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

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..

[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..

[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.

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...

[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.

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: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.