Sodan
Expert Member
The irony is thick in this one.
-
Join the MyBroadband community
South Africa’s biggest forum. Discuss, discover, and connect with thousands of members.
-
Question of the Day: Was the Airlink flyover too low?
Apple iPad, iPhone ban lifted
- Thread starter rpm
- Start date
The irony is thick in this one.
alloytoo
Honorary Master
An ethical company would seek to licence patents before they went to market. (and since these are standard setting patents, they can't argue ignorance).
Frand obligations do not oblige the patent holder to issue a patent holder to all comers, it merely obliges them to negociate in good faith.....meanwhile continues to profit from Samsung's technology.
Abe
Expert Member
comment from the above article
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, August 06 2013 @ 07:09 PM EDT
From the start, you are using words that show a clear agenda. A "pardon" is issued when someone is forgiven a crime, and implies culpability. There is no "pardon" here. The government overruled a decision made by some other part of the government, which is following exactly the intended process: The ITC makes a decision, and that decision can then be accepted, or rejected, or no action is taken (which is in practice as good as accepted). In this case, an ITC decision was rejected.
Now we all know that Apple is evil, Google is good, and Samsung is good by association, therefore the ITC decision against Apple was good and rejecting the good ITC decision is evil. Which is just more proof that Apple is evil, because they were supported by an evil decision, while good Samsung was supported by a good decision. Patents used against evil Apple are good, which shows that Samsung is good for using patents against evil Apple, while patents used against good Samsung are evil, which shows that Apple is evil for using patents against Samsung.
And the EU is evil as well, for threatening Samsung with fines if they try to use standard essential patents to stop Apple from selling their devices...
Abe
Expert Member
Why is that person posting anonymously?
From the article itself:
"ITC specifically found that Samsung had negotiated with Apple in good faith, had already licensed the '348 patent to over 30 companies, and that it was, in fact, Apple that illustrated the danger of reverse hold-up. Further, the opinion stated, Apple not only failed to prove that Samsung violated any FRAND obligation, it failed to establish even what they are. Further, Apple conceded in its ITC briefing that FRAND patent holders are not barred from seeking injunctions, and in fact since Apple argued to the ITC that the '348 patent was not really essential, this would mean that Samsung had no FRAND obligations, due to the wording of the ETSI terms."
My point is that nothing is cut and dried. The Apple fans are posting messages how Samsung was wrong and Apple was hard done by and vice versa. I can think of another lawsuit where the reverse would be more true but lets ignore that for the moment. There are two sides to every story.
I have a problem with the way it was done. Apple had certain avenues available to them to appeal the decision. That didn't happen. What did happen was that the decision was overruled from the outside because it was in "public interest". That was done because it was a US company on the receiving end of the decision. There is no way that it would have happened if Samsung or any other foreign company was on the receiving end. It reeks of protectionism. It doesn't matter if the decision was the right one or the wrong one, what matters is how it was done. It allows one arm of the government to unilaterally ignore the law and that's wrong.