“This week, the U.S. International Trade Commission made a decision that sent shock waves around the world,” Florian Müller writes for CNN. “The governmental agency banned the importation of Apple’s older iPhones (before the 4S) and cellular iPads (before the third-generation iPad 4G) into the U.S. market. These devices were found to violate a Samsung patent necessary to connect with AT&T’s cellular network. Simply put, if you’re an AT&T customer, your phone is not a phone without a technology that Samsung owns.”
“What Samsung dropped on those older Apple products is the patent equivalent of a nuclear bomb, and a U.S. government agency with court-like powers said: ‘Yes, Samsung, you’re in your right to use this lethal weapon, and we don’t care that Apple claims it’s been universally outlawed,'” Müller writes. “Why are standard-essential patents the equivalent of a nuclear weapon? Because there are industry standards that establish the use of certain techniques. Unless your phone and mine use the same standard, we can’t give each other a call or send each other a photo because the devices we use won’t understand each other. This is called interoperability — working together. When companies get together and define a standard, they have to promise to use these patents only as parking meters, not as guns.”
Müller writes, “Conventional patents, such as the ones Apple is suing Samsung over, don’t raise the same issues… Congress should work with the president and denuclearize the mobile patents wars by disallowing import bans over standard-essential patents. Now.”
Read more in the full article here.
Related articles:
Apple getting ahead of legal system to contain import ban damage – June 6, 2013
Why U.S. ITC’s ruling for Samsung over Apple is meaningless – June 6, 2013
Obama faces high stakes dilemma in Apple-Samsung battle – June 5, 2013
U.S. ITC rules for Samsung, bans Apple iPhone 4 imports into U.S. – June 4, 2013
Finally, someone with sense speaks.
It’s Florian. The dude rules on patents.
Earn your keep parasites.
Even if you post this section at type size 1000 pixels, explain it in simple english, the iHaters army doesn’t have the brain power to understand it.
“Because there are industry standards that establish the use of certain techniques. Unless your phone and mine use the same standard, we can’t give each other a call or send each other a photo because the devices we use won’t understand each other. This is called interoperability — working together. When companies get together and define a standard, they have to promise to use these patents only as parking meters, not as guns.
Conventional patents, such as the ones Apple is suing Samsung over, don’t raise the same issues.
For example, Apple is suing Samsung over a feature called “rubber-banding.” It’s the iconic bounce-back effect when you scroll a list (such as your phone’s address book) and reach the end. I like it, but if you have rubber-banding and I don’t, we can still keep in touch. No nuclear threat there.”
Is there a ban initially until they agree on pricing? It just seems weird that they would institute a ban over standards-essential patents. Shouldn’t they be legally obligated to pay a FRAND amount and then (if they don’t pay) be banned?
There is a 30 day period from the ruling during which Apple can appeal. If Apple appeals (it may have to post a sizable bond to do so), then the ban is stayed (not enforced) until the appeal is heard and a ruling handed down. And I just can’t see Apple losing on appeal when a standards-essential patent is in play.
I also believe the President has to sign off on the ITC’s ruling before it can go into effect, which based on his recent statements and proposals isn’t too likely to happen.
Thank you Bizlaw for providing useful information and insight. Always appreciated!
I’m not current but I believe Apple’s position is that the licensee in this case is the manufacturer of the communication chips Apple uses in the devices. Therefore, Apple isn’t required to license the technology from Samsung because the supplier already has.
This is correct. What Samsung is attempting to do is double dip. They get paid by the chip manufacturer, and by the handset manufacturer that USES said chip.
This attempt by Samsung has been dismissed in every jurisdiction around the globe where they have tried it. Importantly, Samsung has only filed a case like this against Apple. They have not filed against manufacturers that use Android or Winxx.
On top of that Samsung is demanding license fees much greater than those paid by Qualcom (makers of the enabling chip), in clear violation of FRAND.
There is no legal basis for the ITC’s decision. It is completely arbitrary, and goes against all precedent, which is why the world’s IP community was so surprised (and angered) by the decision.
Have any of you clicked the link to the original article and read the comments? The number of morons there is unbelievable.
You think that was bad. Go to Yahoo News where BGR constantly spits out BS articles about Apple wrongdoings and losing market. It’s an international Apple hate orgy there. I can tell that many are from said Asian countries bombarding Apple with tactical nuclear BS….
“…An international Apple hate orgy…”
Nothing new to long-time Apple fanatics. Apple hate is perennial, and perennially ridiculous. Apple is never perfect, but Apple consistently does things better than the parasitic alternatives. That’s why I love Apple. <3 <3 <3
Paid Samsung trolls.
All those haters are so happy that Apple was found guilty that it has clouded their judgement enough to make them oblivious to the type of damage this rule will have in the future.