“In the previous post I discussed a revelation contained in Apple’s response to the United States International Trade Commission’s questions relating to remedies and the public interest in the investigation of Samsung’s complaint,” Florian Mueller reports for FOSS Patents. “A ruling is due on May 31 (unless postponed again), and it’s pretty clear that the ITC is inclined to hold Apple to have infringed one or more claims of U.S. Patent No. 7,706,348, an allegedly UMTS-essential patent. One of the questions raised by the Commission in March relates to the scope of an import ban, should one be ordered.”
Mueller reports, “In the proceedings before the ALJ, Samsung accused only older Apple products of infringement of the ‘348 patent: the AT&T models of the iPhone 4 (but not the 4S or 5), 3GS and 3, and of the iPad 3G and iPad 2 3G.”
“Should there be an import ban of older iPhones and iPads, Apple will only be affected at the low end and in the repair business. The problem could be solved for the most part by a delay before an import ban takes effect. In the meantime, there will be another generation of devices, and the oldest devices currently still on sale will then be replaced as entry-level devices by the second-oldest ones,” Mueller writes. “I still don’t believe the ITC will actually ban any Apple products, given that courts and regulators have concluded that Samsung failed to comply with its FRAND licensing obligations, but if it happens nevertheless, its impact will be very limited.”
Read more in the full article here.
MacDailyNews Take: It’s about time the “speed” of the “justice” system worked in Apple’s favor.
BUT, it would be the writing on the wall…
Saying what exactly? That idiotic tit-for-tat counter lawsuits by Samsung are financially rewarding? That the ITC is technology illiterate and are likely to screw up again in the near future? In this messed up anti-justice atmosphere, it’s hard to guess what you mean.
Restored remixed and polished one ear FINAL demo MIXES :
The Maisels
Sunday with Staley
Walking a line ( Firm on love’s floor) –
Jack of all trades
No Blues ( w/ken 1984) – loc2, project#87 No Blues v3 – disk1
mix8tks11-12
Saying that at the end of the day, ITC incompetence notwithstanding, patents do have valid staying power and that not only is there is no lawlessness when it comes to stealing patents, but that there are consequences beyond the stolen IP.
IP, Patent and copyright law needs to be enforced rather than interpreted by the courts and competence and expertise in this area needs to be the cornerstone of every judge and adjudicator.
That the legal authorities are incompetent and biased is a completely different story. Judges should be subject to impeachment for incompetence, partiality and any political or other bias.
Saying that at the end of the day, ITC incompetence notwithstanding, patents do have valid staying power and that not only is there is no lawlessness when it comes to stealing patents, but that there are consequences beyond the stolen IP.
IP, Patent and copyright law needs to be enforced rather than interpreted by the courts and competence and expertise in this area needs to be the cornerstone of every judge and adjudicator.
That the legal authorities are incompetent and biased is a completely different story. Judges should be subject to impeachment for incompetence, partiality and any political or other bias.
You do NOT enforce a Standards Essential Patent that comes under FRAND rules by banning products. You enforce SEPs coming under FRAND rules by forcing the SEP holder to have an industry wide, standard rate for its SEP licenses and force the SEP implementers to pay that standard rate to the SEP license holder.
You do NOT allow any SEP holder to request a ban on any product implementing that SEP unless that implementer absolutely and categorically refuses to pay the standard, industry wide going rate.
You do NOT allow the SEP holder to require a different rate for popular products a than for unpopular products. The SEP holder cannot be allowed to rape the implementers just because their products are popular.
The only alternative is to immediately disallow and rescind any patent that becomes part of an international standard. Once a standards committee picks up an implementation that is covered by a patent the patent holder has must have only two options collect standard licensing fees or give up the patent.
Agree, but it does not contradict the above.
No more Goosung products for me.