“The most important question in connection with the ITC ruling on Friday, ordering a limited exclusion order (vendor-specific U.S. import ban) against Samsung’s Android-based devices infringing two Apple patents, is not whether Samsung will continue to be present on the U.S. market (no doubt about that) but the commercial impact, such as on the attractiveness of its products to consumers, its obligation to comply with the order will have,” Florian Müller writes for FOSS Patents.
“The ITC investigation had been going on for more than two years. The designarounds were presented a long time ago,” Müller writes. “If Samsung can work around those two Apple patents without any negative effects on its competitiveness, how come it has, according to Apple, continued importing infringing devices throughout the entire duration of the investigation? And how come it has just posted surety bonds with the ITC to ensure its continued right to import and/or sell such infringing devices during the 60-day Presidential review period?”
Müller writes, “For now I can’t rule out that Samsung’s bonds don’t amount to much. Maybe they just relate to a few products of which it isn’t selling a lot of units now, but it didn’t want to make any changes to those products toward the end of their lifecycle. Still, Samsung has known for well over two years that a U.S. import ban over the asserted Apple patents could issue, and the fact that it still hasn’t ceased to import and/or sell products that infringe on those patents is at least a potential indication that Samsung would rather not have to work around the patents Apple successfully asserted.”
Read more in the full article here.
MacDailyNews Take: Anyone who buys Samsung-branded products (phones, TVs, washers, dryers, microwaves, etc.) today is either obtuse or lacking in morals.
Double standards.
How are there double standards here?
Samsung only has FRAND/SEP patents that have to be licensed (because Samsung agreed that their patents are FRAND/SEP patents which must be fairly licensed) which they offered to Apple at an unfair price, a price that forced a veto on their infringement claim.
Apple has actual design patents that Samsung used without permission and also stole the entire product design, UI and marketing to get a head start, allowing them to skip the 5 years of work Apple put into the iPhone before releasing it.
Not sure if you’re trolling or not, but please search for the definition of FRAND or SEP patents and then reply.
That was a non-starter. What do you mean by it? It can be taken any of a myriad of ways, most of them likely wrong. Was it meant to start a conversation? What should we talk about?
Withdrawn.
I wish Apple could stop buying Samsung parts. Buying from them makes me ill.
The problem is that for many parts and components, Samsung is either still the best quality or still the only one able to produce them in large enough quantities that *also* meet Apple’s rigorous QC standards.
Apple then has to either compromise on quality, ability to deliver in quantity, or hold their nose and continue sourcing from Samsung for now.
There is one other possibility that no one ever mentions. Rather than assume that Apple had no choice but to go back to Samdung, why not consider that Samdung had no choice but to offer Apple a cheaper deal to the competing companies.
If it was true that Apple needed Sam more than Sam needed Apple then Apple could be royally screwed by Sammy not delivering peak demands during peak periods. All Sammy would have to do is make some yield problem excuse to slow down sales of Apple products. I think the reality is that Sam needs Apple more than Apple needs Sam.
Penalties in supplier contracts exist to prevent such moves.
Thats exactly why I said, “All Sammy would have to do is make some yield problem excuse….”. i.e. A loophole in the agreement.
As reference, look at the delays Apple experienced with the ipad in the past due to screens not having the expected yield ……that was with Phillips I think.
Like PRC mentioned, supplier contract penalties. Also, MDN has posted stories about alternate suppliers being unable to meet Apple’s demands for quality or quantity. Price is rarely mentioned, but probably a factor too (less reliable yield = higher per-unit cost). IIRC there was a story a few months back about Samsung increasing the component prices that Apple has to pay.
So this is not just unfounded assumptions to paint Samsung in a better light than they deserve.
I wish they could too but that’s not going to happen in the near term.
Worse, anyone buying Samsung phones could be considered an accessory to Samsung’s criminal activities.
OR it could be a tacit admission by Samsung that Apple’s patents are much more difficult to work around and that the processes are very important to a mobile OS.
And these aren’t even what many consider to be Apple’s big gun patents.
And of course Samsung is able to sell things much more inexpensively because they don’t have to pay for any of the patents that they steal.
I think that still pales in comparison to the free head-start they got by not having to do any of the heavy lifting as far as coming up with the entire package.
I’m sorry, but I think the majority of my friends have Samsung TVs. I do too. They seem to be the most ‘reliable’.
If anyone has any suggestions for a 50 inch size tv, I’d be glad to listen. Oh and if they sell it at Costco, that’d be even better
LG seems to be on par as far as TVs go.
So, would you say you’re obtuse, or lacking in morals? Which is it? MDN would have us believe it’s one or the other. My belief is that it is this crazy idea that value is derived by paying the least. If Samsung is the supplier to the world, then of course it can steal any IP it can get its hands on and therefore offer its products for less. Through Costco, for example. Does that mean that we should buy them? I don’t think so. But then, moral integrity is high on my list of desirable traits. I value it in others and pursue the quality in my own life. I choose not to reward those who do not exhibit the quality when given a choice. And I always have a choice.
So, using MDN’s logic, Apple is also obtuse and lacks morals since it continues to purchase components for the iPhone from Samsung?
Samsung makes decent TV’s, but I would not buy a phone from them. Does that make me a bad person. Probably not, and who the “F” cares.
Ultimately we all know people will continue to buy Apple phones because they are better. And people will prefer buying samsung TV’s and fridges because they are better (or not). The market will decide.
How about this deal then. I will sell you a knock-off 2013 Corvette ZR1 for $500. It will be identical to the real thing in every way. The only difference is every time you start it an American family will lose their jobs and their home, and their youngest child will die. Deal?
Talk about being a drama queen