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."

51 of 274 comments (clear)

  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 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.

    2. 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!”
    3. 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.

    4. 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.
    5. 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.

  2. 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/

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

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

  4. 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 rk · · Score: 2

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

    3. 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.

  5. 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.

  6. 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.
  7. 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.

  8. 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 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...

  9. 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.

  10. 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.
  11. 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.

  12. 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.
  13. 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.

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

    I wish slashdot had mod category of Sour Grapes.

  15. 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..

  16. 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
  17. 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 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
    2. 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."

  18. 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
  19. 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.
  20. 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.

  21. 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 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.'"
  22. 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.

  23. 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.

  24. 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.

  25. 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!

  26. 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
  27. 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
  28. 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
  29. 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
  30. 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.
  31. 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.
  32. 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.

  33. 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...
  34. 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
  35. 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.

  36. 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.

  37. 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