Slashdot Mirror


Samsung Infringed On Apple Patents, Says ITC

The U.S. International Trade Commission has ruled that certain models of Samsung phone violate Apple patents, and are likely to be blocked from import to the U.S. From the article: "The patents in question are U.S. Patent No. 7,479,949, which relates to a touch screen and user interface and U.S. Patent No. 7,912,501 which deals with detecting when a headset is connected. The ITC said Samsung didn’t infringe on the other two patents. In a statement on the matter, the ITC said the decision is final and the investigation has been closed. ... As was the case with the previous ruling that saw Apple devices banned, the ban on Samsung devices won’t go into effect until 60 days but can be blocked by a favorable ruling following a presidential review. That seems unlikely as such a block has only been issued once since 1987 – last’s week’s ruling in favor of Apple."

274 comments

  1. not again by slashmydots · · Score: 5, Interesting

    They both blatantly copied each other constantly, misused patents, misused lawsuits and injunctions, etc. All these individual little patent disputes are really annoying. They should each be barred from suing each other for anything that happened prior to a certain date so we can be done with this. Then, if they want, they can just duke it out in a paintball game or Mario Party 9 or something.

    1. Re:not again by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But they need this system to keep up good old protectionism while being able to claim they cooperate with international treaties.

    2. Re: not again by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah! And they patented the rectangle! It's so innovative!

    3. Re: not again by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And trademarked the letter "i". What a distinctive novel letter!

    4. Re:not again by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      The difference is Apple have gone running to Obama for favors. You have to wonder why he would do anything for the largest tax dodgers on the planet.

    5. Re:not again by digitallife · · Score: 4, Insightful

      They are both just companies doing the same stuff that companies normally do. None of it so far has really affected the consumers much. Neither of them is getting one up on the other either, so in the end they are just wasting their money. If people are unhappy with the way that corps work, we should be rallying to change the laws regulating them rather than wasting our energy debating the relative merits of common place aggressive troll lawsuits.

      Check out the new Slashdot iPad app.

    6. Re:not again by Noughmad · · Score: 1

      Check out the new Slashdot iPad app.

      The description doesn't really say much, does it support posting? And if so, how?

      --
      PlusFive Slashdot reader for Android. Can post comments.
    7. Re:not again by fustakrakich · · Score: 1

      Mercantilism,.. It's how power works.. The other choice is feudalism. Take your pick..

      --
      “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
    8. Re:not again by fustakrakich · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Taxes mean nothing. Ask yourself this, who 'contributed' more to the party? Who supplies better drugs and hookers?

      --
      “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
    9. Re:not again by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If the latter, does that mean I can ruthlessly murder Apple fanboys on a whim?

    10. Re:not again by mysidia · · Score: 3, Interesting

      They both blatantly copied each other constantly, misused patents, misused lawsuits and injunctions, etc. All these individual little patent disputes are really annoying. They should each be barred from suing each other for anything that happened prior to a certain date so we can be done with this. Then, if they want, they can just duke it out in a paintball game or Mario Party 9 or something.

      This is not just about the past. They are both selling phones in the present that each of them claims is infringing on their patents.

      The courts should examine the patent, determine how fundamental it is, assign an economic value to each of the patents as a price per phone sold; and then force the two to allow the other's use of the patent: require them to pay each other a royalty of their sales based on the court's valuation of each of their patents, and prohibit any further litigation between the two based on those patents, so long as they pay as required.

    11. Re:not again by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Or they should have all - each and every one - of their patents declared invalid.

    12. Re:not again by Princeofcups · · Score: 4, Insightful

      They both blatantly copied each other constantly, misused patents, misused lawsuits and injunctions, etc. All these individual little patent disputes are really annoying. They should each be barred from suing each other for anything that happened prior to a certain date so we can be done with this. Then, if they want, they can just duke it out in a paintball game or Mario Party 9 or something.

      And they are together keeping all other competitors out of the race through fear of being sued. They have no reason to stop. Together they are winning.

      --
      The only thing worse than a Democrat is a Republican.
    13. Re:not again by fustakrakich · · Score: 0

      If they look like Arafat or Bin Laden, or anybody else with that kind of headdress on, then yeah

      --
      “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
    14. Re: not again by noh8rz10 · · Score: 1

      To be fair, apple started the iProduct meme with the iMac. Not saying it should be a trademark, but giving props.

    15. Re: not again by slashmydots · · Score: 1

      If that's true, that explains why it's so expensive to buy a vowel on wheel of fortune.

    16. Re:not again by Wild_dog! · · Score: 1

      Sounds too idyllic. It would be nice to silence the lawsuits and countersuits for a while all the same.

    17. Re: not again by tragedy · · Score: 3, Informative

      To be fair, apple started the iProduct meme with the iMac. Not saying it should be a trademark, but giving props.

      Well, there's the ipaq, which someone else pointed out. There's also Sony i.LINK and iSCSI. There are probably a lot more.

    18. Re: not again by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Bullshit. I've had an i8086, i80286, i386 and an i486 LONG before the iMac.

    19. Re:not again by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think your comment best summarizes the underlying motivations of all this madness. Well said.

    20. Re: not again by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, there's the ipaq, which someone else pointed out.

      iMac

      The announcement of the iMac in 1998

      ipaq

      The iPAQ Desktop Personal Computer in its various incarnations was a Legacy-free PC produced by the Compaq Computer Corporation around the year 2000

    21. Re: not again by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Or the 1997 infogear iphone (remember back around the bankruptcy?)

      Really, I'm sure the letter dates back to ancient babylon, but why bother arguing with cultists. There was a resurgence of "i" and "e" products in the 90s. Of course, in the beginning there was Steve Jobs, everything good came after - things outside Apple prison garden don't exist.

      Also, you can't trademark single letter prefixes.

    22. Re: not again by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      To be fair, apple started the iProduct meme with the iMac. Not saying it should be a trademark, but giving props.

      Well, there's the ipaq, which someone else pointed out. There's also Sony i.LINK and iSCSI. There are probably a lot more.

      Not to mention the iraq.

    23. Re:not again by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If people are unhappy with the way that corps work, we should be rallying to change the laws regulating them

      I remember when some people tried exactly this. They were summarily dismissed as a fringe party that no person should ever associate with. then the police came in and hit them with pepper spray, fire hoses, riot gear, tear gas canisters to the face, etc.
      The occupy movement was doomed by its lack of leadership and its trust fund hippies getting all the airtime. But they were the last people that actually tried to rally support against our broken system.

      My point is that it isn't as easy as simply rallying for change. If you attempt to rally then those who have the most to lose will use their massive influence and stockpiles of money to make sure your discredited, assaulted, and arrested.

    24. Re:not again by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Taxes mean nothing. Ask yourself this, who 'contributed' more to the party? Who supplies better drugs and hookers?

      whadya mean Texas mean nothing? We gots best drugs/hookers in the lower 48!

    25. Re:not again by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Flamebait? The government is ruthlessly murdering people for precisely that reason. Go mod the goddamn assholes that are dropping the bombs!

    26. Re:not again by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Google profit 2012: $10.74bn; declared to the tax man a loss; demanded $85m tax refund.
      Apple profit 2012: $27.5bn; declared all of it to the tax man; $6bn tax paid.

      You think Apple's the biggest tax dodger on the planet?

    27. Re:not again by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      That's what Samsung has been trying to do, but Apple refuses to pay the licensing fees that the ITC has agreed are fair and reasonable.

      On the other hand Apple has no interest in licensing its patents because they are all design and UI elements that it doesn't want anyone else to have. If Apple were willing to license those patents they could do the usual exchange with Samsung and avoid paying anything at all for the FRAND patents it needs.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    28. Re:not again by mysidia · · Score: 1

      If Apple were willing to license those patents they could do the usual exchange with Samsung and avoid paying anything at all for the FRAND patents it needs.

      Perhaps Apple should sell off its patents and the right to continue the litigation to a patent-troll company, and get out of this nasty litigation business...

    29. Re:not again by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Then, if they want, they can just duke it out in a paintball game or Mario Party 9 or something.

      Apple promised to go nuclear over the issue. Perhaps some economic sanctions might be necessary eventually, and if that doesn't work then all out occupation of a building in Cupertino will! Those black turtle neck enforcers are violating the against the God given clothing related rights of every citizen in Jersey area.

    30. Re: not again by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      To be fair, apple started the iProduct meme with the iMac. Not saying it should be a trademark, but giving props.

      Well, there's the ipaq, which someone else pointed out. There's also Sony i.LINK and iSCSI. There are probably a lot more.

      Yeah, sure but I think we can all agree that they don't count, since Apple didn't name those ones.

    31. Re: not again by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There was also ios from cisco. (And wasnt iphone theirs too?)

    32. Re: not again by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The large protests of the civil rights movements had relatively straight forward goals - end segregation for instance. The occupy movement let the 1% know people were unhappy, but I never got the sense of how to fix it from the movement. Maybe it wasn't bailing out bankers and insurance companies. Maybe changing the tax laws. Could we implement a flat tax or graduated tax? Eliminate write offs. . . except a few like mortgages that benefit some of the middle class - or perhaps even, or especially those. Maybe make capital gains closer to regular income tax. More regulation? Less regulation?

    33. Re:not again by Savage-Rabbit · · Score: 1

      They both blatantly copied each other constantly, misused patents, misused lawsuits and injunctions, etc. All these individual little patent disputes are really annoying. They should each be barred from suing each other for anything that happened prior to a certain date so we can be done with this. Then, if they want, they can just duke it out in a paintball game or Mario Party 9 or something.

      This is not just about the past. They are both selling phones in the present that each of them claims is infringing on their patents.

      The courts should examine the patent, determine how fundamental it is, assign an economic value to each of the patents as a price per phone sold; and then force the two to allow the other's use of the patent: require them to pay each other a royalty of their sales based on the court's valuation of each of their patents, and prohibit any further litigation between the two based on those patents, so long as they pay as required.

      I am a bit confused here. I distinctly remember reading that UPSTO had invalidated the Steve Jobs patent (No. 7,479,949). Now alluvasudden Samsung is in trouble for infringing on this same patent.

      --
      Only to idiots, are orders laws.
      -- Henning von Tresckow
    34. Re: not again by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If only there were mod points... If only mod points could move things to the top of the page and put them in flashing bold red 72pt letters...

    35. Re: not again by dakohli · · Score: 1

      CISCO has IOS which of course Apple has licenced

      Well, there's the ipaq, which someone else pointed out.

      iMac

      The announcement of the iMac in 1998

      ipaq

      The iPAQ Desktop Personal Computer in its various incarnations was a Legacy-free PC produced by the Compaq Computer Corporation around the year 2000

    36. Re:not again by BasilBrush · · Score: 1

      Mercantilism,.. It's how power works..

      It's how power worked in bygone centuries. Not now. It's capitalism now and that's not the same thing.

      The other choice is feudalism. Take your pick..

      There are many other choices.

    37. Re:not again by mysidia · · Score: 1

      Now alluvasudden Samsung is in trouble for infringing on this same patent.

      I suppose that would be different then. Infringements after the patent was invalidated by the USPTO are not actionable.

      But Samsung can still be sued for infringements of the patent that took place before the USPTO invalidated it.

      When the patent was in full force, infringing the patent creates liability. Later invalidation of the patent by the USPTO does not negate or invalidate that liability for past infringements.

      On the other hand... if the court finds the patent to have been invalid, then the liability can be erased or deemed nothing by the court.

    38. Re:not again by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      None of it so far has really affected the consumers much.

      Except for the issue that by avoiding taxes they should pay, they cause the government to tax those consumers more to make up the difference.

    39. Re:not again by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What seems to be missing from this whole argument is - neither of these two companies actually invented the touch screen technology that they are suing the other over. Touch screens existed LONG before these touch phones were every brought out. HELL - one of Apples patents is for a rectangular electronic device with rounded corners. SERIOUSLY - they patented this. How many phones, e Readers, calculators, mp3 players ..... fit this description. It was like patenting a cardboard box.

      Phones had touch screens that allowed you to activate features and functions years before the iPhone; so these patents should have been denied as existing technology.

    40. Re: not again by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I-Phone, Ios as well

    41. Re: not again by smash · · Score: 1

      iX86 started with the 486 just before the Pentium was released ('93 ish if I recall) as intel was denied the ability to trademark a number. Whilst actually current, the previous CPUs were known and marketed as the 80x86.

      --
      I run: Windows, OS X, Linux, FreeBSD. Just because you have a hammer, doesn't mean everything is a nail.
  2. Unlikely? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Why would it be unlikely?

    It's the same exact situation, just with the roles revers.. oh.

    1. Re:Unlikely? by phrostie · · Score: 1

      a year from now we'll find out about some new backdoor apple added, i mean some new deal apple made with the NSA, i mean samsung needs to learn to play ball better.

    2. Re:Unlikely? by immaterial · · Score: 1

      And yet, Google rolled over for the NSA years earlier than Apple. Methinks the NSA prefers Android if they have a preference at all...

    3. Re:Unlikely? by Plumpaquatsch · · Score: 3, Informative

      Why would it be unlikely?

      It's the same exact situation, just with the roles revers.. oh.

      Yeah, exactly the same - only Samsung has standard essential patents they didn't offer under FRAND terms, while Apple's patents are, well, normal patents.

      --
      Of course news about a fake are Fake News.
    4. Re:Unlikely? by Pinhedd · · Score: 3, Informative

      It's not the exact same situation.

      The Samsung owned patents that Apple was found to have infringed are FRAND patents. This indicates that Samsung is willing to licence those patents out to anyone willing to pay the appropriate licencing fees.

      The Apple owned patents that Samsung was found to have infringed are not FRAND patents. Apple made no implied or express promises to licence them.

      Both sides sought equitable remedies in the form of sales injunctions and import bans. Equitable remedies are by their very definition appropriate only when financial remedies are insufficient to make the plaintiff whole.

      Since the Samsung patents were available for licence under FRAND terms, there's no reason to believe that Samsung could not be made whole through monetary remedies. The ITC ordered the import ban on the iPhone devices not because they infringed on FRAND patents, but because Apple had made little to no effort to negotiate a licencing agreement.

      The opposite is not automatically true for the Apple patents as they are not available for licence under FRAND terms.

    5. Re:Unlikely? by jbo5112 · · Score: 5, Interesting

      It's normal for 2008 patents to be enforced on 80's touchscreen technology? Just because you were the first to mass-market an idea doesn't mean you deserve a patent. Apple's touch screen patent covers any type of screen technology or touch technology yet to be invented and "other devices, such as personal computers and laptop computers." Basically they have a patent on moving things with their fingers. Is that normal? (I'll be fair and admit it's a patent on using a touchscreen to move digital things and concede some of the included tech might be as recent as 1990)

      I don't know as much about the headphone jack detection, but my 2001 phone could tell when I plugged in my headset. Is adding stereo (featured in my 2005 phone) really such a revolution that they need a patent in 2007? It doesn't appear to detail any new method of detection, other than maybe individual channels, but I think my Pocket PC's did that.

      I find it infuriating that the US government is just handing rights, an unfair market position, and a lot of business over to Apple with the touch patent, and so many people are defending Apple. Meanwhile, the government is setting a precedent that with enough lawyers, patents, political connections, and stupid jurors you can claim ownership of what you didn't invent and kick competition to the curb. As a small, inventive company, it makes work look like a game of waiting to get squashed.

    6. Re:Unlikely? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Uh, Google notifies their users of court ordered NSA taps at the very least.

    7. Re:Unlikely? by Plumpaquatsch · · Score: 1

      It's normal for 2008 patents to be enforced on 80's touchscreen technology?

      Are you saying Samsung phones use 80s touchscreen technology?

      --
      Of course news about a fake are Fake News.
    8. Re:Unlikely? by smash · · Score: 1

      LOL. Oh wait, you really believe that?

      --
      I run: Windows, OS X, Linux, FreeBSD. Just because you have a hammer, doesn't mean everything is a nail.
    9. Re:Unlikely? by jedidiah · · Score: 1

      >> It's normal for 2008 patents to be enforced on 80's touchscreen technology?
      >
      > Are you saying Samsung phones use 80s touchscreen technology?

      In computing this sort of thing is not at all uncommon. Only clueless corporate fanboys think that something is shiny and new just because they've seen in in a consumer product for the first time.

      It might not be the case but it's also not implausible.

      --
      A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
    10. Re:Unlikely? by Plumpaquatsch · · Score: 1

      I'm a fanboy because Apple uses 2010s touchscreen technology, while Samsung is stuck in the 80s?

      --
      Of course news about a fake are Fake News.
  3. Well by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If samsung doesnt ge tthe same treatment as apple we know which company paid more in bribes.

    1. Re:Well by Smallpond · · Score: 2

      t has nothing to do with bribes, Koreans don't vote in US elections.

    2. Re:Well by lennier1 · · Score: 1

      Apple doesn't pay so much in bribes as it does in customer data.

    3. Re:Well by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      No, if they don't then we know its because Apple is an American company and Samsung is not.

    4. Re:Well by Meski · · Score: 1

      ANd where are Apple products made, compared to where Samsung products are made? It'd be almost hilarious is Samsung set up a manufacturing plant in the USA.

    5. Re:Well by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Doesn't matter where it's put together, it matters where the company is headquartered.

    6. Re:Well by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Apple doesn't want to pay for frand and doesn't pay for frand

    7. Re:Well by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Samsung makes a lot of the parts that go into Apple products.

    8. Re:Well by geminidomino · · Score: 1

      and got told they wouldn't get non-discriminatory terms

      False. Apple was told that they'd get the same terms as anyone else licensing them (the definition of "non-discriminatory") but considered the percentage too high since it was based on a percentage of selling price or revenue per unit, or something like that; in a nutshell, the licensing costs were higher for Apple because their products were more expensive.

  4. Just say'n by djupedal · · Score: 0

    obama has other things on his plate right now (putin!) and he's already weighed in on one of these oh-so-recently, so don't expect too much attention from him on this one.

  5. Stop it! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What a kindergarten... just stop!

  6. Seriously? by ELCouz · · Score: 2

    Who cares? Samsung has already won the battle! http://bgr.com/2013/07/26/mobile-phone-market-share-q2-2013/

    1. Re:Seriously? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yawn. I don't use Samsung or Apple, but no one has "won" anything.

    2. Re:Seriously? by Yoda222 · · Score: 1

      They've won a lot of money.

    3. Re:Seriously? by aliquis · · Score: 1

      Apple likely still make more money from their phones. At least if you include software and/or software.

      But then again I don't know how much money Samsung make from phones in total if you include display, memory, processor, battery sales and such.

    4. Re:Seriously? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Who cares. Samsung is like 70%-80% sales of APL *AND* they make most of the components in an idevice. That's like 125% profits. There's a reason why Samsung's stock price is $1,200-$1,500 and not a lowly $450-500.

    5. Re: Seriously? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You really have no idea how stocks work do you? Share price alone has nothing to do with a companies value. Apple is one of the most valuable companies to have ever existed. It is worth 3x more than Samsung electronics as of Friday.

    6. Re: Seriously? by smash · · Score: 1

      And apple don't even make TVs, or refrigerators yet.

      --
      I run: Windows, OS X, Linux, FreeBSD. Just because you have a hammer, doesn't mean everything is a nail.
    7. Re:Seriously? by aliquis · · Score: 1

      Price per stock doesn't matter shit.

      Market value of the whole company at least say something but that's measured in number of stocks * price / stock.

      But as for instance the IT crash told you prices and expectations can be wrong as well.

      I don't know if these numbers are correct:
      http://www.bloomberg.com/quote/SMSN:LI
      Market Cap (M USD) 163,796.86
      http://www.bloomberg.com/quote/AAPL:US
      Market Cap (M USD) 412,866.47

      If they are Apple is valued at 2,52 times the price of Samsung electronics.

  7. Hammer is coming down by Reliable+Windmill · · Score: 2, Interesting

    ... on foreign companies. I think we'll see more of this in the future, U.S gov getting at the foreign companies. Samsung should just stop supplying U.S companies and see how they start feeling about things. Don't just lie there waiting to get kicked again.

    --
    Signature intentionally left blank.
    1. Re:Hammer is coming down by ebno-10db · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Hammer is coming down ... on foreign companies.

      As though Apple were an American company? I've heard they have some sort of design office in California somewhere, but in any meaningful sense they're at least as much of a foreign company as Samsung. At least Samsung has some fabs in Austin and whatnot.

      I'm fine with a little protectionism if it means protecting American operations, but people get very confused about the difference between where a company's headquarters are and where it operates. It's like people who say my Toyota is a foreign car. It's 85% value added in the US - a lot more American than almost any Ford or GM model.

    2. Re:Hammer is coming down by nurb432 · · Score: 1

      Giving local companies preferential treatment isn't a bad thing.

      --
      ---- Booth was a patriot ----
    3. Re:Hammer is coming down by rk · · Score: 2

      Case in point: My Ford Fusion was assembled in Mexico. My Honda Odyssey was assembled in Alabama.

    4. Re:Hammer is coming down by war4peace · · Score: 1

      Globalization: making borders fuzzy and customers confused...

      --
      ...gis sdrawkcab (usually not responding to ACs; don't bother posting as AC)
    5. Re:Hammer is coming down by Reliable+Windmill · · Score: 1

      It depends on what end of the hammer you're on I guess.

      --
      Signature intentionally left blank.
    6. Re:Hammer is coming down by Noughmad · · Score: 1

      Giving local companies preferential treatment isn't a bad thing.

      Yes, it is. It might not look bad in the short term, but you're both depriving your population of better/cheaper imported goods and removing incentives for innovation in local companies.

      --
      PlusFive Slashdot reader for Android. Can post comments.
    7. Re:Hammer is coming down by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It actually is, because it will result in import duties on stuff made in the USA. That my not hurt Apple, but the exports of the US.

    8. Re:Hammer is coming down by Reliable+Windmill · · Score: 1

      Maybe it's more about where all the money is going rather than where the stuff is built. We'll see how things play out.

      --
      Signature intentionally left blank.
    9. Re:Hammer is coming down by fustakrakich · · Score: 1

      ...making borders fuzzy...

      Yeah? Try crossing one yourself. Borders don't exist at all for these people.

      --
      “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
    10. Re:Hammer is coming down by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      If the prez doesn't let Samsung off the hook as well you can expect the US to be taken to the WTO. One possible remedy would be to ban US exports, or charge US companies hefty fees to import the South Korean technology they rely on.

      Even for the US there are consequences.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    11. Re:Hammer is coming down by rk · · Score: 2

      Didn't you get the memo? Globalization is for corporations only. You still need the masters to agree if you want to work off the plantation.

    12. Re:Hammer is coming down by war4peace · · Score: 1

      Was talking about geographical borders.

      --
      ...gis sdrawkcab (usually not responding to ACs; don't bother posting as AC)
    13. Re:Hammer is coming down by Rockoon · · Score: 1

      Giving local companies preferential treatment isn't a bad thing.

      It isn't bad for the companies getting preferential treatment, but its bad for everyone else (even all the people you wouldn't expect to be effected.)

      Protectionism is, at its core, inefficiency.

      --
      "His name was James Damore."
    14. Re:Hammer is coming down by manu0601 · · Score: 1

      If the prez doesn't let Samsung off the hook as well you can expect the US to be taken to the WTO.

      This are patents, which are national laws. However there is a WTO treaty for them; TRIPS. I agree things may turn quite bad at WTO for the US

    15. Re:Hammer is coming down by m00sh · · Score: 1, Insightful

      It's like people who say my Toyota is a foreign car. It's 85% value added in the US - a lot more American than almost any Ford or GM model.

      This is the bullshit that foreign car companies came up with after the domestic went full on patriotic heart-tugs to sell cars.

      They are assembled in the US. You can measure value added in any wonky way and come up with 85% value in the US.

      The fact is they are engineered, designed outside the US and the main operations of the company are done outside the US. That is the true value of the company. Putting parts together is not the main part.

    16. Re:Hammer is coming down by fustakrakich · · Score: 1

      Mountains and rivers aren't very fuzzy either. The most insurmountable borders today are purely political.

      --
      “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
    17. Re:Hammer is coming down by smash · · Score: 1

      For a country that doesn't export anything much other than currency, this is not a huge problem.

      --
      I run: Windows, OS X, Linux, FreeBSD. Just because you have a hammer, doesn't mean everything is a nail.
    18. Re:Hammer is coming down by tibman · · Score: 1

      If putting the parts together is most of the cost, then why not? If your argument is that the HQ location determines how valuable the company is then i'd say you are wrong. It seems to me that if you can choose between 100 engineering jobs and 10,000 manufacturing jobs that you'd still want the 10,000. Even if the total cost to employ each group is the same, society gets more from the 10,000 economically. Could a town survive on 100 people buying food, clothing, and cars? doubtful. Could it survive on 10,000 people buying food, clothes, and cars? sure can. I'd say the engineers are more valuable to society but they would be worthless if nobody can afford to buy their designed products.

      --
      http://soylentnews.org/~tibman
    19. Re:Hammer is coming down by tibman · · Score: 1

      Then you'll be surprised to know the US is the largest exporter of heavy machinery like tractors and construction equipment : )

      --
      http://soylentnews.org/~tibman
    20. Re:Hammer is coming down by gordo3000 · · Score: 1

      what south korean tech do we rely on? especially with the BOJ now weakening the Yen the way the BOK has done for years and years, there isnt' a single tech SK has to offer that isn't made better or at a higher level in the US or Japan. Now if you mean cheap stuff, yeah. But we aren't talking about cutting edge tech.

    21. Re:Hammer is coming down by smash · · Score: 1

      The exports of heavy machinery pale in comparison to the export of currency and treasury bills.

      --
      I run: Windows, OS X, Linux, FreeBSD. Just because you have a hammer, doesn't mean everything is a nail.
    22. Re:Hammer is coming down by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      Apple is totally reliant on LG and Samsung for LCDs, for example. Samsung manufactures Apple's processors for them.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    23. Re:Hammer is coming down by tibman · · Score: 1

      It always seemed odd to me that another country would want to use US dollars. Probably because the US doesn't ever deal with multiple currencies though. I remember in Germany when the Mark was still a thing. You could still spend them all over France, no problem. Maybe it's a "i have heard of this currency, it must be legit" kind of thing.

      I don't know much about the treasury bill thing. I did hear that you have to pay for it with a bank account, not a credit card. That could limit who has access.

      --
      http://soylentnews.org/~tibman
  8. Fair Competition by easyTree · · Score: 1

    Ding ding, round n of "Boo-hoo :-( you make better phones than us and we can't find a way to collect 'our' money from 'our' customers via phone sales with you in the market."

    No, I didn't RTFS or RTFA.

  9. Patents by Jorl17 · · Score: 1

    Patents are meaningless and hurt the overall market. There, I said it.

    --
    Have you heard about SoylentNews?
    1. Re:Patents by PPH · · Score: 5, Interesting

      But they were given meaning by our beloved economists. In 2008, the definition of GDP was changed to include things like patents and other types of intellectual property. Article here:

      http://www.economist.com/news/finance-and-economics/21582498-america-has-changed-way-it-measures-gdp-boundary-problems

      So, instead of waiting to see how a corporation (or national economy) actually executes their IP rights and measure the revenue, the GDP calculations attempt to impute a future income stream from them. And then this becomes part of our GDP statistics. IP has become a Potemkin village of value behind which companies (and entire nations) hide the true dire straights of their economy. They are pretty, shiny objects meant to impress investors, who should bee asking whether anyone has the ability to actually produce value with them.

      So we aren't going to see a change in the status of patents any time soon. Because now, the economists have a number (fictional though it may be) that pins an amount of GDP to them. And woe to those who attack that and drive us into another recession.

      --
      Have gnu, will travel.
    2. Re:Patents by VortexCortex · · Score: 3, Funny

      IP has become a Pokemon village of value behind which companies (and entire nations) hide the true dire straights of their economy.

      Fixed that for you...

      A wild FRAND appears.

      Apple: Job's Design, I choose you!

      Job's Design used Rounded Rectangle.

      IT’S SUPER EFFECTIVE!

    3. Re:Patents by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Try re-reading the article again. It counts the money being spent today. $560 billion a year. That's a pretty big oversight. It doesn't impute a future revenue stream. It changes the assumption from those expenditures being spent on stuff with no value to being spent on something with value. It doesn't impute a future revenue stream.

      The new numbers include R&D as well. The reason for the change was that none of the money being spent on R&D or making a movie or other IP activities was counted. Yet a movie that is made for $100 million somehow is able to make money. And R&D produces technology that has value. Sometimes that value is locked into copyrights or patents. Sometimes is just know how or trademark. Sometimes it's actual hardware (server farms for Pixar, lab benches for scientists, etc).

      So woe to those who don't understand economics and that investing in research produces something of value. And woe to those who attack that and drive us into another recession.

    4. Re:Patents by PPH · · Score: 1

      Makes no difference. GDP, Gross Domestic Product is supposed to be a measure of ..... product. Stuff that's made and sold.

      In the case of patents or movies, investment in R&D or cheesy scripts makes absolutely no contribution to GDP. Until something is produced. Either fancy iPhones or butts in theater seats. With movies, the effect of investment is easy to measure. No scripts written or actor paid. No popcorn sold. Not so with patents. Would Apple still build an iPhone even if the touchscreen gestures were in the public domain? Most probably yes. So those patents have a value that is much harder to quantify and is more a function of keeping the likes of Samsung out of a market. In the final analysis, even if Apple could completely block Samsung out of a market, that wouldn't necessarily increase the number of phones produced or their value. So the patent's contribution to GDP is zero.

      --
      Have gnu, will travel.
    5. Re:Patents by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Patents are meaningless and hurt the overall market. There, I said it.

      They are not meaningless. They provide huge amounts of income to the legal profession and keep the patent office employed. They allow business executives to harass and even destroy competitors that might otherwise produce a better product for lower cost.

      That this results from a system that has been known to be badly broken from more than 2 decades, and from unethical practice of law and unethical government, is of no importance to the ones who benefit. Only silly romantics think these people should lead their lives by the same standards honourable people with integrity do. That's like expecting politicians to be honest.

      All is fair in love, law, politics, business, and war, where "fair" is defined by the winners.

  10. Which phones are getting banned?? by supremebob · · Score: 3, Informative

    OK... I broke with Slashdot tradition and actually read TFA. That said, I STILL cannot figure out exactly which Samsung phones are being specifically banned in this ruling? Is it a top seller like the Galaxy S3 or Note II, or some older phones that only the prepaid carriers offer now?

    Not that it really matters... 60 days is probably enough time to come up with a workaround to get around the infringement.

    1. Re:Which phones are getting banned?? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      I don't know the exact model either but I can remember some news site saying that the impact is expected to be small as it should only affect some 2010 models.

    2. Re:Which phones are getting banned?? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      hmm, 60 days to clear stock of some 2010 phones. They aren't going to loose any sleep over that.

    3. Re:Which phones are getting banned?? by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      It's only old ones from a couple of years ago. The danger is that Apple will try to have more models added to the list. Of course Samsung was going to do the same after winning their case against Apple, but then Obama pardoned them.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    4. Re:Which phones are getting banned?? by tibman · · Score: 1

      I know people are saying that it isn't many phones but the patents seem pretty broad. The UI one is about detecting if the user is swiping down which would scroll a list. If their finger moved a bit to the side the algorithm would ignore that since the intention was to scroll the list. That's the simple version of it anyways. The other patent was about detecting if it was a microphone or non-microphone device that was plugged into the phone. The method used did not sound original but i didn't research it any further.

      --
      http://soylentnews.org/~tibman
  11. Do Americans realise just how bad things are? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    The Russians are pissed enough to harbour Snowden.
    The Chinese aren't backing the US in the North Korea talks.
    The Japanese just sailed their first war ship in 50 years.

    I can think of a dozen wars that started with this sort of trade embargoes and tariffs. Just the precedent itself is enough to block US made goods in half the world.
    It won't happen like it used to since everyone have Nukes now, but you can bet your Made-in-China-lives that the repercussion will be soon to follow.

    1. Re:Do Americans realise just how bad things are? by ebno-10db · · Score: 1, Offtopic

      The Russians are pissed enough to harbour Snowden.

      The Russians aren't pissed about anything special - they're just harboring him to annoy and embarrass the US.

      The Chinese aren't backing the US in the North Korea talks.

      The Chinese have always pretended to be above the fray vis-a-vis N. Korea.

      The Japanese just sailed their first war ship in 50 years.

      Then where did all those other ship in their fleet come from? Japan has had a substantial navy for decades.

      I can think of a dozen wars that started with this sort of trade embargoes and tariffs.

      So you think China was wrong to embargo opium from British ships?

      Just the precedent itself is enough to block US made goods in half the world.

      So? It's not like we export much of anything anymore anyway.

    2. Re:Do Americans realise just how bad things are? by zwede · · Score: 1

      So? It's not like we export much of anything anymore anyway.

      You were OK until here. US exports in 2012 were $1.5T, only topped by China at $2T and the EU at $2.1T. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_exports

    3. Re:Do Americans realise just how bad things are? by oji-sama · · Score: 1

      The Russians are pissed enough to harbour Snowden.

      The Russians aren't pissed about anything special - they're just harboring him to annoy and embarrass the US.

      I'm guessing they don't want to appear to be following instructions from the US. And giving Snowden to the US might also be seen as supporting the snooping (whether or not they do it themselves on the same scale). Annoying and embarrassing may also be factors, but is perhaps less valuable to them..

      --
      It is what it is.
    4. Re:Do Americans realise just how bad things are? by M.+Baranczak · · Score: 2

      It's not like we export much of anything anymore anyway.

      The US is the #2 exporter in the world. $1.6 trillion worth of goods last year, according to Wikipedia.

    5. Re:Do Americans realise just how bad things are? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sweden licks US ass sends out master licker Carl Bildt

    6. Re:Do Americans realise just how bad things are? by ebno-10db · · Score: 1

      Don't take my statement so literally. Our exports seem high in dollar terms, but they're still much less than our imports. Moreover we've stopped making many things that in a balanced trade scenario we would have continued to make.

    7. Re:Do Americans realise just how bad things are? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We export he raw materials our massive fertile landmass supplies, ship to to places where they have dirt cheap labor, then import the finished product.

    8. Re:Do Americans realise just how bad things are? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      At least 0,2T of that is just imaginary goods, like software licences. So the amount of stuff shipped in containers is max. 1.3T

    9. Re:Do Americans realise just how bad things are? by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      Considering that Samsung sell a lot more phones than Apple you would think that any import ban would piss off more US voters than it would please.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    10. Re:Do Americans realise just how bad things are? by smash · · Score: 1

      It is the old cold war games. An opportunity for good will from other countries exists. Russia took it. They may even believe in Snowden's right to protection also, but primarily, if you are a global superpower, and have the ability to make the other guy look like a dick to get more people on your side, you generally take it.

      This has been going on since the 50s - proxy wars, the space race, the olympics, etc. Giving Snowden asylum is no different really.

      --
      I run: Windows, OS X, Linux, FreeBSD. Just because you have a hammer, doesn't mean everything is a nail.
  12. Gee by Impy+the+Impiuos+Imp · · Score: 5, Informative

    I assume the ungodly ridiculous amounts of verbiage is not to be legally clear, but be legally obfuscating, wearing down patent examiners and causing days of study just to begin to get a handle on what they are claiming.

    The one or two cool little tricks being patented, if any, are deliberately obfuscated.

    Does anybody even know what little bit is supposedly infringed?

    One of the "claims":

    6. The computing device of claim 1, wherein, in one heuristic of the one or more heuristics, a contact comprising a finger swipe gesture that initially moves within a predetermined angle of being perfectly horizontal with respect to the touch screen display corresponds to a one-dimensional horizontal screen scrolling command rather than the two-dimensional screen translation command.

    So if you drag left or right witihin some predefined angle, it shall be considered a horizontal swipe rather than a 2D arbitrary angle swipe. And nobody ever did this before?

    --
    (-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
    1. Re:Gee by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      CAD and DTP packages from the 1980s had a feature like this, but back then you had to use a mouse or a pen... Although there were touch screens about, so maybe you could use a finger too.

      As well as prior art it does seem incredibly obvious. I know someone who recently wrote some code that handles touch gestures and implemented this feature, presumably in violation of the patent. It's just so... well, obvious. If you don't do it your touch input system sucks.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    2. Re:Gee by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Patent lawyer here. Claim 6 isn't a claim in and of itself, and so has no requirement to be inventive in and of itself. It's a dependent claim -- it thus has all the requirements of its parent (claim 1), plus its own additional requirements. Dependent claims quite often just add requirements that are already known -- its a way of narrowing a parent claim that may be at risk of being overbroad in and of itself. The combination of the dependent claim and its parent(s) is (presumably/hopefully/at least more often) unique.

  13. Winning by Frankie70 · · Score: 3, Informative

    If you cannot win in the market, the next step is to win using the law - this is business 101 in the USA today.

    1. Re:Winning by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is business 101 in every country on earth. It's nothing new.

    2. Re:Winning by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you cannot win in the market, the next step is to win using the law - this is business 101 in the USA today.

      And when you can't win using the law, use politics (lobbying, campaign contributions etc.)

    3. Re:Winning by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you cannot win in the market, the next step is to win using the law - this is business 101 in the USA today.

      You can't win using law, you can only lose less than your opponent...

  14. Apple, Obama ... by Mister+Liberty · · Score: 1

    and You?

  15. Well, Obama? by FuzzNugget · · Score: 1

    Apple gets the presidential blessing for no good reason, how about Samsung?

    Patents in both directions are bullshit anyway.

    1. Re:Well, Obama? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Samsung didn't give them the keys to their servers. Apple did and now their getting rewarded for it

    2. Re:Well, Obama? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's a good reason if Apple agreed to be a part of PRISM? Not sure what the details are but I'm pretty confident that there's something for the government.

  16. Samsung by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Samsung should close down Austin chip factory as a thank you to US government

  17. Yep by The+Cat · · Score: 1

    The fix is in.

  18. Obama's blatent protectionism by walterbyrd · · Score: 5, Informative

    From PJ at Groklaw:

    PJ: It's so obviously protectionism, it's hardly a surprise that it's upset people. Samsung was found by the ITC to have behaved in good faith, but Apple was ruled to have been guilty of "reverse hold up", meaning it didn't present itself as a willing licensee. If *that* isn't enough to justify an injunction, when everyone -- courts and regulators -- say it should be enough, what would be? And the reason given -- that they were worried about FRAND hold up -- is clearly not the real reason, since in this fact pattern, it was actually the opposite. So, it's a black mark on the US in Korea. If courts and regulators play favorites, based on a company's nation of origin, why wouldn't other countries do the same? And if you can't get a fair shake in the US, why would companies located elsewhere ever donate anything to a standard, knowing that they have no way to enforce their rights? Nokia has already said it won't be donating as it has in the past. Telling such companies that they are still free to enforce their rights in court is silly. It costs millions for a patent infringement lawsuit, for starters, while unwilling licensees like Apple free ride, and as we saw in the Apple v. Samsung litigation, fairness isn't at all what a foreign company can expect to receive in US courtrooms either. Apple is the biggest US taxpayer, and it paid off. That's about it. And it smells funny. Yes. I said it. This is about lobbying by Microsoft and Apple, here and in Europe and Australia and wherever they can. It has nothing to do with FRAND holdup. It's not even pretending to be about fairness. It's about money. Apple and Microsoft don't have a lot of FRAND patents. So they want to block competitors in the smartphone market from distribution with regular patents and design patents -- just wait to see what ITC does to Samsung next week, with the excuse that the patents are utility patents, not FRAND -- and then Samsung and others who developed this field are blocked from doing the same. Sound fair to you? I am a US citizen, and I'm ashamed of what has just happened.

    1. Re:Obama's blatent protectionism by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Pinkert, a George W. Bush appointee (and a Democrat), laid out in careful detail why his fellow commissioners were wrong to order Apple to cease and desist selling those five products -- including a version of the iPhone 4 that is still one of the company's most popular -- on the strength of Samsung's complaint.

      Among the reasons he cites:

      The patent in question was part -- and only a tiny part -- of an international standard, and as such Samsung had agreed to make it available for licensing under terms that are fair, reasonable and nondiscriminatory (FRAND).

      Samsung had made no effort to demonstrate that the licensing terms it offered Apple "satisfied an objective standard of reasonableness."

      That the only time Samsung made such an offer -- in oral discussions in December 2012 -- it came with strings attached to which Apple could not agree.

      What those strings were are blacked out in the document, but Pinkert adds in the next sentence: "it is neither fair nor non-discriminatory for the holder of the FRAND-encumbered patent to require licenses to non-FRAND-encumberd patents as a condition for licensing its patent" (emphasis his).

      source: http://tech.fortune.cnn.com/2013/08/05/apple-samsung-itc-pinkert/

    2. Re:Obama's blatent protectionism by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 4, Insightful

      it is neither fair nor non-discriminatory for the holder of the FRAND-encumbered patent to require licenses to non-FRAND-encumberd patents as a condition for licensing its patent/quote?

      And why not? Patent for patent seems like the most reasonable form of trade to me.

      Anyway, so far as I can see, from Samsung's (and everyone else's) perspective, what this story shows is that if you play nice - i.e. FRAND your patents - then this will cost you in long term when assholes like Apple come with a bunch of effectively essential, but legally non-FRAND patents of their own. So I suspect that future telecommunication standards created by corporate committees will drop the FRAND requirement, and form patent cartels instead. Which, of course, we're all much worse for. Thanks to the only kid in the room who insisted on not letting anyone play with his toys...

    3. Re:Obama's blatent protectionism by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > And why not? Patent for patent seems like the most reasonable form of trade to me.

      Because it says so in the terms for being granted a FRAND patent.

    4. Re:Obama's blatent protectionism by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      The terms of FRAND is only that you give everyone a fair and reasonable deal. What's unreasonable about a tit for tat arrangement? Especially when that is the case with virtually every other licensee?

    5. Re:Obama's blatent protectionism by gnasher719 · · Score: 0

      Google fans did strike, so I post it again:

      As far as Apple is involved, you can't use Groklaw as an objective source anymore. Let's face it, anyone repeating the "rounded rectangle" idiocy is not objective.

    6. Re:Obama's blatent protectionism by swillden · · Score: 1

      PJ is a paid Samsung PR blogger.

      That should be modded Funny, not Troll.

      --
      Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
    7. Re:Obama's blatent protectionism by sydneyfong · · Score: 1

      As long as it's on Slashdot, don't even bother arguing with iHaters.

      --
      Don't quote me on this.
    8. Re:Obama's blatent protectionism by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If they didn't agree to FRAND terms on their patents, their patents would not have been accepted as a part of the industry standard, as it was the standards body that required FRAND terms to become a part of the standard.

      Samsung wasn't, nor ever has, "played nice." They did what they did in order to sell their technology to the widest possible audience.

    9. Re:Obama's blatent protectionism by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But was it the case with exactly every other licensee? If it was, then that is the "fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory" cost. If it wasn't the cost for each and every single other licensee then it is no longer fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory under the legal definition.

      One company doesn't get to do cash, where others do cross licensing. That is the very definition of "discriminatory".

  19. der by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What BS.

  20. Apple the only one by nonicknameavailable · · Score: 1, Redundant

    So Apple is the only one who can make and sell devices with touch screen and icons

    --
    Mendacem Memorem Esse Oportet
    1. Re: Apple the only one by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Because I said .
      S.Yours: O'ba'D'ma

    2. Re: Apple the only one by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Obama is worse than Bush

    3. Re:Apple the only one by nonicknameavailable · · Score: 1

      Slashdot is getting more like trolldot!

      --
      Mendacem Memorem Esse Oportet
  21. Detecting when a headset is connected????: by mark-t · · Score: 4, Informative

    You mean, like a mechanical switch that comes built in to the jack chassis?

    For crying out loud, I built an amplifier in high school in 1980 that could detect when a headset was detected. Making software detect the same thing would amount to merely polling on a physical line the switch is on and converting the voltage on it to a digital signal of true or false.

    1. Re:Detecting when a headset is connected????: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      You mean, like a mechanical switch that comes built in to the jack chassis?

      No, of course not. http://www.google.com/patents/US7912501

      For crying out loud, I built an amplifier in high school in 1980 that could detect when a headset was detected. Making software detect the same thing would amount to merely polling on a physical line the switch is on and converting the voltage on it to a digital signal of true or false.

      Apple's patent also handles microphones, possibly with a switch, as well as non-microphones. Why would you want to use a headset as a microphone?

    2. Re:Detecting when a headset is connected????: by jrumney · · Score: 1

      This should be easy to find prior art for. 4 pin 3.5mm jacks were standard for headsets long before 2007 (I had a Motorola phone from about 2003 that used this type of jack), and the pins were deliberately arranged so that a normal stereo 3.5mm jack would just connect the mic pin to ground, making it very easy to detect which type of jack was inserted. Even if other phones did not implement the detection and just used the fact that a mic pin that was grounded would not produce unwanted noise, so there is no prior art before 2007, the addition of a simple detection circuit is obvious.

  22. Please ITC by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Please ITC, Fuck You Gently With a Chainsaw.

  23. Re:Apple has not dodged any taxes by Sir_Sri · · Score: 1

    I wish I had mod points for funny.

  24. Free market? by houghi · · Score: 1

    A free market. So how did that work again?

    --
    Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
    1. Re:Free market? by ebno-10db · · Score: 1

      It didn't. "Free market" is just a propaganda term.

  25. Re:Apple has not dodged any taxes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I wish slashdot had mod category of Sour Grapes.

  26. This is such bullshit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    All these patents are nothing but obvious. What incredible inventions have these companies made? Switch on/Switch off

    Such bullshit

  27. Re:No, no-one did that by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Gestures in browsers?

  28. Re:No, no-one did that by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    on a touch screen? citation required......

  29. Re:Apple has not dodged any taxes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

    Apple is playing US tax laws off irish tax laws to avoid paying taxes. Just because its technically 'legal' currently doesn't make it any less douchebaggy or wrong.

    Just another case of privatized profits and socialized losses. And you're defending it... So you too are a scumbag..

  30. kindergarten valid by roguegramma · · Score: 3, Insightful

    As you can read in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patentability
    the US patent office pretends that one of the conditions for granting a US patent is non-obviousness.

    Considering that it is very unlikely that someone swiping a finger across a touchscreen achieves a movement that is 100% horizontal and 0% vertical, it is obvious that any solution of the problem would tolerate a certain amount of vertical movement, and this is what that patent claim is about.

    US american companies are promoting politicians with a kindergarten understanding of science, so that they can profit from that bullshit:
    http://politics.slashdot.org/story/13/07/12/1645228/google-raises-campaign-funds-for-climate-change-denier

    Also, the invention of input gestures is not as novel as you seem to believe, because the patent was filed 2008, while for example the video game Black and White had gestures in 2001. Okay, it was mouse gestures, but there is no big difference to a touch screen regarding movement.

    --
    Hey don't blame me, IANAB
  31. Re:Apple has not dodged any taxes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

    Paying taxes simply to not be "douchebaggy" is irrelevant. Apple, Google, Intel, etc... they all pay what is LEGALLY required of them. You have a problem with it, write to your congressman and change the tax laws. It's the government's fault, not Apple. Get over it.

    Whiner.

  32. Well, I'm not sure about US 7912501 B2 by roguegramma · · Score: 3, Informative

    On one hand, if you read claim 1 (the base claim), Apple actually spent effort on designing their own jack, which apparently has a special connector that creates a second circuit that is used for detection. On the other hand, the technical contribution seems to be a bit on the easy side, considering that the actual detecting circuit in figure 3 shows a circuit that is probably obvious to anyone schooled in designing circuits, though not to me.

    --
    Hey don't blame me, IANAB
    1. Re:Well, I'm not sure about US 7912501 B2 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Is Samsung using precisely the same jack? If not, then I fail to see why Apple has a case. There's no way that any sane person would grant them patent protection on the general concept of detecting when a thing is plugged into another thing.

    2. Re:Well, I'm not sure about US 7912501 B2 by AJWM · · Score: 2

      There's no way that any sane person would grant them patent protection on the general concept

      We're not talking about sane people, we're talking about the USPTO.

      --
      -- Alastair
    3. Re:Well, I'm not sure about US 7912501 B2 by thegarbz · · Score: 2

      I'm sorry but no. This is not even remotely original. Switched sockets detecting the presence of headsets have been a staple accessory to any device which has a headphone socket for MANY years. In fact they were original created for mono cassette recorders so that reporters couldn't drain down their batteries while the microphones weren't plugged in. These switched types have existed for all varieties of 2.5mm, 3.5mm or 1/4" sockets and even power sockets.

      In addition since mobile phones were giant bricks with black and white displays plugs have existed incorporating controls such as volume up / down, answer / end call.

      The patent itself looks like the type of thing you get when a lawyer will submit a Introduction to electronics assignment. This patent was likely only granted because the patent office was too stupid to read the legalese bullshit which amounts to, a "4 prong 3.5mm jack with switch and a detection signal that is sent to a circuit, but OMG ON A PHONE."

  33. iPaq? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Or is this iDunno?

    1. Re: iPaq? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In regards to iPaq, don't forget Apple and HP are neighbors, and there were HP branded iPods on shelves at retailers in the beginning.

      Just saying they may have an agreement.

  34. Those patents are available under FRAND by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    But Apple don't want to pay what others paid for it.

    You DO know the definition of "FRAND" is not "Better deal for Apple than anyone else gets" right?

    No, you probably don't. It's a Merkin Company, and you're a Merkin too.

    1. Re:Those patents are available under FRAND by zieroh · · Score: 2, Informative

      Nice try.

      Samsung demanded cross-licenses to Apple's non-FRAND patents. That puts the D back in Discriminatory.

      --
      People who say "sheeple" have about as much sophistication as an AOL user, and in fact are probably actually AOL users.
    2. Re:Those patents are available under FRAND by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Cross licensing is the usual way to get access to standards-essential patents. The problem here is that Apple did not want to cross-license, but wanted to pay the same cash amount that companies that do cross-license do. Obviously, cross-licensing is worth something, so this was blatantaly idiotic, but Apple's been able to get away with it so far. Yay for Chicago politics.

    3. Re:Those patents are available under FRAND by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You mean Apple's non-developed patents - ie - they patented other peoples inventions - beyond the Apple I and Apple II series, they stole every idea they patented - never since *inventing* or *creating* anything.

      So yeah, Samsung demanded cross license to the 2000+ year old rectangular shape with rounded corners non-patent, among other ideas that Apple stole.

      Big whoop. If Apple ever actually invented anything again, it might be a different story. Just because you get away with patenting other people's ideas, doesn't make them yours.

    4. Re:Those patents are available under FRAND by Vitriol+Angst · · Score: 1

      This is ridiculous. FRAND patents MUST BE SHARED and in exchange a company gets to have their component used in all devices; Samsung gets to have that bit in nearly every phone so we can have some kind of a standard If we didn't have standards, you'd have to have a different set-up on every tower for phones from every vendor OR the phones would cost too much to buy. Either way, it would be a mess.

      Because Samsung has the privilege of FRAND, it does not allow them to extort the ability for more than the current rate and it doesn't allow them to extort for access to someone else's patents -- that defeats the whole purpose of FRAND. If other companies share IP with Samsung (usually ubiquitous stuff) -- that's their business. But it doesn't translate as some right to take by Samsung.

      Apple didn't protect their IP before and Microsoft boldly and wholesale ripped them off, and now they are protecting it and everyone is jumping on their case as if they were patent trolls -- and yet they are still getting ripped off. It's the system we have -- what are they supposed to do? And now everyone roots for a clone company that has nothing but sweat shops and considers Samsung a paragon of innovation; What Cool Aid is everyone drinking and did they bring enough to share?

      --
      >>"ad space available -- low rates!!!"
    5. Re:Those patents are available under FRAND by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Demand is a strong word. Samsung made an offer. That is part of negotiations. Apple made no counter offer and went straight to the courts.

    6. Re:Those patents are available under FRAND by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      OH yeah rounded corner rectangle is a normal patent. kindly go fuck yourself. if anything samsung should get more credit for frand because it's actually essential not bullshit designed to attack other companies.

    7. Re:Those patents are available under FRAND by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Just because a company adds to a FRAND patent doesn't mean other companies can simply choose not to pay up their licensing fees.

      And you should look out for what you're saying.

      Guess which platform's going to look like Windows 8 in a few months? Flat rectangular backgrounds for icons? LOL

    8. Re:Those patents are available under FRAND by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Ummm... Apple devices are made in sweatshops in China and elsewhere. Samsung phones are made in Korea. South Korea had an average wage in 2011 of 31,051 USD (disposable income). The US was $42,050.

      So... what????

    9. Re:Those patents are available under FRAND by Plumpaquatsch · · Score: 2

      But Apple don't want to pay what others paid for it.

      You DO know the definition of "FRAND" is not "Better deal for Apple than anyone else gets" right?

      Yes, I do, but neither you nor Samsung know that it means "the same deal as anybody else".

      --
      Of course news about a fake are Fake News.
    10. Re:Those patents are available under FRAND by Plumpaquatsch · · Score: 2

      Cross licensing standards-essential patents is the usual way to get access to standards-essential patents.

      FTFY.

      --
      Of course news about a fake are Fake News.
    11. Re:Those patents are available under FRAND by Plumpaquatsch · · Score: 1

      Ummm... Apple devices are made in sweatshops in China and elsewhere. Samsung phones are made in Korea. South Korea had an average wage in 2011 of 31,051 USD (disposable income). The US was $42,050.

      So... what????

      http://www.itproportal.com/2012/11/27/china-labor-watch-hits-out-at-samsung-over-poor-working-conditions/ - what indeed.

      --
      Of course news about a fake are Fake News.
    12. Re:Those patents are available under FRAND by smash · · Score: 1

      If you think this patent thing is about the generic use of rounded rectangles, you're a fucking retard who needs to learn how to read and comprehend the actual case.

      --
      I run: Windows, OS X, Linux, FreeBSD. Just because you have a hammer, doesn't mean everything is a nail.
    13. Re:Those patents are available under FRAND by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is ridiculous. FRAND patents MUST BE SHARED and in exchange a company gets to have their component used in all devices; Samsung gets to have that bit in nearly every phone so we can have some kind of a standard If we didn't have standards, you'd have to have a different set-up on every tower for phones from every vendor OR the phones would cost too much to buy. Either way, it would be a mess.

      You really have no idea how FRAND patents work, do you?

    14. Re:Those patents are available under FRAND by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      Samsung was willing to accept cash. The same amount of cash as everyone else was paying, and they Samsung itself would have to pay if it didn't cross license patents. There was nothing discriminatory about it, Apple just whined because it's products are expensive so the cash fees were going to be more than it wanted to pay.

      Discriminatory means they would have been offering Apple different terms to everyone else. They didn't, and that's why Apple got upset.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    15. Re:Those patents are available under FRAND by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But Apple don't want to pay what others paid for it.

      You DO know the definition of "FRAND" is not "Better deal for Apple than anyone else gets" right?

      Yes, I do, but neither you nor Samsung know that it means "the same deal as anybody else".

      OK, so everybody pays the same - all fair. But some make partial payment by contributing patents to the pool, partially in cash. Now, since Apple don't want to contribute any patents to the pool, would it not be natural that their cash payment would be higher than others since they pay nothing in patents? The ITC thought so... but got overruled by Big Daddy.

  35. Re:Apple has not dodged any taxes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Wow, you'd make a great new face on the comedy circuit. I almost actually felt the sincerity behind your words. It was like you actually believe this, and think you're right to stand up for Apple. In fact, they should probably hire you. But I guess they can't afford that, given how much tax they pay, yes?

  36. Living up to your name, I see. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You DO know the F doesn't stand for FREE, right?

    That means Apple still has to pay the FAIR and REASONABLE price, right? You don't get it free if you think the price is unreasonable either. Just because I think the latest GTA is overpriced doesn't mean I can just take it for nothing. Why do you think Apple can, though?

    So the difference is that Apple had the price and refused to pay it but refused to stop using the patents without license. Therefore Apple KNEW they were in breech of license and that's wilful infringement.

    1. Re:Living up to your name, I see. by Pinhedd · · Score: 1

      Yes, I am aware that it doesn't stand for FREE.

      If Apple doesn't want to pay up, then they can settle it in court. However, an injunction is not appropriate unless the party seeking the injunction can demonstrate that they will suffer irreparable harm without an injunction. That's the whole purpose of an injunction, to stop something before it causes irreparable harm. By licencing the patents in question to over 30 other companies under FRAND terms, Samsung had almost no way to demonstrate that Apple's infringement would cause irreparable harm. They can still seek damages the good old fashioned way if Apple doesn't want to play ball, but an injunction is very hard to get for FRAND infringement.

    2. Re:Living up to your name, I see. by zieroh · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Do you think it's Fair for Samsung to demand 2.4% of the total price of the phone -- somewhere around $16 per unit -- for a tweak to the standard implemented by the Infineon baseband processor? Do you think it's Fair that Samsung is demanding this fee despite the fact that Infineon paid for a license to manufacture a part that used that patent? Do you think it's Fair that Samsung is essentially double-dipping here?

      --
      People who say "sheeple" have about as much sophistication as an AOL user, and in fact are probably actually AOL users.
    3. Re:Living up to your name, I see. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      If Apple doesn't want to pay up... wait, what? No, they don't have the option of not wanting to pay up, period.
      If they don't pay, they are stealing, and if it's essential to run, that means the device won't work without it - ie - no patent use, no device. That means that Samsung is entitled to 100% of whatever anyone pays for every infringing device.

      Now look at Apple's non-patents - you know, those ideas they stole from other people (look at Braun designs through history)
      http://www.apartmenttherapy.com/apple-design-doesnt-fall-far-from-brauns-tree-176668

      Then look at the touch screen ideas they stole from others and incorporated, and then patented (even though they didn't invent the tech).

      Beyond their original ideas from Woz, Apple hasn't developed anything that isn't based on tech that was invented, developed and shown by others.

    4. Re:Living up to your name, I see. by Solandri · · Score: 1

      Do you think it's Fair for Samsung to demand 2.4% of the total price of the phone -- somewhere around $16 per unit -- for a tweak to the standard implemented by the Infineon baseband processor?

      Based on what I've read about the industry and patents, yes it's fair. Here's a PDF on licensing fees for LTE patents, which are also standards-essential patents. Licensing rates for each company's patent portfolio ranges from 0.8% to 3%. And yes that's a percent of the handset price, not for the radio - the paper makes it pretty clear that percentage of handset price is the norm. The "not more than $1 per handset" Apple was insisting on would be less than 0.2%, which is ridiculously low by market standards.

    5. Re:Living up to your name, I see. by Fierlo · · Score: 1
      FRAND doesn't mean that the price of licensing the patent should be near zero. Just that it should not be discriminatory. If Samsung's typical price is in the range of 2.4% of the handset, then why would it be different for Apple? Just because they chose to produce a more expensive shiny trinket? If that's the case, then everyone else would say that they were discriminated against (I paid 2.4% and Apple only paid 0.3%).

      Also, if Apple really didn't want to pay the appropriate licensing fee, then they could have just used technology that did not violate any of the patents. After all, they do place a very high priority on IP.

    6. Re:Living up to your name, I see. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The 0.8 to 3% is the total for ALL patents necessary not just one patent, and it is a per unit cost not percent of sale price. If you had actually understood the paper you linked to you would see that Apple's $1 offer was reasonable and Samsung's 2.5% of sale price was unfair. The purpose of Samsung's offer is to extort unfair cross licensing deals that they could never get if, as required, they licensed their FRAND patents at reasonable rates.

    7. Re:Living up to your name, I see. by Plumpaquatsch · · Score: 1

      Do you think it's Fair for Samsung to demand 2.4% of the total price of the phone -- somewhere around $16 per unit -- for a tweak to the standard implemented by the Infineon baseband processor?

      Based on what I've read about the industry and patents, yes it's fair. Here's a PDF on licensing fees for LTE patents, which are also standards-essential patents. Licensing rates for each company's patent portfolio ranges from 0.8% to 3%. And yes that's a percent of the handset price, not for the radio - the paper makes it pretty clear that percentage of handset price is the norm. The "not more than $1 per handset" Apple was insisting on would be less than 0.2%, which is ridiculously low by market standards.

      Errm, read that again. "“a reasonable maximum aggregate royalty for LTE essential IPR in handsets is a single-digit percentage of the sales price." - "“[u]nder this proposal no manufacturer should pay more than 5 percent royalties covering all essential WCDMA patents from all patent holders.”

      Not 2% for one out of over a thousand patents. Less than 10% for all of them. That would be less than 0.01% of the handsets selling price per patent. Which makes even 2% royalties from the price of the chip completely unreasonable.

      PS: Note that the document nowhere says that licensing fees are computed by the selling price of the device - only what their estimated percentage of the selling price would be.

      --
      Of course news about a fake are Fake News.
  37. Re:Apple has not dodged any taxes by AmiMoJo · · Score: 5, Informative

    Sorry, but Apple's "no declared tax residency anywhere in the world" bullshit is tax dodging, pure and simple. The fact that they can't avoid things like sales tax or income tax doesn't excuse the vast amount they do get out of paying.

    Apple has found the holy grail of tax avoidance schemes. They claim not to be resident in any nation, for tax purposes. It works by having a shell company in Ireland. Irish tax law says that companies pay tax from where they are run, which in Apple's case is the US. US tax law says that companies pay tax where they are incorporated, which is Ireland. So neither Ireland nor the United States gets any tax revenue from that company, except for what it can't avoid by having US employees and offices. Profits are funnelled to it from subsidiaries around the world. Tens of billions coming and and stored in untaxable bank accounts.

    It goes way beyond not just moving profit back to the US to be taxed "twice". In the case of the UK subsidiary it wouldn't be taxed here anyway because corporations only pay tax on profits, and Apple UK doesn't make any due to having to pay huge fees for using the Apple branding. It's the same trick that allowed Starbucks to make a loss in the UK and pay zero corporation tax, despite clearly being very successful and having huge revenue.

    Apple are not the only ones to dodge tax. Google does it in the UK, I'm sure if you look you will find Samsung does everything it can to minimize what it pays. Apple is both the worst and largest offender though, especially for a company that tries so hard to maintain a good public image and attract the idealistic hipster crowd.

    --
    const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
    SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
  38. Re:No, no-one did that by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You really think Apple was the first one to think about the concept of tolerance with input? Really?

    No matter if they were the first to make this specific use (on a phone), I think a patent should never be granted for an obvious idea anyone WILL have in its bathtub.

  39. patent x but with pc/internet//touchpad by roguegramma · · Score: 1

    I know the US patent office has given up on this, but they are supposed to not grant obvious patents, and doing anything on pc/internet/touchpad that has been done on paper/pc/touchscreen(yes, they existed before Apple) before most of the time sounds pretty obvious, especially when you consider that patents are usually formulated in legal language designed to stake a claim as broad as possible and as devoid of technical information as legal.

    --
    Hey don't blame me, IANAB
  40. US intergalactic trade commission... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The US interdimensional trade commission only applies to the US, so its the US trade commission. Its a both a pity and a PITA that they have the stupid patent laws, patent system, and patent industry that they do. Its not beneficial to anyone except multinationals. The multinationals pay politicians to vote for the policies they like, and pay extra to create the policies the politicians vote on so as to maximize profits. Consumers, private individuals, small companies are all left from the process by design. It doesn't work for them, but was never designed to. Fair use, obvious, and 'mathematical formula' are all laughable notions by both the politicians and corporations (unless a large well funded group of private individuals can out-bid the corporations).

  41. When filthy Obama sets aside ITC rulings... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Moronic Yanks have given their president absolute power - Obama is a dictator for his period in office like all new presidents now. Free to create any laws he wishes. Free to imprison or release any person he wants without oversight. Free to ignore ANY aspect of the Constitution or Common Law.

    Now King Obama, with a giant Apple cheque in his family bank account (fully legal under the Law that allows all Washington US politicians to engage in insider-trading or to accept bribes from US companies), freed Apple from the consequences of negative ITC rulings (against all principles of International Law). A Law that is selectively applied is no law whatsoever. So, King Obama is choosing to punish Samsung on behalf of his Apple sponsors. The ITC ruling is irrelevant because the US no longer respects the ruling of this body.

    Are you Yanks happy with this situation? Well you were happy when you murdered two million people in Iraq, and destroyed that secular society. You were pleased when Obama the butcher murdered the people protecting their secular regime in Libya. You are happy when Obama the genocidal war criminal sends the greatest terrorist army ever seen in Human history into the secular society of Syria, in order to create an extremist Islamic horror story run by the depraved women-hating, gay-hating beasts that rule in Saudi Arabia.

    Hitler had to pretend to be a nice guy at home, because the German people felt they had very high moral standards. By contrast, Obama simply has to say "let's murder those dirty foreigners" and you Yanks stand up and scream "F**k yeah, America is the best". Where the hell do you think this is going to end up?

    Does Apple really have to cheat, steal and bribe in order to have great success? Obviously not. But, given no reverse pressure from the moral climate in America, Apple simply gives in to temptation, and allows its wealth to achieve whatever it can, without regard to what is right or decent. But how the hell do you think the rest of the world views your despicable companies, and your despicable presidents? The world has always admired the business success of the USA, and the entrepreneurship of the US people. This alone ensured the US a position at the top table. But this repugnant evil that infests the USA today ensures the US has no long term future - you Yanks want another World War, and everything you do is in preparation for this. Why the hell do you idiots think you are growing your military power so obscenely, and engaging in as many murderous wars against defenceless nations as you can arrange?

    These ITC shenanigans are the tiniest symptom of an infinitely greater problem.

    1. Re:When filthy Obama sets aside ITC rulings... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you criticize Obama, then you are a racist.

  42. Wrong by deanklear · · Score: 2

    Why are you shilling for Apple?

    "Congressional investigators found that some of Apple's subsidiaries had no employees and were largely run by top officials from the company's headquarters in Cupertino, Calif. But by officially locating them in places like Ireland, Apple was able to, in effect, make them stateless -- exempt from taxes, record-keeping laws and the need for the subsidiaries to even file tax returns anywhere in the world."

    The U.S., they explain, determines the residency of companies based on their incorporation location, but Ireland uses their actual base of operations. So for tax purposes, for example, Apple's Apple Operations International -- officially located in Ireland -- exists nowhere. AOI accounts for about 30 percent of the company's total net profits worldwide from 2009-2011, according to USA Today.

    Yeah, no dodge there. They just have a non-existent office that also -- just by sheer accident of good ethical business practices -- makes 30% of all of their worldwide profit. Apple uses a different loophole than other corporations, but its still a loophole. They paid a fair amount of taxes in 2012 because the writing is on the wall -- even McCain understands that corporations simply aren't paying their fair share.

    Also, I'm not sure when corporate accountability became unfashionable, but you need to cut that shit out. America needs a reasonable tax base to take better care of its needs and if it allows every major corporation to avoid paying taxes, we won't have the money for important things like transportation infrastructure and an educated populace that can compete in the future economy.

    You can't sell iPads to people who can't read, or who spend all of their money on inefficient ways of commuting and car repairs.

    1. Re:Wrong by smash · · Score: 1

      If america needs to fix this, then america should fix this. Having a cry about a business doing what they can to maximise their profits within the laws provided by the global economy is retarded. If you look at any of the top 500, they will ALL be doing similar. NOT doing this will be handing a competitive advantage to your opposition on a platter.

      Petition your congress to change it if if pisses you off so much. But of course you won't, it's far more fashionable to bitch about apple on slashdot about it.

      --
      I run: Windows, OS X, Linux, FreeBSD. Just because you have a hammer, doesn't mean everything is a nail.
    2. Re:Wrong by drinkypoo · · Score: 2

      If america needs to fix this, then america should fix this. Having a cry about a business

      I've seen you say "having a cry" about this issue twice in this conversation so far. You are being a cheap little fuck today. The only reason I'm even commenting about that is that you are a cheap little fuck who is also a mercantilist whore. Apple's refusal to pay taxes makes them part of the problem (and their officers downright evil) even if everyone else is doing it and/or it is legal. Legality != Morality; HTH, HAND.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    3. Re:Wrong by BasilBrush · · Score: 1

      Why are you shilling for Apple?

      "The U.S., they explain, determines the residency of companies based on their incorporation location, but Ireland uses their actual base of operations. So for tax purposes, for example, Apple's Apple Operations International -- officially located in Ireland -- exists nowhere. AOI accounts for about 30 percent of the company's total net profits worldwide from 2009-2011, according to USA Today."

      Yeah, no dodge there.

      No truth there either.

    4. Re:Wrong by smash · · Score: 1

      They're not refusing to pay taxes, they are paying what is legally required within the confines of the law that YOUR GOVERNMENT has set up. Don't like it? Get the law changed. Apple are not the only ones doing this by a huge stretch.

      --
      I run: Windows, OS X, Linux, FreeBSD. Just because you have a hammer, doesn't mean everything is a nail.
    5. Re:Wrong by smash · · Score: 1

      Also. Corporations do not have morals. They have legal obligations to make the best financial decisions for their shareholders. Morality has FUCK ALL to do with this. If you're up in arms regarding Apple's "morals" you should also be going after Lockheed, General Dynamics, Narus, Boeing, Raetheon, Monsanto, BP, etc. - who are responsible for FAR more "morally" "evil" decisions than a tech company.

      --
      I run: Windows, OS X, Linux, FreeBSD. Just because you have a hammer, doesn't mean everything is a nail.
  43. Fairness? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Do YOU think it's fair to patent gestures, shiny icons, and rectangles? We can go down this rabbit hole all day.

    1. Re:Fairness? by gnasher719 · · Score: 2

      Do YOU think it's fair to patent gestures, shiny icons, and rectangles? We can go down this rabbit hole all day.

      People are getting stupider and stupider by the day. Claiming that someone patented rounded rectangles is stupid, but claiming that someone patented rectangles is stupider.

      Samsung has a _design patent_ on the design of their phones which includes, among other things, rounded rectangles as part of the design. To infringe on the design patent, it's not enough to use the shape of a rectangle with rounded corners, you have to copy _all_ the details of the design patent. That's why Samsung doesn't sue Apple for infringing on their design patent.

      If you are confused how I used the names Samsung and Apple: Yes, Apple isn't the only company with a design patent for a phone that includes rounded corners. Samsung has design patents for their Galaxy phones as well, including - guess what - rounded corners.

    2. Re:Fairness? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Is this an issue at all?

      I think most people agree that the patent system is a mess. The patent system itself doesn't guarantee "fairness", or "reasonableness", which is why the standards essential patents were given additional requirements of being "fair" and "reasonable" (it speaks volumes about how fucked up the patent system is, btw)

      By bringing up the rounded rectangles argument, you're essentially saying that because the existing patent system (which everybody is playing along, for some reason) is fucked up, Samsung can just throw away their FRAND obligations and obtain whatever arbitrary interpretation of "justice" that suits their (or your) interests.

      It's like arguing because some rich dude got away with a (legal) tax loophole, you can skip paying your taxes. Maybe the world should be "fair" like this, but you'd be charged for tax evasion anyways.

      FWIW, I personally think it's fair to block a competitor from making a near-replica of your product, especially if one of the perceived value of the product is its visual and aesthetic design. Whether this is through patents, copyright or whatever, I offer no opinion.

    3. Re:Fairness? by Cederic · · Score: 1

      Claiming that someone patented rounded rectangles is stupid, but claiming that someone patented rectangles is stupider.

      Patenting rounded rectangles is fucking stupid.

      And yes, that's what Apple have done. Sure, they've added mention of icons and shit, but frankly it's still a common sense derivation of designs that had been evolving for years before Apple even got involved.

      You're saying that's what Samsung have done too. I don't give a shit. It's still fucking stupid.

  44. Re:Apple has not dodged any taxes by thaylin · · Score: 1

    Its both of their fault.. Asking for an exception is just as bad as actually giving the exception.

    --
    When you cant win, ad hominem.
  45. Re:Apple has not dodged any taxes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    They have paid more tax than just about all of the other corporations combined - six *billion* dollars just in 2012!

    incorrect. total tax corporate tax receipts were 242 billion. (http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxfacts/displayafact.cfm?Docid=203)

    U.S. does not have corporate tax rates anywhere near reasonable - they are higher than any country on earth.

    effective corporate tax rate as % of gdp? 1.5% (http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxfacts/displayafact.cfm?Docid=263&Topic2id=70)
    evidently the system works out after all the gaming.

  46. Re:Apple has not dodged any taxes by blackraven14250 · · Score: 3, Informative

    The US corporate tax rates are by no means the highest on the planet. Here's a list, but I'll explain it to you in text in case you don't decide to look.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_tax_rates

    First, the US corporate tax rate varies, from 15% to 51% (including both federal and state taxes - federal alone is 15% to 39%). On the low end, 15% is on the lower side of the list (the only large, developed countries not known as tax havens with a lower rate on the low end are Canada and Russia), and well below the highest flat rate, which is Cameroon at 38%. Notable countries with rates higher than our lowest rates are Germany, Italy, Spain, Hong Kong, Taiwan, Poland, Turkey, Iceland, Sweden, Denmark, Finland, Norway, Australia, France, the UK and Chile. Bangladesh has a rate that ranges from 0 to 45%, which is the highest single rate on the list - obviously above the 39% federal tax highest rate.

    So, no, the US doesn't have the absolute highest corporate tax rate. It has among the highest possible corporate taxes for the largest entities, but it is not the "highest worldwide" by a wide margin for the vast majority of corporations who will fall lower on the spectrum than a giant like Apple.

  47. Its political patronage, not protectionism by Burz · · Score: 1

    ...because none of these actors^H^H^H^H^H^Hclowns care about where the factories and the jobs are located. This is about politicians granting favors to extremely rich corporations, who in turn help the politicans pay for their campaigns and give them and their appointees revolving-door jobs.

  48. Re:Apple has not dodged any taxes by Wild_dog! · · Score: 1

    All setup by our do nothing congress. Weren't they the ones who fronted the money to make this all possible?
    Yippie for the stooges on Capital Hill.
    I haven't heard any real new laws being passed on how to set things to rights from the grand-standers who made this all possible.

    As for any company making use of the laws congress passes... they should ... they owe it to their shareholders to make as much money as they can. To do any less would be negligent. I don't fault any company from making use of a loophole unless they wrote the actual law to create the loophole they are using.

  49. Re:No, no-one did that by AJWM · · Score: 1

    I don't know of any touch screens before that even could detect angle of input

    Are you seriously that ignorant of geometry?

    Anything that returns more than one (x,y) coordinate pair (not even at the same time) is inherently returning an angle. In other words, every touch screen ever made.

    --
    -- Alastair
  50. Obama will propably lift the import ban. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I suppose it is only fair?

  51. Re:Apple has not dodged any taxes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It works by having a shell company in Ireland ... Profits are funnelled [sic] to it from subsidiaries around the world.

    For anyone else in the world, this is called money laundering and is illegal. But if you are a corporation, somehow that makes it "OK".

  52. Great business model by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Great business model. If you can't win in court by the merits of your case, pay off a corrupt president and he'll make those inconvenient judgements "go away".

  53. is the US supposed by The_Revelation · · Score: 1

    to use the Patent system as a weapon against innovation? I bought my first $57 android phone last week, and it outperforms the iPhone 4 it was replacing. It seems like its against my interests as a consumer to be limited to a device that retails at over 10x that figure.

    1. Re:is the US supposed by smash · · Score: 1

      You realise the iphone 4 is about 3 years old now and just about to go end of sale, yes?

      --
      I run: Windows, OS X, Linux, FreeBSD. Just because you have a hammer, doesn't mean everything is a nail.
  54. Re:No, no-one did that by rtb61 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    The patent is obvious bullshit. The designer and engineer of the touchscreen incorporated within the design the ability to detect motion on the screen. To then layer an additional patent on there that particular motions are total complete and utter USPTO patent bullshit. It's like saying that touch screen designer didn't design in the ability to detect where on the screen you are touching or what motion you make post touch basically a touch screen that doesn't work at all. That the US Patent passed that is total and complete corruption of the patent system.

    As for detecting what is plugged in, seriously what the fuck passed for obvious with the USPTO, seriously. Again a blatantly lawyer titled patent designed to run up fees.

    --
    Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
  55. Re:Apple has not dodged any taxes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It works by having a shell company in Ireland ... Profits are funnelled [sic] to it from subsidiaries around the world.

    For anyone else in the world, this is called money laundering and is illegal. But if you are a corporation, somehow that makes it "OK".

    I think you need to buy a new dictionary. The one you have has a rather poor definition of "money laundering".

  56. Dont forget about the iPhone by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Linksys iPhone that is...

    http://www.wired.com/gadgets/wireless/news/2007/12/linksys_iphone

  57. Oblig by asm2750 · · Score: 1

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=18PbwYdjsps

    I hope Apple and Samsung implode at the same time.

  58. Re:Apple has not dodged any taxes by AlphaWolf_HK · · Score: 1

    Actually the corporation that pays the highest US taxes (both effective tax rate and total taxes paid) also happens to be the ones that Democrats hate the most: Wal-Mart.

    http://money.cnn.com/galleries/2010/news/1004/gallery.top_5_tax_bills/

    Apple pays more total tax dollars, but that goes to other countries during transfer pricing, not the US. And no, it isn't other corporations combined - Exxon for example pays more than twice as much in total taxes than Apple does with Chevron coming in second place, and Apple third.

    http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/personalfinance/2013/03/17/companies-paying-highest-income-taxes/1991313/

    Wal-Mart doesn't have the luxury of transfer pricing, so as long as they're as large as they are, they'll always be paying very high taxes. And as you said, the US tax rates are unreasonable as hell, which is why everybody goes out of their way to avoid them.

    --
    Careful with names containing L slashdot.org/~AiphaWolf_HK slashdot.org/~AlphaWoif_HK slashdot.org/~AiphaWoif_HK
  59. Re:Apple has not dodged any taxes by AlphaWolf_HK · · Score: 1

    How is that douchebaggy?

    Everybody everywhere does whatever they can to pay the fewest taxes possible and get the highest return possible. If a corporation does it too, that is somehow wrong? It's neither illegal, unethical, nor immoral. In fact, I'd say what's unethical is the fact that US tax rates are as unfairly and insanely high as they are, and everyday Joe Sixpack has to pay somebody just to figure out what he has to pay the government.

    --
    Careful with names containing L slashdot.org/~AiphaWolf_HK slashdot.org/~AlphaWoif_HK slashdot.org/~AiphaWoif_HK
  60. Re:Apple has not dodged any taxes by AlphaWolf_HK · · Score: 1

    Actually not quite. Google the words "transfer pricing".

    --
    Careful with names containing L slashdot.org/~AiphaWolf_HK slashdot.org/~AlphaWoif_HK slashdot.org/~AiphaWoif_HK
  61. Re:Apple has not dodged any taxes by dryeo · · Score: 3, Insightful

    The douchebaggy comes in when company A gives a million dollars in political contributions on the understanding that the tax laws will be changed to save company A a billion dollars in taxes. It's all legal bribery.

    --
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
  62. Re:Apple has not dodged any taxes by dryeo · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I don't fault any company from making use of a loophole unless they wrote the actual law to create the loophole they are using.

    And this is the problem with the American system. Politicians need fantastic amounts of money to win elections and it is cheaper for company A to make campaign contribution on the understanding that they can write a new tax loophole then to actually pay the tax. Of course companies B to Z also take advantage of the new loophole and then make campaign contributions so they can also write new tax law which company A also takes advantage off. Rinse and repeat a few times and you have the current system where companies A to Z all claim they're just taking advantage of existing loopholes.

    --
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
  63. ITC, FBI, NSA, CIA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    forgive me but aren't the purpose of these government agencies to make things better for the people...

    How long has it been(if ever) since that was the case, do you have any sections of government that uphold the laws and hold an interest in doing what is best for the people...

  64. Obama Got $308,081 from Apple, $1,000 from Samsung by meehawl · · Score: 4, Informative

    Obama got $308,081 from Apple in 2012
    Obama got $1,000 from Samsung in 2012 (as $250 and $750)

    Even disallowing the home team advantage, I really would be surprised if Obama does Samsung the same favour he extended to Apple last week and overturns this ban.

    --

    Da Blog
  65. Re:Apple has not dodged any taxes by smash · · Score: 1

    There's no "Exception" going on here. If you do business in a foreign country, you pay your taxes in that country. End of story.

    --
    I run: Windows, OS X, Linux, FreeBSD. Just because you have a hammer, doesn't mean everything is a nail.
  66. Re:Apple has not dodged any taxes by smash · · Score: 1

    Again, petition to get the laws changed if you don't like it. Having a cry about somebody working within the law to maximise their returns is just sour grapes.

    --
    I run: Windows, OS X, Linux, FreeBSD. Just because you have a hammer, doesn't mean everything is a nail.
  67. Re:Apple has not dodged any taxes by sydneyfong · · Score: 1

    Am I reading the same wiki page as you?

    Canada, 11%-15% (federal) + 5%-16% (provincial), which works out to 16%-31%

    Russia, 20% (13% for SME, 0% for education and healthcare industries), 6% for small business

    Both are above your 15%, which, if I may say, means practically nothing, if most of the companies actually pay a rate closer to 51% than 15%.

    I just thought it strange that you specifically quoted *Canada* as a low tax country. It's anything but.

    --
    Don't quote me on this.
  68. Re:Apple has not dodged any taxes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's neither illegal, unethical, nor immoral.

    Actually it has been questioned if the tax-dodging Apple, Google and Microsoft are doing is legal. The conclusion is that it is impossible to tell since you can't follow the money. As far as anyone knows they bounce the money through North Korea and back to dodge taxes.

    As for morality, they all use resources created by tax money, how can you say that it isn't immoral?

  69. Re:Apple has not dodged any taxes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    To me it's unethical and fraudulent to:
    1) Say you didn't make any money hence you don't need to pay taxes.
    2) Declare you made lots of money to shareholders or banks etc that you want to borrow money from.
    3) Borrow money using money that you supposedly "didn't make" as collateral.

    If you want to treat the billions as yours you should pay taxes on it. If there's a contract giving you power over the money it's at least partly yours and you should pay taxes on it based on the amount of control you have. Otherwise it's not your money and if the bosses of the other company use the billions for other reasons you should not be allowed to get money that is not yours.

  70. Do you really not know why it's douchebaggy? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Using the loopholes requres money to do. That means that only those paying a large value to avoid can afford paying them. Therefore avoiding taxes "legally" means those who have less than justifies the cost will have to pay more of the bill. That will mean that some of those will now be paying enough to make an ROI in avoiding taxes, leading to a slight feedback into the lower classes who will have to foot an even bigger bill.

    This means that YOU avoiding taxes are a free rider, leeching off the lower classes to get your society without paying for it.

    That's douchbaggery.

    It's pretty invariant, but running a modern first-world society costs 40% of GDP to do. This, despite huge variations in how taxes are collected or what is spent on, has varied by only a couple of percent in the last 60+ years.

    It just costs that much to have a justice system, educated workers, infrastructure, fire, police and ambulance and an armed forces.

    If you're paying much less than 40% in total taxes, then you're leeching off others. Sponging off their work and money.

    And that's been not only a douchebag, that's being a deliberate douche.

    1. Re:Do you really not know why it's douchebaggy? by gordo3000 · · Score: 1

      where do you get 40% from? the US is now running at 40% though in peace time in 2000 we were at 30% and quite happy. France is >50%, and greece at one point was up near 60%, though has fallen to 45% with it's severe budget cutbacks. Australia runs a nearly balanced budget at 34% (these are for all levels of govt).

      There is no paticular reason we have to be at 40%, south korea is lovely at 30% (and a large military), and while not very useful for the US, singapore at 17% works great. It doesn't cost nearly as much as we spend, or most western european countries spend. And if 40% is the magic number, it's important to realize that about 75% of the US are no good, leaching, douchebags and really, it's only the top 10% that carry their own weight. In fact, the US is probably the MOST PROGRESSIVE tax system in the western countries I've seen (UK, Japan, US, France). Hell, in the US a person making 175k USD pays >40% in taxes. You need to earn about twice that in the US before the average tax burden gets there (depending on assumptions, but I"m being generous and going with single, no dependents in a place like california , and these calculations were from a year ago, before the recent top income tax hikes took effect.

    2. Re:Do you really not know why it's douchebaggy? by BasilBrush · · Score: 2

      it's only the top 10% that carry their own weight.

      Nonsense. As Buffet repeated recently, his tax rate is still less than his secretary's.
      http://money.cnn.com/2013/03/04/news/economy/buffett-secretary-taxes/index.html

      US taxes are regressive, not progressive.

    3. Re:Do you really not know why it's douchebaggy? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It is very true that for most US Taxpayers - the playing field is NOT level.

      People like Warren Buffet pay less than their secretaries, because the secretary is paying on income from WAGES, and
      the boss is paying mostly on income from INVESTMENTS.

      You forever hear the tired old lie that to tax investments is to pay twice. TOTAL CRAP - unless the investor is to stupid to keep
      track of his investments. You deduct not only the price your paid to make the investment, but also expenses you incur maintaining and
      selling the investment. The only way you pay a second time is if you failed to keep track of these expenses, and end up paying on the
      entire sale price. Since this is your own stupidity - you have no right to complain if you pay twice.

      While many conservatives will tell you that a flat tax is the answer - they don't tell you that they only mean for wage earners. They want to
      maintain the pathetically small taxes that investors pay, due to their special treatment on investment income.

      The true answer is to tax ALL INCOME - no matter the source - at the same rate for all. That is a FLAT tax.

    4. Re:Do you really not know why it's douchebaggy? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Is her return on money invested in government (i.e. taxes) commensurate with his? Somehow I doubt it. I'm guessing she's getting a much larger return on each dollar she pays in taxes than he is.

      Considering he pays more on one year than she'll likely earn in several lifetimes, and they're getting essentially the same services in return.

      Unless he's being supplied his own private platoon of marine bodyguards, and highway crews spontaneously build new roads to wherever it is he decides he wants to go on any given day, etc.

  71. Re:Obama Got $308,081 from Apple, $1,000 from Sams by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Obama's actions are kind of predictable since he is on the Apple payroll.

    I guess the message is that corruption pays in the US.

  72. They do nothing because they're told to. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Whenever some tax loopholes are going to be cut, or just even changed, the Rightwingnut brigade rant and rave about it.

    Many politicians make money as executives or owners of large businesses.

    Media is all large business.

    So the politicians aren't "do nothing", they're TOLD to do nothing about this by the wealthy and connected, of which the politicians are only a small subset of, and to ensure that this is so, this elite class will raise the dogwhistle of "government interference in the small business".

    The lack of action is ENTIRELY down to the corporations you're trying to avoid the blame falling on.

    Corporate executives and directors are people and those people represent themselves in politics. These aren't politicians not doing anything, this is corporate executives not doing anything.

    And these douches run corporations. If you disbelieve me, try telling your CEO that you think they need to change a product line or he should pay more corporation tax so the burden of all the people he pays is reduced (allowing him to cut wages without pricing the work out of the market).

    He won't do it.

    You can't do it.

    You won't be able to do it if you made 75% of the workforce want it. If the executive board and directors don't want it, the needs of the vast majority of the workers in the corporation can do NOTHING.

    And they can't leave, especially in the USA since you gut the welfare state (by screaming holy murder about it every chance you get if you're not using it at that time) meaning that leaving because the majority want a change (and a majority that would leave a government crippled by not listening to), you are no longer covered by health insurance (and won't be able to get cover if you had some pre-existing condition that turned up during that previous period of cover), no free schooling for your kids, nothing to help pay rent, nothing to help find work or move. And likely a blacklisting to not employ that troublemaker, meaning you have to move.

    This is why the government is far more reliable a party for controlling you than your corporation: an overwhelming majority of the workers that does not consist of the executives or directors can do NOTHING. A much smaller even minority of voters who want change in their government can get it, even if none of the politicians are on board.

    And don't think the shareholder status changes that. The executive board has a significantly higher proportion of the shares in the average large corporation than any middle-or-lower class owner of shares, so again you're ignored by the minority because if they (who are going to be executive or director level in general, even if at different corporations) are not on board, your opinion does not matter, in this case because your opinion is weighted by the number of shares you have.

  73. So we shouldn't believe anything you say. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If your statements are not to be taken literally, that is LITERALLY your advice: disbelieve everything you say.

    Or are we meant to only believe the things you get right and anything you get wrong is not meant to be "literally true" and therefore you are now demanding you are 100% reliable ex-posto-facto and that it is up to US to work out where you are right or wrong and therefore taking anything you say as true is, again, 100% useless and we are best off not believing a word you say and ignoring it, because we'd have to find out for ourselves from another and more reliable source, whether any given statement from you is true or not, making reading your statements pointless.

    But if you really want us to consider your points pointless, then why the fuck did you even make them???

  74. No, they DID offer the same deal as everyone else. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What YOU don't seem to know is that Samsung offered "the same deal as anybody else". The cost to license is a % of final product price.

    Apple margins are massive in the industry and therefore didn't want part of that margin going on licensing, so they didn't want to pay that % of final product price, UNLIKE EVERYONE ELSE DID.

    Apparently, you don't know what Samsung offered, hence your insistence that Apple is hard done by.

    2.4% of the final product price is what the contract is for anyone. They can offer up equivalent patent licensing in place of (some of) the cash, but

    a) Apple refused to license
    b) has zero standards-essential patents to offer for equivalent value

    You want apple to avoid paying anything because Ericsson paid in patents for wireless phone technology (essential for a wireless phone) instead of cash?

    That's a pile of shite.

  75. Yup, iApple Fanbois are the freetards. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Apparently, at least if it's for Apple, the F in FRAND means "FREE!". Making Apple and their fanbois the real 100% genuine freetards.

    Apple fanbois: the contract license price is the same contract license price as every other FRAND licensee. Samsung has no right to make worse deals, as pointed out, but it also has NO RIGHT to offer better deals. That's the price. Take it or leave it.

    But apparently if you're apple, then you get a secret third option: take it without paying the fees.

    If they aren't worth the price, don't use them. Use your own tech, invent it yourself. Or see how well a phone works without the phone part (therefore why the price is a % of the final product price: see Hollywood contracts for % of the gross being much lower than the % of profit, there's a reason why this is nominally rational)

  76. Re:Apple has not dodged any taxes by Wild_dog! · · Score: 2

    Yep.
    And companies and individuals with large amounts of money can claim they are doing everything legally when they offshore their investments because the laws are written that way after all. Only congress would be able to remedy the problem, but they are paid not to.

    But at least in this case, I don't think Apple had any hand in writing the legislation that seeded the money to pay consultants for Ireland to setup this offshoring stuff.
    They are merely one of the higher profile companies taking advantage of the situation our congress setup back in 90's or something.

    Back then Apple was a struggling computer maker who was continuing to whither away as their market share dipped to 2%. Now they are a fat big punching bag for the hypocritical congress who enabled all of this in the first place.

  77. Re:Apple has not dodged any taxes by Rob+Y. · · Score: 3, Insightful

    It's douchebaggy when you pretend intellectual property that was developed in California comes from an Irish company for tax purposes and is subject to no tax. The law may say it's okay for an Irish company to pay no US taxes, but that doesn't mean Apple is really an Irish company. Yes they are dodging legitimately owed taxes through corporate structures that are pure fiction. Why anybody would say that's 'perfectly okay' because its 'perfectly legal' is beyond me. Unless you have a political objection to companies paying taxes at all...

    --
    Posted from my Android phone. Oh, I can change this? There, that's better...
  78. Re:Apple has not dodged any taxes by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

    Again, petition to get the laws changed if you don't like it. Having a cry about somebody working within the law to maximise their returns is just sour grapes.

    That is bullshit, and it is also bullshit. He who spends the most "petitioning" gets the laws he wants. You propose that he throw away money and/or time to no good end. Legality and morality have never been equivalent and the simple fact that it is legal to do what Apple is doing does not make it acceptable. You are permitting the law to determine your morality, and the law is an ass.

    --
    "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
  79. Re:Obama Got $308,081 from Apple, $1,000 from Sams by whisper_jeff · · Score: 1

    I really would be surprised if Obama does Samsung the same favour he extended to Apple last week and overturns this ban.

    I know it's fun to quote the campaign contributions and imply the decision was all about the money or to imply that Obama is protecting the American company from the evil foreign company but the simple reality is Samsung obtained a ban using Standards Essential, FRAND patents. Apple's ban is not related to Standards Essential, FRAND patents.

    That is why Obama is not going to step in and overturned the ban on Samsung products.

    That, and only that, is the reason.

  80. Should this even be a patent? by hardeep1singh · · Score: 1

    The patent filing date shows Jan 5, 2007 as per the link below however Nokia N91 from Q2, 2005 did the exact same thing. http://www.patentbuddy.com/Patent/7912501 http://www.gsmarena.com/nokia_n91-1154.php

  81. Re:Apple has not dodged any taxes by Savage-Rabbit · · Score: 2

    How is that douchebaggy?

    Everybody everywhere does whatever they can to pay the fewest taxes possible and get the highest return possible. If a corporation does it too, that is somehow wrong? It's neither illegal, unethical, nor immoral. In fact, I'd say what's unethical is the fact that US tax rates are as unfairly and insanely high as they are, and everyday Joe Sixpack has to pay somebody just to figure out what he has to pay the government.

    Douchebaggy? Let me try:

    1) Big corporations and banks have tons of money to hire legal weasels to weasel them out of paying more than one or two percent taxes and they also use that money to bribe politicians into changing tax laws to lower their tax burden.
    2) Joe Sixpack cannot afford to hire self same legal weasels to minimise his taxes nor can he afford to rent corrupt congress critters and make them change tax laws so he pays a way higher portion of his income in taxes than one or two percent by those corporations and banks.
    3) There is a financial crisis.
    4) Aforementioned corporations and banks get into trouble due to financial crisis and have to be bailed out. Since they themselves hardly paid any taxes most of the money comes out of the tax money paid by Joe Sixpack and a legion of smaller businesses.

    That's douchebaggery... If you then consider take into consideration various other things such as... oh... that the moneyed classes in the US and Europe have been manipulating interest rates and raw material prices and I can think of way words words to call these bastards that "douchebags"

    --
    Only to idiots, are orders laws.
    -- Henning von Tresckow
  82. Two FRANDs Good, Four Design Patents Better by meehawl · · Score: 1

    Samsung obtained a ban using Standards Essential, FRAND patents

    The substance of the original ITC ban on Apple notes that Samsung offered Apple FRAND access via a standard percentage licence fee for the FRAND patents. What is unusual is that Apple refused to pay that licence fee but then did not return with a counter-offer. Apple basically refused to negotiate and continued importing products using the patents but without paying anything. Given Apple's refusal to even begin negotiating that seems evident bad faith, the ITC had no option but to decide against them

    Of course, now that Obama vetoed that decision, now you have the absurd position where a hold of patents essential for the operation of a technology is not getting paid for them by a major patent abuser, and now has limited recourse. Whereas the holder of some minor design and questionable methods patents has a new import ban still standing. So thanks to Obama's protectionism, we've entered topsy turvy patent land, where essential patents become worthless, and design patents become coin.

    --

    Da Blog
  83. Re:Obama Got $308,081 from Apple, $1,000 from Sams by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    That is a bunch of Crap. FRAND patents have to be licenced by others just the same as any patent. Usually FRAND patents require significant amounts of R&D expense because they are related directly to HOW THINGS WORK, not on how they LOOK AND FEEL. IF you know anything about negotiations at all, then you would know that leverage is always required in a negotiation. Quite simply both parties have got to be able to walk away from the deal. If there is legislation that states one party is not able to walk away from the deal then that party is at a negotiating disadvantage. So if a FRAND patent owner is not able to walk away then the only lever they have left is product ban on anyone using their patent without a licence. Basically Apple wants Samsung to give their FRAND patents license away, and now because of Obama they have lost any negotiating lever. In other words OBAMA IS IN BED WITH APPLE PURE AND SIMPLE, Obama is playing favorites and should not have got involved in this issue at all. Very Very Unethical, I used to think that he was ethical, but he is just as sleazy as the rest of them.

    Hitler made laws that it was illegal for Jews to own property, and Jews could not have national citizenship. Then he proceeded to evict them, destroy their property, and when they complained the answer was THAT IS THE LAW. Of course those actions were visible to the public, and Hitler had to convince the public they were "reasonable" laws and actions. The other more dreadful actions he had to keep SECRET from the public because they probably could not have been convinced that these were reasonable actions. So if there were any laws about it, these would have to be secret too. Analogy: I'm the president, I can intervene because it's THE LAW.

  84. Re:Apple has not dodged any taxes by jedidiah · · Score: 0

    Its not Sour Grapes. Apple is using Ireland as a tax dodge. Meanwhile, the rest of us would get thrown in jail if we tried something like that.

    --
    A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
  85. Re:Apple has not dodged any taxes by sosume · · Score: 1

    In fact, I'd say what's unethical is the fact that US tax rates are as unfairly and insanely high as they are

    US tax rates are ridiculously low compared to other developed nations..

  86. Re:Apple has not dodged any taxes by BasilBrush · · Score: 2

    Apple has found the holy grail of tax avoidance schemes. They claim not to be resident in any nation, for tax purposes. It works by having a shell company in Ireland. Irish tax law says that companies pay tax from where they are run, which in Apple's case is the US. US tax law says that companies pay tax where they are incorporated, which is Ireland. So neither Ireland nor the United States gets any tax revenue from that company, except for what it can't avoid by having US employees and offices. Profits are funnelled to it from subsidiaries around the world. Tens of billions coming and and stored in untaxable bank accounts.

    All nonsense. Apple Ireland is the HQ for Apple's European subsidiary - which makes perfect sense even were it not for the favourable tax rate - it's in the Euro zone, in the closest European time zone to America, and the native language is English. European sales go there. It's not a shell company for the rest of the enterprise. And revenues from elsewhere in the world do not go to Ireland.

  87. Re:Obama Got $308,081 from Apple, $1,000 from Sams by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    That's from individuals, not from the company. Obama got NO money from Apple; he got money from Apple employees. Crucial difference.

  88. Re:Apple has not dodged any taxes by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

    It doesn't have any offices in Ireland, it's just incorporated there. The only employees it does have are in the US. That's the very definition of a shell company.

    --
    const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
    SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
  89. Re:Apple has not dodged any taxes by Decker-Mage · · Score: 2

    No, Ireland, and every other country with these kind of tax structures and which is most every fucking country on the planet, is using tax policy to entice Apple to do business inside their borders. If the EU countries were dead set against as a whole or even a requisite treaty majority, then why are such tax havens allowed? Because it's good business!

    'Sides, those politicians are the best money can buy, and the corps gots a lot of money to donate, or slip under the table on legal way or another, so corps can get countries to compete for their bidness. Look at how the US states do the same dirty deal to one another in the name of attracting a Mercedes-Benz, Toyota, Genentech, &c. ad nauseum.

    So for all those people that are bitching about corps not paying their taxes, well go look at what exemptions were slipped into the various pieces of law and by whom. It ain't (just) the Republicans, or whichever parties are considered pro-business in whatever country you are in right now.

    --
    "[I]t is a wise man who admits the limits of his knowledge or skill, and that pretending either causes harm." --Terry Go
  90. Re:Apple has not dodged any taxes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Except that they do pay US taxes. More than just about any other company.

    They just don't pay US taxes on sales from Europe, Asia, Australia, and Africa - those are under the umbrella of Apple Operations International, an Irish company.

    The Americas (South, Central, North) are operated by Apple, Inc., a US company incorporated in Delaware and headquartered in California. If you want a source, you can look at the testimony of Apple CEO Tim Cook before a US Senate committee, under oath and penalty of perjury.

    Use facts, not heresay.

  91. Re:Apple has not dodged any taxes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Except they do pay US tax. A shload of it. On all revenue from North, Central, and South America, as per Tim Cook's congressional testimony.

    So are you saying he perjured himself before a Senate committee? Have any proof?

  92. How can they patent that? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    My Sony Ericsson W600i from 2004 did that via Bluetooth, and did a great job. How could Apple patent existing functionality that is in market production?

  93. Re:Apple has not dodged any taxes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It doesn't have any offices in Ireland, it's just incorporated there. The only employees it does have are in the US. That's the very definition of a shell company.

    Does your mental handicap give you a tax benefit? Because repeating long disproved claims over and over sure makes you look retarded.

  94. Re:Apple has not dodged any taxes by smash · · Score: 1

    Again, if you disagree, peition to get the law changed. Morality != legality, and expecting a profit generating entity to be held to moral standards when not legally required, but legally required to act in the best interests of their shareholders is never going to work.

    If you want to hold companies accountable for this, make it law. Otherwise, find something else to cry about.

    --
    I run: Windows, OS X, Linux, FreeBSD. Just because you have a hammer, doesn't mean everything is a nail.