back to article South Korea: We're 'concerned' that Obama saved Apple from ban

The South Korean government has said that it's concerned about the decision by President Barack Obama not to go through with a ban on Apple iDevices that were found by the ITC to infringe on a Samsung patent. "The Ministry of Trade, Industry and Energy expresses concerns over the negative effect the decision by the US Trade …


This topic is closed for new posts.
  1. Psyx


    So Samsung won't need to pay that billion dollar fine, either?

    Turn-about is fair play.

    1. Tom 7 Silver badge

      Re: WTF?

      Samsung wont need to pay the billion dollar fine because the patents have been mostly chucked out.

    2. Anonymous Coward

      Re: WTF?

      "Turn-about is fair play."

      No. Fair play would be not abusing FRAND patents in the way Samsung attempted to. The problem is two fold, the USITC showed contempt for the fact that the patents were SEP and there was a FRAND requirement and that Samsung had already agreed reasonable terms with a third party. The ITC should've recommended that Samsung were investigated for antitrust - much like the European Commision threatened to do. It's not difficult to understand, however this will fall on deaf ears. Seems that fandroids are extremely hard of thinking.

      1. g e

        Re: WTF?

        Fair play would actually be paying for the patents that had been shown by the ITC to have been negotiated in good faith.


        Or perhaps we don't have to pay for Apple products, now. In fact just don't buy any US stuff, as far as you're able. Or. buy it secondhand and deny the first sale.

        1. RogerThat

          Re: WTF?

          Samsung DID NOT negotiate in good faith. The dissenting judge pointed out that Samsung made one offer and one only. That is not negotiating. And in that offer, Samsung demanded that Apple turn over some of its best iPhone patents in return for allowing Apple to use its patent. The law specifically prohibits attaching such strings to Frand patents. Such strings are expressly viewed as not fair, reasonable and nondiscriminatory.

          If you're going to write about this stuff, at least get do enough digging to get the facts, rather than just report what Samsung said in a press release.

          1. eulampios

            @ RogerThat

            Samsung DID NOT negotiate in good faith.

            No, Samsung DID negotiate in good faith. This WAS the finding of ITC.

            The dissenting judge pointed out that Samsung made one offer and one only.

            What did the reamaing five judges say?

            You see the whole FRAND saga is being circulated for a long time now. We have the main fat cats like MS and Apple to abuse the fucked up patent system the most of all. They have almost no real tech patents that often are FRAND. So they usually advise others to put the FRAND stuff in their own arse, whilst, have a lot of "rounded corner" patents they are allowed to abuse the way they want.

          2. Intractable Potsherd Silver badge

            Re: WTF?

            Why are so many people taking the word of an extremely vocal dissenter to the ITC decision at face value? Pinkert does make a case, but he does not seem to accept that the other five members of the panel disagreed with him.

            Certainly, sometimes the dissenting view may turn out to be the right one in hindsight, but rarely on a 5:1 decision. What exactly makes Pinkert, and those supporting his view, think that he has some specific insight into the law that should be preferred over five other people hearing exactly the same evidence? Remember, exceptional claims demand exceptional evidence, and being the one dissenter out of a panel of six means that his view requires a hell of a lot of evidence ...

            ... but then, this is a country where almost a third of the population believe in creationism. What does evidence have to do with it?

            1. Danny 14

              Re: WTF?

              they dont have to negotiate:


              HTC pay $10

              Nokia pay $10

              apple ask, samsung says "pay $10".

              apple respond with "GIVE DISCOUNT"

              samsung say fuck off.

              apple cries to court.

      2. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: WTF?


        First Apple used patents by Nokia without paying. if you read between the lines, Apple were not willing to pay the standard rate. So Nokia filed suit and and Apple then complained that Nokia wanted substantially more than what others were paying. The fact is, Apple were using patents they knew that had to pay for. Why didn't they go and secure the use of the patents before they even released the device? They knew what needed to be licensed and they wait until the patent holders comes along and even then Apple doesn't want to pay. Was it Nokia and Samsung playing the system or is it Apple?

    3. Bleu

      Re: WTF?

      Bear with me, pls.

      This is just another example of the USA bullying US competitors with their `champion companies'.

      A long history is behind it (attack on Japan's DRAM production and the very good TRON OS, visits from Gates and the Googleoids to the White House where they always get exactly what they want, while not creating work for their fellow countrymen).

      Most recently (before the attack on Samsung), the massive propaganda attack on the Airbus superjumbn in contrast with just about no critical comment about the much greater lateness and tendency to catch fire for no reason stated in the manual (like the Xbox and several Apple i-devices) of the 'Dreamliner' was a pretty startling example.

      ... and all are dedicated to inflated stock value, no interest in decent jobs for US workers (alright, admit that doesn't entirely to contract-bloated Boeing, but lovely how their lies dominate the media, innit?)

  2. Bill the Sys Admin

    Whats the point in all this patent nonsense if when a decision is made, Obama can just step in and say no thanks.... Think there needs to be a good look into how patents are being abused. This Apple vs Samsung stuff is just ridiculous.

    1. jai

      I suspect this the White House was thinking less of "Apple vs Samsung" and more "America (f$%k yeah!) vs anyone else"

      There's not many american voters in South Korea...

      1. Bleu

        Amercan voters in sth Krrea

        Last time I checked, there were still several tens of thousands of US soldiers in Sth. Korea, they don't appear to have announced a sudden massive withdrawal of late.

        1. John Brown (no body) Silver badge

          Re: Amercan voters in sth Krrea

          "...still several tens of thousands of US soldiers in Sth. Korea..."

          ...which is precisely why the Sth Korean Govt has little power or influence over the USA Govt. If the USA pulled all it's armed forces, Nth Korea would march straight in.

          Neither Sth Korea nor the USA want that, but it's a pretty big stick to be holding.

          1. Bleu

            Re: Amercan voters in sth Krrea

            vt. If the USA pulled all it's armed forces, Nth Korea would march straight in.

            Neither Sth Korea nor the USA want that, bu

            You must be joking, the South Koreans want peace (with their ethnic racial brethren), the US govt. wants to make trouble, mainly to piss in China's nose.

            Also a double-standard at play here, Sth. Korea has, like Japan, a population collapse in progress, but liKe Japan-accepts almost no non-natives, sure isn't interested in imposing arseholes from the worst places they can flnd on the less well-off portions of the local populations, unlike western countries.

      2. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        "I suspect this the White House was thinking less of "Apple vs Samsung" and more "America (f$%k yeah!) vs anyone else"

        I'm American and have not liked Apple for over 25 years, but I'm failing to see how banning a device that millions own is going to benefit millions of people.

        In a time with little love for my country...

        jai: "There's not many american voters in South Korea..."

        That word starts with a capital "A" bitch!!

        1. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          "That word starts with a capital "A" bitch!!"

          Do all American countries have a voting system?

    2. Steve Todd Silver badge

      The ITC isn't a court

      It's being used to try to short-circute the legal system and get a fast ruling to disadvantage a competitor.

      Samsung have these same patents included in a court case. They are FRAND encumbered, so at worst the court can decide that they are infringed, that Apple have to pay damages and a court decided licence rate.

      The real reason that the ruling was vetoed however is nicely described over here and is down to a dissenting opinion by one of the ITC judges involved.

      1. Sander van der Wal

        Re: The ITC isn't a court

        The same conclusion is drawn here:


        A SEP holder is also NOT supposed to seek injunctive relief as this is deemed to be a breach of the FRAND principle. (see here)


      2. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: The ITC isn't a court

        FRAND but seems people thought Samsung were not being fair, reasonable and non discriminatory. For a standards patents they can't ask x cents from one company then ask for much more from someone else - Apple or otherwise. Samsung are the ones who should be investigated for anti-trust here.

    3. Bleu

      Reg. reality

      Ridiculous indeed, but the key questions are which player installed, maintains, and extends limits in the system as it corruptly stands?

      Hint, it's not Sth. Korea.

      I would like to vote anything above my own post down, but it takes too long.

      ... also would vote many lower posts up.

      To lower-posting people whose comments I like, consider just replying to a top post, relevant or not, seems to be the favoured method of the system-gaming Norde Americano propaganda crowd, who, lord knows why, flood the place with crap on any contentious point (I like the Reg, been reading it for years before even one post).

      How does one obtain a 'badge' so that one can edit one's own posts?

      I omitted two words in my last, as an obsessive I can't stand it!

  3. Gordon Pryra

    "The ministry hopes such decisions will be made fairly and reasonably"

    Don't hold your breath

  4. HereWeGoAgain

    Typical American behaviour

    As usual, America thinks the rules do not apply to it.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Typical American behaviour

      America's nearly as bad as France, these days...

      1. Robert Grant Silver badge

        Re: Typical American behaviour

        France...I saw that country in that film The Patriot the other day. Annoyingly for a Brit like me they stepped in and won the War of Independence.

        1. Destroy All Monsters Silver badge

          Re: Typical American behaviour

          Indeed. Also, a French ship cunningly retconned from a US ship for Hollywoodian purposes treacherously attacked Captain "Lucky" Jack Aubrey's "HMS Surprise" out of the fog in "Master and Commander". Les bâtards!

    2. LPF

      Re: Typical American behaviour

      What you mean a country favoring its own companies, next you will be telling us bears crap in the woods!

      All that is needed to end this is for Samsung to tell everyone , what they normally charge other people for these FRAND patents. If its the same for other companies, then Apple won't have a leg to stand on. However if they rachet it up just becuase if Apple , they can go do one!

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: Typical American behaviour

        'What you mean a country favoring its own companies'

        Wouldn't that make it tantamount to protectionism...

    3. LPF

      Re: Typical American behaviour

      !" 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)."

      Reading between the lines, it sounds like Samsung had refused to license its standard-essential patents (SEPs) unless Apple offered its non-essential iPhone patents -- the company's crown jewels -- in return.

      As usual, FOSS Patent's Florian Mueller was on top of the case. In early July he obtained a copy of Pinkert's dissent, painstakingly transcribed it into HTML, and published it in a post that began:

      "I'm outraged. The underlying rationale of the ITC ruling is a serious threat to innovation and competition. Among other things, it represents a radical departure from well-established antitrust principles concerning the illegal practice of tying (in this case, a Samsung proposal that required Apple to license its non-standard-essential patents to Samsung in order to get an SEP license). This totally runs counter to the ITC's mission to protect the domestic industry."

      But hey lets not let that get in the way of Yank / Apple bashing

      1. CABVolunteer

        Re: Typical American behaviour @LPF

        You (and Florian Mueller) are entitled to your opinion, but surely isn't the key issue that the US ITC holds a different view and banned the Apple products? The US Administration blocked the importation ban on the grounds of "public interest", not the rights and wrongs of any licence negotiations.

        1. Gil Grissum

          Re: Typical American behaviour @LPF

          Sure, because the public is currently buying more iPhone 4 and 3GS than iPhone 5. We wouldn't want to ban products that will be obsoleted in a month. That's a month of obsolete product sales that idiots who can't wait for the new iPhone, will want.

        2. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: Typical American behaviour @LPF

          The ITC thought one thing but Obama disagreed and he trumps them - end of.

      2. Bleu
        Paris Hilton

        Re: Typical American behaviour

        Yankee lawyer = liar.

      3. Bleu

        Re: Typical American behaviour

        Hey, let's not let it get in the way of your juggernaut.

    4. Psyx

      Re: Typical American behaviour

      It's rules don't have to apply if they don't want them to. That's kinda the point of running a nation, isn't it?

      It's not ethical, but I can't think of many nations who don't favour their own interests over other's.

      1. Bleu

        Re: Typical American behaviour

        Truly a joke, the US national champion companies vigorously ask the state for handouts and importation of cheap labour, while throwing talented programmers in regional states onto the scrapheap of crap jobs at fast-food places and, at best, crap jobs in shopping malls.

        Not from there, but have enough 'net friends (and enough nous to judge) to know.

      2. Mephistro Silver badge

        Re: Typical American behaviour (@ Psyx)

        "It's not ethical, but I can't think of many nations who don't favour their own interests over other's."

        They are nor defending American interests, they are defending Apple. A company that outsources all of its production AND evades most of its taxes. If they were really protecting American interests this would be the last company they should help, for very obvious reasons.

    5. GotThumbs

      Re: Typical American behaviour

      Actually the REAL problem is a (cough, cough) leader who fails to focus on what his job is and continues to butt in where his nose does not belong IMO.

      I keep trying to trade Obama to Canada and we'll take Quebec off their hands. Still no deal.

      Best wishes on keeping what you earned.

      1. Austin Denyer

        Re: Typical American behaviour

        Unfortunately Canada would only take Obama if we took Beiber.

  5. Destroy All Monsters Silver badge

    Obama did what?

    Yeah, micromanagement of trade now, good idea.

    Are we out of Iraq yet?

  6. mark l 2 Silver badge

    Well done Obama for ensuring Apple products are still on sale in the US and ensuring Apple can continue to innovate*

    *Innovate: Get your accountants to come up with clever new ways to avoid paying tax, and lawyers to come up with new ways to avoid having to pay patent licenses

  7. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Is anyone really surprised?

    Does anyone think America, specifically the American administration is about anything other than looking out for American business interests? We now know about how their "anti-terrorism capture everyone in the worlds internet data" has been used to steal the ideas of no American companies, as well as steal the negotiating positions of other countries trade delegations.

    Are we are reaching the point where other countries are going to actually stand up and say, "Fuck you, we don't want to trade with you, you backwards, protectionist arseholes"?

    How much impact on the Dollar, do we all think other countries manufacturing bases refusing to export to America would have?

    How much impact on the Dollar do we think other countries refusing to deal financially in or with the Dollar would have?

    Isn't it about time the rest of the world realised that America is engaged in a trade war against them, that they're using nasty dirty spying little games (under the guise of Anti-terrorism) to do it? Isn't it about time they started to respond in kind?

    1. Mystic Megabyte
      Black Helicopters


      Not only trade but blackmail. Whose phones do you think that they would tap. Not yours or mine but politicians and leaders.

      On an unrelated note* I wonder why Mr. Blair was so keen to get into Iraq?

      *terms and conditions may apply.

      1. g e

        Re: @obnoxiousGit

        "Would tap" ?

        They already did the UN building (or NATO?) as uncovered recently.

      2. Bleu

        Re: @obnoxiousGit

        Nlce comment.

        Before leaving for now, even more off-topic, an Irish friend asked me why Blair had converted to Catholicism, l half-passed in my attempted replies.

        Friend's explanation was sweet and to the point, the Catholic church offers absolution, and Blair had made a major war criminal of himself, so was desperate to be absolved.

        Personally, I doubt that Blair has the human quality my friend credited him with, but it's a theory worth spreading.

        Off the topic but not the thread, mayhaps food for thought.

        1. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: @obnoxiousGit

          Blair ( I think) was always a catholic. It's just we're not America and the banging of that kind of drum in politics holds no sway here. It would, probably, have an adverse effect on any political campaign.

    2. Bleu

      Mad plans ... but nice and polite

      Meant to reply to the OP who referred to the probabilty that the US spying programs might also shuffle info. back to their national champ companies, I have no doubt they do, but is there a case where it's been proven?

      One might hope that Mr. Snowden's files include such an example, but it seems to have been out of his scope ... or if not, out of the scope of things the Grauniad is willing to publish.

      As I said in an earlier post, all of lt does sweet FA for the many talented americans being thrown onto the scrapheap. it's all about stock values for the holders, most of whom have not done a day of productive work in their lives.

      Current pres. case in point, also a massive real-estate swindle, quetly shovelled under the carpet by an obedient media machne.

      Beer ... the usual reason.

  8. Syren Baran
    Big Brother


    When it actually comes down to an economic interest, e.g. oil, it's officially democracy or MWDs.

    And now the official reason is the economic impact (and customer choice), what is it really?

    What trumps economic reasoning, national security?

    So, best NSA-spyware integration that "just works"?

  9. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    What's all the commotion? This is proof that free trade is alive and well, it's never been easier to buy a presidents influence.

  10. Kwac

    No comment

    "Froman also said that in future, the commission should be certain that in any of its cases involving standards-essential patents, the public interest was considered "thoroughly and carefully"."

    No comment needed.

  11. LPF

    In case anyone really cares about why this happened

    " 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).



      Re: In case anyone really cares about why this happened

      What happened is that a US regulatory body was overridden by the President.

      This is like Bush contradicting the EPA on climate change.

      Samsung managed to meet whatever burden they needed to achieve for the relevant lower level beaurocrat. It's just that someone higher up the food chain overrode that.

      That should be disturbing regardless of your brand or party affiliation.

      1. Bleu

        Re: In case anyone really cares about why this happened

        Climate change? bush? wtf?

    2. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: In case anyone really cares about why this happened

      A valiant effort at reason my friend but you seem to have forgotten where you are.

      Here in the comments section of the Register, there is no reason or logic when it comes to discussing Apple, there is no common sense, there is no room for fact and there most definitely is no space for the truth.

      Here in the comments section, Apple is the Great Satan, the evilest of all evil companies whose downfall and suffering will bring untold joy to hundreds and hundreds of commenters.

      Defend Apple in the Register's comment section and you risk scorn and abuse.

      You Sir, are a far braver man than I or anyone I know.

      God speed!

    3. Vic

      Re: In case anyone really cares about why this happened

      > but Pinkert adds

      ... And his peers disagreed.

      Why do you consider one Judge's words to be gospel and *five times* as many other Judges to be ignorant fools?


  12. Frogmelon

    "I hope that the negotiations between the Trade Federation and the Naboo are proceeding as I have foreseen..."

  13. Sandpit

    @LPF (and LPF)

    How does that stack with

    "The ITC’s decision correctly recognised that Samsung has been negotiating in good faith and that Apple remains unwilling to take a license,"


    1. Steve Todd Silver badge

      Firstly if you bother to check, the opinion was written by one of the ITC panel members, so it wasn't universally agreed by the whole ITC that Samsung had been negotiating in good faith. Secondly allowing owners of FRAND patents to get injunctive relief via the ITC (when this would not be allowed in a court case) is a bad precedent to set. FRAND/SEP patents should not be used offensively like this, it's part of the undertaking a company gives when they commit a patent to a standard.

      1. Vic

        > allowing owners of FRAND patents to get injunctive relief

        What other option would you have?

        If Company A has a FRAND patent, and company B decides to infringe upon it, what is Company A to do?

        "Please pay us for our patent"

        "Sod off"

        "Aw please..."

        "Sod off"

        ... ad infinitum.

        FRAND means that everyone *must* have the opportunity of licensing a patent under non-discriminatory terms. But if someone chooses to eschew that offer, there needs to be some sanction - otherwise, a FRAND patent is not a patent at all, since anyone can infringe at will with no downside. That means the end of the FRAND system...


  14. Gil Grissum


    This wasn't really about the iPad or iPad2. This was about the fact that the iPhone 4 is outselling the iPhone 5 for the simple reason that the iPhone 5 isn't enough of an upgrade to warrant purchase, while the iPhone 4 can be had for lower prices, if not free, entirely. That's what this is really about. But what makes it odd is that, this happened a month before the release of new iPhones and iPads. The iPhone 4 will be retired by then, so this import ban wouldn't really have affected Apple, nor affected consumers in any real way. Consumers have many choices available to them.

  15. Ted Treen

    Like many things....

    Patent law is a good (theoretical) concept - but a damned awful implementation;- although almost anything which involves Lawyers is pretty dire.

  16. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    If I were in charge of Samsung, I would pull out of the American market entirely. They do not need them based on their sales. Leave the US "innovate" and see how long it takes for them to go "oops we cocked up".

    Obama, you have just made the US justice system and the ITC (if it were not already) a laughing stock.

  17. CABVolunteer

    Big Pharma spitting feathers!

    Now that the US Administration has blocked the ITC from implementing a ban which the ITC quasi-judicial process has arrived at, on the grounds of US "public interest", just how much notice should other nations take of representations from US companies when local "public interest" overrides foreign-owned patents? US pharmaceutical companies must be worried today.....

    1. Anonymous Coward

      Re: Big Pharma spitting feathers!

      Check out pharmaceutical prices in India.

      Then come back and try again.

  18. Glostermeteor

    It's obvious that the US has ceased to be a country with respect for the rule of law, and has now become as protectionist as countries like China. It's not about patent law its about national interest. In which case, why would a non-American company invest in America going forward? That being said, I don't like the banning of products, companies should compete in the marketplace and not in the court room. It's the politicization of this that is plain wrong.

    1. wowfood

      Reminds me of a quote from Dark Knight Returns


      Now, those Soviets would like to see us

      turn our tails and run.

      But we've got to protect our interest...

      I mean, stand up for freedom...

  19. Hasham

    As a protest at the injustice of it all...

    I'm going to pirate some American stuff.

    Mostly porn.

  20. Anonymous Blowhard

    Has Obama been taking advice from Sarah 'We Gotta Stand With Our North Korean Allies' Palin?

  21. jb99

    Rule of law...

    There is quite a high correlation between the "rule of law" in a country and it's economic success. Those countries that have predictable, fairly enforced, open laws generally do better than those that don't.

    The USA seems to be determined to lose it's reputation for this recently. Between things like this, and the prism stuff they are slowly losing their reputation as being a good place to do business. They've not lost it yet, but at some point it's going to make a difference when people start deciding they don't want to do business with USA companies because they don't feel safe in doing so.

    They need to be careful and start thinking how all this looks to people.

    1. Frankee Llonnygog

      Re: Rule of law...

      "Those countries that have predictable, fairly enforced, open laws generally do better than those that don't."

      And your counter example is South Korea?

  22. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    An Intel history of inaction and now back to inaction

    They acted badly and too late to save AMD from Intels dodgy deals.

    Bizarrely, to protect Apple profits we now have the US media telling us we don't even need improved ARM chips. It seems cheap and low tech is fine and an ugly marketing of pretty is now in.

    I can't see the big deal in this. They are old flawed products anyway. Has Obama been set up as he is not making any sense in his bottom chasing protectionism.

  23. William Donelson

    Jeez, what a bunch of whiners and confused commenters.

    What needs to happen is for the LICENSE fee to be required of Apple, and set by arbitration. Just like grownups do.

    So much of what Apple and Samsung BOTH do are just skirmishes for market share and profits, and have nothing to do with actual technology.

  24. csumpi
    Big Brother

    now we know

    the price of a NSA backdoor in all apple devices

  25. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Actual not true

    Obama can't save Apple from the ITC decision. He's just bluffing. He has no authority to override their decision.

  26. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Apple should pay the reasonable (probably insignificant) rate Samsung charged others and Samsung should be sued for trying to extort 2.5% of the handset value or whatever and wasting all this time and investigated for anti-trust - there sorted.

    It would be like a clock maker charging Ford $20 for a clock to go into a car yet charging Ferrari 2.5% of the sale price of it's car (i.e. about $5000) for exactly the same clock.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Your exaggeration smacks of chicken little. The sky has not fallen. Apple are not a monopoly but no-one seems to have told them.

      What you mean to say that Samsung charge HTC etc al $5 which happens to be 2.5% and then tried to apply the same to Apple, giving it as a %ge rather than an Absolute value.

      Then your example comes out that Apple would be $12.50 so you're in the same ballpark, not in the next state. Who is to say that Apple do not derive more value from a patent than HTC, they certainly market the phone as more valuable. That increase in value is not all 'Apple innovation'.

      Think how much FRAND apple could save by launching a budget phone......

  27. MissingSecurity

    I don't agree with this ...

    ...but based on all the American bashing, I feel obliged to post:

    "Go America, Fuck Yeah!"

  28. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    So you don't think for one minute that the South Koreans wouldn't do the same for Samsung?

    We would do the same sort of thing here in the UK, except we are part of the EU so can't get away with it.

  29. Anonymous Coward

    I've actually lost IQ points reading some of these utterly facile comments. It's really not difficult to comprehend. The wrong party was always Samesung. The EU and EC told them. The Aussies told them. The Chinese told them. Even the Koreans told them. You cannot use SEPs licensed under FRAND terms to hold other companies hostage. Patent litigation 101. That the majority of the ITC judges got this wrong is what is scandalous. That and the Koreans calling foul play! Pot, I'd like to introduce you to my friend, kettle...

    1. eulampios

      get back your IQ points

      determining what for does this FRAND system exist in the first place? If you can't put an injunction on the infringed products, the infringed products are not infringing anything FRAND by definition. Because you will just play a football game with every FRAND patent holder ad infinitum. No deep knowledge of Game Theory is necessary to realize this.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: get back your IQ points

        The component in question is contains IP from Samsung. The IP is a SEP, which Samsung volunteered to license under FRAND terms. They were asking Apple to part with $16 for a $12 part, of which their IP form an incredibly small part of. Not fair or reasonable. They were also demanding (yes, demanding) non-SEP UI patents as part of the exchange, again not fair or reasonable. The facts are there. The willful ignorance here is either payed for of stupefyingly ignorant.

        1. eulampios
          Thumb Down

          @ Regtard

          So, you're presuming that $16 per device is tooooo high, while one beeelion US dollars per four rounded corners, rubber band and other freaking crap is totally okay?

          Your sense of fairness looks so awesome to me! Hope, you're not a judge or a sports referee of some kind.

    2. Vic

      > I've actually lost IQ points reading some of these utterly facile comments

      That's quite an achievement. Well done!


  30. Eduard Coli


    Odd that, The US is protecting Apple.

    One would this the PRC would leap to Apple's defense since Apple probably employs more in the there than in the US.

This topic is closed for new posts.

Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2020