple is in the right, but in this case, I don't necessarily.

Re:Pot. Kettle. Black.

[vux984]

For the shuttle story, I provided the only citation I can

That's too bad, as it's an interesting story. But it could just as easily be 'urban legend' as fact. Even just confirmation that Russians rotated their craft 180 would be supporting evidence.

As for Samsung, a lot of it was obvious after the fact.

So much of what the iphone did becomes obvious as soon as you start with the presumption of a touchscreen (and one using fingers, not a stylus at that).

A lot of details from the form factor -- small tablet with rounded corners, to many of the UI details simply follow from that.

And even much of what Apple did had already been done on low profile devices by more obscure manufacturers on more limited devices or in labs.

They do get credit for pulling in all that previous touch UI research and building a pretty seamless product, but its overstating the case that they had all kinds of uniquely 'deep' understanding of what they were doing.

Apple's "true genius" IMO was really just to recognize that the key technology (multi-touch screen) was -ready- for prime time and then bet the farm that consumers wanted it and put it out in a high profile product launch.

Re:Pot. Kettle. Black.

[taharvey]

Sorry, I didn't mean to implicate you specifically.

However, if you read the forums both here in throughout the web, it is clear the google & samsung are sinking lots of money into paid astroturfing. My impression, is that Apple is relatively naive when it come to these tactics.

While I think Apple still has the key innovative figures in product design, the loss of Jobs has huge implications for how Apple needs to represent themselves in the media. Jobs was such a larger-than-life figure that these anti-marketing tactics, just wouldn't stick. Now Samsung is building an aura of cool around a bunch of gimmicky features like "wave-to-answer" backed by a huge media and astroturfing campaign to vilify Apple. Its just wild to watch.

how convenient for

[Anonymous Coward]

apple... now folks are going to be forced to pay more

Not getting complicated

[iapetus]

No need for a scorecard. As always, the patent lawyers are winning, and the consumers are losing.

This sort of shitty competition through litigation was vile when Apple did it to Samsung, and it's equally vile when Samsung do it to Apple. Showing more and more why we desperately need patent reform. I'm not even that concerned about the impact on Apple and Samsung - it's the smaller players who can be crushed by litigation like this that I've got more sympathy for.

Re:Not getting complicated

[Anonymous Coward]

This sort of shitty competition through litigation was vile when Apple did it to Samsung, and it's equally vile when Samsung do it to Apple.

If somebody comes up to you in the street and punches you in the face, and you punch them back in self-defence, you're saying those actions are equal.
You're an idiot.

Re:Not getting complicated

[iapetus]

I'm saying that punching people in the street, whatever the reason, is a bad thing that we should want not to happen, if that's what you're asking, yes.

You, on the other hand, appear to be taking the kindergarten line of argument. "But... but... but he did it first!" Doesn't make it any better, I'm afraid.

The reality is that your analogy is bad. In the real world we can't make it impossible for anyone to punch someone else in the face. In terms of abuse of patents, we can do that - or at least make the penalty for doing so high enough to make it undesirable.

Re:Not getting complicated

[Anonymous Coward]

This sort of shitty competition through litigation was vile when Apple did it to Samsung, and it's equally vile when Samsung do it to Apple.

If somebody comes up to you in the street and punches you in the face, and you punch them back in self-defence, you're saying those actions are equal. You're an idiot.

When someone comes up to you and steals your stuff, you punch them in the face. Them punching you back is just more attack.

The only people winning are...

[Ev!LOnE]

... the lawyers. You knew it anyway.

How does it feel Apple?

[AbRASiON]

Well,.........? How does it feel?
You started it.

Re:How does it feel Apple?

[jo_ham]

Well,.........? How does it feel?
You started it.

I'm sure it feels amusing. Losing a patent lawsuit on a FRAND patent opens up a whole new can of worms. Do you know how many Apple holds? They're free to go out in force, guns blazing, with that sort of precedent behind them. You thought they were litigious before now?!

Re:How does it feel Apple?

[Anonymous Coward]

God you're a tool.

Re:How does it feel Apple?

[cheesybagel]

A lot less than the other companies which have been working in the cellphone business for decades now I would guess.

Re:How does it feel Apple?

[jo_ham]

God you're a tool.

A tool who at least is brave enough to log in.

Although, I guess that insult cancels out because you didn't log in.

Victory again!

Too Late

[PanAmaX]

Is it just me, or is an import ban on a 3 year old iPhone 4 and a 3 year old iPad 2 really going to make much difference to Apple? Those products are winding down anyway? So banning them now is a bit too little too late. When you compare this to the billion dollar lawsuit from a year ago, this is not much of a punishment at all. They should also impose a penalty for every single unit of these makes that has been sold within the U.S. and make apple pay that to Samsung. That's only fair. Also I agree with an earlier poster who said that if Obama can overturn this ruling, what is the point of the whole system in the first place.

Re:Too Late

[jo_ham]

This was a FRAND lawsuit - I'm amazed it got as far as it did (Samsung's litigation is... well, if not illegal, it's certainly wide of the gentlemanly thing to do), so it's not like the damages suit that Apple won over the design patents it held. There's no financial losses to Samsung from Apple using this patent, other than the licencing fees, since it's in the pool. Samsung's got no claim to loss of earnings or brand confusion, or any of that angle of attack (whether you believe it's bullshit or not), just the angle that Apple doesn't want to pay up for a patent that they literally must use (since it's in a FRAND pool attached to a component that is essential to make the radio hardware work). The argument boils down to "They're asking too much money for this" on one side and "They don't want to pay, we believe x is a fair price" on the other. The solution is either "Apple pays what Samsung asks", "Apple pays what a judge thinks is fair" or "Apple stops selling devices affected by this".

I'm willing to bet Apple's lawyers selected the latter, given the choice, given how long this has been drawn out.

They'll still appeal it, of course, but even if they lose it's not the end of the world for them.

It's interesting that in both the Motorola case and the Samsung case, a single FRAND patent out of the whole slew of patents involved in the radio hardware that just so happen to belong to the respective litigant are miraculously found to be non-compliant after Apple files lawsuits over design patents. Given how sure Samsung and Motorola were, I assumed everyone else who had a patent in that pool would also sue Apple, since it seems very odd that Apple would pay for a hundred or so patents and then just "refuse to pay" for a couple. Were I a cynic, I'd suspect shenanigans. Fortunately I'm not a cynic.

Re:Too Late

[PanAmaX]

"There's no financial losses to Samsung from Apple using this patent, other than the licencing fees, since it's in the pool."

This is part of the penalty I was referring to.. it doesnt matter whether its FRAND or not.. if you don't pay the licencing fee of a FRAND patent then you're in violation of the terms of use of the patent.

"They're asking too much money for this" on one side and "They don't want to pay, we believe x is a fair price" on the other."

unfortunately the only things that really count here is that the licencing is Fair.. Reasonable and Non-Discriminatory.. hence unless Apple can prove that Samsungs rates to them are discriminatory, then they need to just shut up and pay the licensing fee

I was just saying that banning the old products does nothing, and the court should be forcing apple to pay the cost of licencing per product (as you state either as agreed by the court, which in my opinion is ridiculous as the court doesn't know the value of technology, or they pay the rates which samsung requested, which is the same fee that everyone else using that essential patent pays.) plus a slight penalty as they quite blatantly decided not to pay the licencing for the FRAND patent.

Quite frankly without some kind of extra penalty why not employ this as a standard mode of operation. Use all frand patents without licence and then only pay the licence after being forced to by a court with no extra penalty.. thats not in the spirit of patent law.

Re:Too Late

[jo_ham]

That's exactly the point - Apple contended that the fees Samsung was asking were not Fair and Non-discriminatory. It's not easy to determine exactly what the value is, due to the way many companies simply cross licence, but I think it's 'reasonable' to assume that 2.4% per device is not it as a cash sum. Apple absolutely wants to pay a fair rate, as they do for every other frand patent they licence.

Remember, this is for a single patent in a large pool of standards-essential patents. If a single, relatively insignificant one, is worth that much, then how is anyone able to afford to compete with Samsung? Unless the amount charged to everyone else who uses it (and that list is essentially everyone who ever made a wireless device that worked on a CDMA network) was different to the amount Samsung was asking of Apple.

Apple is simply not going to contest it in court if they believe it's legitimate - like I mentioned, it's one of hundreds of patents in FRAND pools that they licence as part of the cost of making iOS devices compatible with wireless standards (3G/GSM/CDMA/WiFi/BT/etc).

You wouldn't use this as a standard method of operation (not pay and wait for lawsuits) because then no one would submit patents into FRAND pools in the first place, and you'd be stuck with a total mess when it came to things that needed interoperable standards.

The only companies that have raised a stink about it are companies that have been involved in expensive design patent lawsuits with Apple... against Apple. Under every day situations, the FRAND system works well. We didn't start seeing FRAND abuse until Moto/Nokia/Samsung started to hunt around for a way to 'strike back' at Apple for suing them. It's all very convenient, and very bizarre. If Apple really aren't playing by the rules, why is it only with very specific single patents cherry picked out of a FRAND pool that happen to belong to people they're "at war" with? Surely if they're this off the mark on their obligations to licence the common pool patents than there should be hundreds of lawsuits aimed at them from everyone who put into the pool (let's not even get into the fact that you often don't licence the patents individually and instead pay for them collectively when you purchase an off the shelf part for your device, with the various royalties being handled by the cost of the component as is the case with many of Qualcomm's and Broadcom's parts, yet somehow Apple needs a special extra licence to use one of Nokia's patents rolled into a Qualcomm chip over and above the licencing cost Apple already paid...).

Re:Too Late

[PanAmaX]

Actually you raise a very good point in the following line

"let's not even get into the fact that you often don't licence the patents individually and instead pay for them collectively when you purchase an off the shelf part for your device"

that is 100% accurate as usually it is the component manufacturer that will pay for the fact that their component operates according to the accepted standard of which the FRAND patent applies. So (forgive my ignorance on this one as I'm guessing) wouldn't apple have bought the components off (lets say) Samsung? and hence have already paid for the use of that patent?

I mean obviously this isn't the case otherwise this patent wouldn't be in the suit.. So perhaps its that apple have built their own component which has not paid for the use of the essential patent? in which case it becomes fair game.

In any case I agree with you 100% that the value of a patent should be a fixed cost per use and not as a % of a device. That's just ludicrous. I wasn't aware that was what Samsung were claiming.


There is however one point I disagree with..
"Apple absolutely wants to pay a fair rate, as they do for every other frand patent they licence."

Im not sold on this point, as lets face it, there seem to be a hell of a lot of FRAND patents being thrown at Apple in these patent suits. If they really were committed to paying whats fair, then this wouldn't come up so often. And the amount of effort it takes to develop a standards essential patent is a LOT greater than the design and trade dress of a product. Hence that effort should be rewarded through the appropriate payment of licencing. Who are apple to say how much is fair rate for a technology they didn't develop? if thats the cost, and its shown to be that for every vendor, then so be it.. suck it up, or develop your own standard and try and get everyone else to adopt it.

Re:Too Late

[Saint Gerbil]

It was filed in June 2011, when the products were still relevant, and then delayed twice.

I wonder how many backhanders it takes to get 2 delays ?

Re:Too Late

[jo_ham]

There aren't that many FRAND suits being thrown at them, relative to the number of patents they licence, and it seems to be specifically with companies they have got into a beef with. If Apple really weren't playing by the rules (and negotiating the fair rate is part of those rules, as much as Samsung wants to class that as "refusing to pay") then there would be a hell of a lot more suits.

Nokia's suit against Apple was for a patent included in a radio chip that Nokia did not make, but was a third party part that Apple bought as an off-the-shelf GSM system for the iPhone. This included the licence cost for all the patents that went into it, except it seems for that one very specific one somehow. Funny that, eh?

The patent in question that Samsung is suing over is probably the same - I doubt it's in a chip or component that Samsung itself sells. It's more likely to be in one of the off-the-shelf radio chips that dozens of phone manufacturers use - Qualcomm makes those, for example, for GSM phones. You can buy a standard part from them and put it in your phone design. The licencing for the hundreds of patents is part of the cost (or so you would think).

I'm not arguing that Apple doesn't make some ridiculous moves in litigation (something that I hope they'll stop doing with a change in leadership once all of the current nonsense is tied up), but I'm not buying that they don't want to play fair on FRAND patent costs - there are just so many, and they are so fundamental to the operation of any mobile device they are just not going to take that chance. These single-patent-out-of-many suits that they are facing just don't seem like the usual state of affairs. If apple was commonly ducking out of playing fair and paying the right rates then they would be seeing *a lot* more lawsuits of this type.

Re:Too Late

[hattig]

A president hasn't overturned an ITC decision since the early 90s, IIRC.

Samsung can now use this decision in a court case against Apple to get damages.

FTR for one patent in thousands used in a phone, I think that 2.5% of the phone retail price is not reasonable, it seems a high price to enter a closed FRAND gang who have cross-licensed patents to each other for nearly nothing, whilst setting a high barrier of 2.5% that none of them have had to pay. However if that 2.5% covers all the necessary patents in that FRAND pool, that's potentially a different matter (I still don't think it should be related to the retail price, as that price already covers the licensing of other patents and R&D, etc).

But I don't think Samsung would have gone this route if Apple hadn't sued them so aggressively, so meh.

Re:Too Late

[Anonymous Coward]

I wonder if Samsung will troll the iPhone 5S release with a motion to delay the launch to investigate whether or not it infringes.

In other News

[Anonymous Coward]

Samsung buys Qualcomm and breaks all contracts to supply with Apple.

Re:In other News

[coinreturn]

Samsung buys Qualcomm and breaks all contracts to supply with Apple.

Hey, dumbass, Samsung hasn't stopped supplying displays to Apple, so why would they break supply contracts from Qualcomm?

I'm a rebel

[Dan East]

I feel like a rebel, reading this story on my iPad 2 while in the USA. Quite exhilarating actually.

Re:I'm a rebel

[Anonymous Coward]

I guess when you live in your mom's basement that's the equivalent of a blow job?

Ha take that Apple

[Saint Gerbil]

So Samsung filed this motion nearly 2 years ago for an import ban of then relevant product. it been delayed and delayed and now is an irrelevant product, So Apple cannot import any more iPad2's or iPhone4's but isnt stopped from importing iPhone4S's, iPhone5's, iPad3's, iPad4's and iPad Mini's, with no consequence.

I'm happy that Samsung won but what did they really win Apple cant sell products it doesn't care about any more ?

Re:Ha take that Apple

[tibman]

It seems to me that if Apple was supposed to pay Samsung 2.5% of each iPhone4 then when they were sold doesn't really matter. Apple may wish that they had been banned sooner so that they owed less.

US is supermajority of anglophone world

[tepples]

What strikes me as how both the interviewee's in the news clip shown in the TFA constantly confuse the terms "around the country" and "around the world". Americans' are bred thinking that the country and the world are one of the same.

But I do see how. Among people living in industrialized anglophone countries, two-thirds live in the United States, and three-fourths live in either the United States or Canada.

Re:US is supermajority of anglophone world

[Anonymous Coward]

Among people living in industrialized germanophone countries, 70% live in Germany - yet Germans are very much aware of the fact that world does not end at their country's borders.

Who's winning?

[Virtucon]

The lawyers are the only winners here, they get paid whether their client wins or loses.

Everyone else who licensed it thought it FRAND.

[Anonymous Coward]

Just because Apple and their fans don't think so, doesn't make it non-FRAND.

Are you talking payroll taxes?

[Anonymous Coward]

Because if I, as an employee, decided to pay payroll taxes rather than income tax, this would be considered tax evasion, since I pay nobody salary therefore have no payroll to pay tax on.

Apple don't have to pay VAT on everything they buy, I don't have to pay payroll tax.

I can't claim that I paid my taxes in VAT, though.

Why do Apple fanbois^W^WCORPORATE fanbois/Randian Idiots think that corporations have the right to funge what tax they pay?

(I noticed that this likely wasn't actually an Apple fanboi but that this may more likely be a libertard screed to demand government "get off the backs of the wealth creator" bullshit.

They're all stupid

[ArcadeMan]

It's absurd that patent fees have to be determined by the cost of the whole device instead of the ICs using the patent. The cost should be a fixed part of the cost of the ICs themselves so everyone would pay exactly the same.

Let's say you buy an IC that uses 5 patents. It cost 75 cents. Each patent cost 10 cents (example) so the manufacturer gets 25 cents for his IC and each of the 5 patents holders get 10 cents.

Total cost of the patents: 50 cents

Let's say you buy a smartphone that uses the same IC and so the same 5 patents. It cost 500 dollars. Each patent asks for 0.5% of the device cost (example) so the manufacturer gets 25 cents for his IC and each of the 5 patents holders each get 2.50 dollars per unit.

Total cost for the same patents from the exact same IC: 12.50 dollars

Another manufacturer sells another smartphone that uses the same IC and so the same 5 patents. It cost 750 dollars. Each patent asks for 0.5% of the device cost (example) so the manufacturer gets 25 cents for his IC and each of the 5 patents holders each get 3.75 dollars per unit.

Total cost for the same patents from the exact same IC: 18.75 dollars

Asking for a percentage of the total device cost is just insane and should never have been allowed. I don't care if it's Apple, Microsoft, Samsung, Blackberry, Nokia or whoever. The IC is the thing that uses the patented technology, the patent costs should be part of the cost of the IC itself.

Re:They're all stupid

[Anonymous Coward]

So pay the fee on the cheaper component?

Create a subsidiary that manufactures your IC for you; make THEM get a license; and pay them for the "licensed" IC chip.

Problem solved!

Or would you prefer not to go to the hassle; steal the invention (because 2.5% is too high!!) thumb your nose at the inventor and continue selling that device increasing your potential cost in the long run.

PS. I believe all copyrights are a crock of shit, and algorithm patents are just as big a crock of shit. I hope this is a patent for an actual thing or its a crock of shit. Also; design patents are a complete crock of shit. Trademarks on the other hand; I can live with.

Re:They're all stupid

[Anonymous Coward]

The royalties are all about how much profit you generate for yourself from someone else's work.

If my patented technology allows you to make a greater amount of profit, then the technology that I developed is worth more. If you don't like it, go and spend your own money on research and development.

Re:They're all stupid

[ArcadeMan]

The IC manufacturers should be the ones to pay the patents since the technology is in THEIR manufactured and sold parts.

Apple probably thinks this is great

[TheSkepticalOptimist]

Now it will force users to buy iPhone 5 and iPad 3 or Mini instead of cheaping out on an older model. Its a win win here.

Re:Apple probably thinks this is great

[Sockatume]

If Apple wanted to "force users to buy iPhone 5" they would've stopped selling the older models. It's not like they unleashed some unpredicable iPhone-4-building robot out into the world when they launched the device and have no means of reining it in.

oh, noes, they've enjoined stagecoach wheels!

[swschrad]

what next, is some lawsuit going to stop manufacture of Carborundum radio detectors? axe heads? our society is in danger if we can't crank out obsolete crap!

Free rider problem

[sjbe]

I find it totally mind boggling that after an American organisation shows an Asian company how to create a successful product and when the Asian company actually does so the American's get pissed off?

The problem is called the free rider problem and it shouldn't boggle your mind at all. Patents were created specifically to deal with that problem. Research and product design are expensive. It is MUCH cheaper to just copy some else's solution. Problem is that the company that actually did the heavy lifting in figuring out the problem in the first place now can no longer compete because they still need to recoup their costs. And yes, that pisses off the company that solved the problem in the first place. Most of the time it is a zero sum game. Would you appreciate someone copying your work and making money instead of you? If you say yes I'm going to call you a liar.

Re:Free rider problem

[oztiks]

I get that but for me the problem always goes back to the fact that something had to come from somewhere beforehand. The wheel dawns the horse and cart, the horse and cart, horse and cart dawns the car.

Take Kodak for instance. They kept selling film and photo developing services all the way up to bankruptcy. Sort of like selling horseshoes in today's society when they should of gone with the times and started selling rubber tyres.

Look at Nokia for example. They were a massive company before smart phones. They were on the top of the ladder and Apple was looking up at the likes of them. The tables have turned and now Nokia is at the bottom of the pecking order and have gone into submission almost.

One can speculate that Nokia's new product line differ significantly from the iPhone. Yes, this is true. I argue that Samsung really is no different, the end product Nokia or Samsung are both very good products. As all cars have inherent features which are alike.

Personal preference, I prefer the two over the iPhone myself and when there is a legal escapade against either brand I ask myself "when does ford start suing everyone else, they did after all commercialise the first car" and I know the answer as would most people.

Way back when it wasn't and issue but if move that situation into present day and they would of had the ability to do the same as Apple has. We as consumers don't shun GM or even Toyota because that competition is what has kept the car industry innovating (though I'd like to say in a very piss poor fashion).

Isn't the law in place to serve what's right and wrong about societies ills rather then be used as a form of remuneration based on legislation and "the times"?

Re:Free rider problem

[sjbe]

I get that but for me the problem always goes back to the fact that something had to come from somewhere beforehand. The wheel dawns the horse and cart, the horse and cart, horse and cart dawns the car.

The fact that someone came up with a prerequisite for an invention does not eliminate the free rider problem on development cost. Classic example is drug research. Manufacturing processes for drugs is well understood. However research to develop the drug will cost many millions to develop. Once developed the product can be manufactured usually for a few cents per unit. There is basically no possible way to recoup the research investment required to develop the drug if it can be freely copied once the formula is known. Hence we have patents to protect the incentive to do the research. The fact that our patent system in its current form is flawed does not make the free rider problem any less serious. Much of the technology we utilize today would never have been developed without some form of protection from the free rider problem.

All the prerequisites for an iPhone existed before Apple but no one else managed to put them all together. If there was no difficulty in doing the research to create the iPhone then someone else would have done it sooner. Virtually every smartphone that came afterward has copied Apple's basic design. Love them or hate them, you cannot deny that Apple is the one who figured out the form factor that everyone else has copied. Why should Apple (or any other company) be forced to be the research arm of another company for free? No one is arguing that Apple should have complete control over everything that even remotely resembles an iPhone (except maybe Apple) but it is very reasonable to grant them some patents to reward their inventiveness and incentivize more of it.

While it is without question that many aspects of our patent system are broken, your logic that everything depends on something prior is faulty because the economic incentives break down on a forward looking basis. Investments that cannot be recouped (almost) never get made.

Re:Free rider problem

[oztiks]

However research to develop the drug will cost many millions to develop. Once developed the product can be manufactured usually for a few cents per unit. There is basically no possible way to recoup the research investment required to develop the drug if it can be freely copied once the formula is known.

I remain sceptical here because Apple isn't known for it's tremendous amounts of R&D. It is known more so for its joint R&D programs such as AIM or its works with ARM. Saying that Apple is the linchpin to the design of the iPhone "I believe" never came from R&D per say. It came from somewhere else, Steve Jobs.

All the prerequisites for an iPhone existed before Apple but no one else managed to put them all together. If there was no difficulty in doing the research to create the iPhone then someone else would have done it sooner.

They did put it together prior to the iPhone and it did work. The problem wasn't that they couldn't make it work, it was they couldn't make it consumer friendly. The mobile industry was hampered much like the car industry with incremental dosages of innovation strictly controlled to ensure that manufacturers did "the least" for "the most" which is why I revert back to the prerequisite innovation argument regarding this.

What makes Apple good at what they do is not their ability to invent. It's rather their ability to find a product which exists but is unpopular or specialised, strip out the features and components that bog down the device or make it too complex for general consumption. They package it and create a form factor that disrupts the market and appeases the masses. What Apple did was not invent something new rather what they did was keep the rest of the sharks honest. And good for them for doing so because as a result the bar has been set so high that we as consumers can now enjoy a myriad of devices that can achieve far more than what was ever considered back in the early 2000s.

The competitiveness generated from what the iPhone has done in market these days is what has keep the form factor even better than what Apple could of ever done alone. Samsung is not just competing with Apple, they are competing with 10 other Android suppliers and if one of them can gain enough traction that could cause all sorts of issues for Samsung's podium place on the Smartphone food chain.

I see this litigation process as Apple trying to bring back some sort of control over the smartphone market. Apple struggles to compete with the dozens or so manufacturers out there, they aren't keeping up with the insidious level of one-upmanship they have to contend with, which Android has placed on them, and this is so blatantly seen by the strictest type of litigation that was initiated on Apples behalf, I refer to the Judge Koh case.

Air Force buying iPads to replace paper

[Anonymous Coward]

No one has mentioned the irony that the Air Force announced the other day that they were going to buy iPads to replace paper? How's that fragile supply chain affecting mission readiness?

Utility patents

[sjbe]

Apple's patents are on design, silly things like rounded corners and page bounce.

Demonstrably not true with even a casual investigation.

Re:Utility patents

[cheesybagel]

The thing is those multitouch interfaces were already either patented or had prior art available on desktop surfaces. Apple's "innovation" was adding "in a phone" to the patent claims.

Plus it is not like people weren't working on touch based phone interfaces before your precious iPhone came out. IBM Simon, Neonode, etc.

Courtroom sales

[sjbe]

You must be kidding. Apple is a law firm that happens to sell consumer electronics.

Right, because a courtroom is a great place to sell millions of smartphones and computers. I know I buy all my gear based on which company has the best lawyers. I trust you will point out the line on Apple's income statement where they highlight their earnings from lawsuits? [/sarcasm]

Seriously, none of Apple's competitors are a bit more ethical than Apple when it comes to patent litigation and all of them engage in the same behavior. A pox on ALL their houses.

Who's winning? Me

[cellocgw]

I win because I'm still using an Env3 which does voice, text messages, and email just fine, thank you. Plus it can run over a week on standby before recharging.

And thanks to the huge cost & popularity of "smartphones," DumbPhones (TM) are really cheap.

Sony v. Hotz

[tepples]

So what if the components implementing the infringed patent are actually made by Samsung?

It matters not. The PlayStation 3 console is made by Sony. Yet Sony was still able to threaten George Hotz for misusing Sony's copyrighted work on Sony hardware.

WTFV

[Demonantis]

That was the stupidest video I have ever seen. The reporter literal called Samsung a patent troll. And all the footage is a 4s so its not even the banned phone. Plus I don't think this is about market share at all. Its about paying for patents, FRAND or otherwise, when you use them.

Name an Apple *invention* that was ripped off

[Anonymous Coward]

I bet you can't.

In fact, it is debatable that you could even name a bullshit apple design patent that was ripped off.

Apple is a litigation bully - end of story.

Let's sum up all the arguments here...

[Anonymous Coward]

Summary of all arguments here:

"MY heartless multinational corporation is better than YOUR heartless multinational corporation!"