Apple: ‘Samsung was wrong to abuse the patent system’

“The U.S. decision to overturn an import ban on Apple Inc.’s older iPhones and iPads may help short-term sales and hobble Samsung Electronics Co. in any settlement talks in the companies’ patent fight,” Susan Decker, Dawn Kopeck, and Pui-Wing Tam report for Bloomberg News. “”

“The ruling is a setback for Samsung, which had won the import ban against Apple from the U.S. International Trade Commission in June based on a patent widely used in the mobile-device industry for transmitting data. The U.S. drew a line between blocking the sale of products infringing patents that are part of industry standards versus those for unique features,” Decker, Kopeck, and Tam report. “The decision will probably handicap Samsung’s ability to obtain higher technology licensing fees from Apple in any negotiations, said Susan Kohn Ross, a trade lawyer with Mitchell Silberberg & Knupp in Los Angeles.”

Decker, Kopeck, and Tam report, “More broadly, the decision by U.S. Trade Representative Michael Froman, designated by Obama to review the case, could limit the ability of large patent-holding companies like Qualcomm Inc., InterDigital Inc. and Dolby Laboratories Inc. to rely on royalty revenue from standards patents used in smartphone chips or sound transmission… Froman’s decision was the first time the executive branch has overturned an import ban ordered by the ITC since 1987, when President Ronald Reagan did so in a case involving Samsung computer-memory chips.”

“‘The problem now for Samsung is not that Apple can continue to sell its products, but whether Samsung’s products will be banned,’ said Lee Sun Tae, a Seoul-based analyst at NH Investment & Securities,” Decker, Kopeck, and Tam report. “Apple, based in Cupertino, California, said disputes over licensing terms shouldn’t result in product import bans. ‘We applaud the administration for standing up for innovation in this landmark case,’ an Apple spokeswoman, Kristin Huguet, said in an interview. ‘Samsung was wrong to abuse the patent system in this way.'”

Read more in the full article here.

Related articles: – August 5, 2013
Obama administration vetoes Apple iPhone sales ban in U.S. – August 3, 2013
Google ready to ditch Android over its intellectual property issues? – July 29, 2013


    1. Some added details:

      “The last time a U.S. president vetoed an ITC decision was Ronald Reagan in 1987. That case also involved tech companies including Sharp, Toshiba, NEC, and Samsung, and was filed by Texas Instruments. Though instead of wireless technology or user interface features, the focus was on memory chips.” – Josh Lowensohn, CNET.

      1. Yes, but I think the question many of us would like to know is – was it Samsung’s products being band in 1987 or was Samsung seeking the ban?

  1. The Samsung Boys and iHaters have been working overtime all over the web to twist the truth in Samsungs favor. To the pint where one would think Samsung started this while new category of portable devices. Same on them.

  2. And then… Tit-For-Tat from shameless Samsung continues:

    Samsung confirms that it has appealed US ITC ruling on 3 other patent claims against Apple

    Samsung has revealed to TNW that an appeal is in progress for the three other patents which the ITC ruled that Apple did not infringe. If the appeal goes through successfully, it raises a possibility that some Apple products may face a ban once more.

  3. To think that Apple, as the largest US taxpayer, funds the inept bunch at the ITC, who bend over and take it with joy from Samdung. iHaters would just as soon kill the goose that lays the golden eggs, and be owned by Samdung, than to root for their own. I guess they’ll be static when we finally request foreign aid from SC to fund our growingly corrupt government. or perhaps we are already – under the table.

    1. I meant SK (South Korea) for SC above.

      And I wonder how much of this is just another dog and phony show. It is not like the ITC would not know what the boss man would do. Wonder how “independent” the ITC really is.

      “The information and analysis (from ITC) are provided to the President, the Office of the United States Trade Representative (USTR), and Congress to facilitate the development of sound and informed U.S. trade policy.”

  4. Tit for tat if it is in regard to a FRAND another Veto will be in Samsung’s future as the U.S. already made it clear it will not have products banned for what should be fair and reasonable license for FRAND. Not blackmail for another companies intelectual property patents. Samsung will not win this because what they are doing is trying to abuse the system as they do with everything they do it seems like.

  5. Since when will a veto that aligns with common sense “limit the ability of large patent-holding companies… to rely on royalty revenue from standards patents used in smartphone chips or sound transmission…?” Was there ever an SEP used to get an import ban? The only thing this veto does is limit the ability of unscrupulous companies like Samsung to use these types of patents to squeeze more royalties out of companies like Apple …which is EXACTLY how it should be.

Reader Feedback

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.