“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.