Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

iPhone 4, iPad 2 Get US Import Ban

Soulskill posted about a year ago | from the only-one-generation-after-it-matters dept.

Iphone 213

Bent Spoke writes "The U.S. trade agency has banned the import of older Apple iPhone and iPad models due to the violation of a patent held by Samsung (PDF). 'The president can overturn the import ban on public-policy grounds, though that rarely happens. Apple can keep selling the devices during the 60-day review period. ... Apple pledged to appeal the ITC decision. The underlying findings will be reviewed by a U.S. appeals court specializing in patent cases. ... The decision could mean fewer choices for AT&T and T-Mobile customers who want to get an iPhone without paying the higher cost of the iPhone 5. Samsung told the commission that Cupertino, California-based Apple could drop the price of the iPhone 5 if it was worried about losing potential customers. All of the iPhones are made in Asia.' It's getting so complicated we need a scorecard to keep track of who's winning these offensive patent battles in the smartphone coliseum."

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

HA HA APPEL FAGS!!! (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43911859)

EAT THAT SHIZNIT!!

Shorting APPL (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43911951)

Time to short APPL !!!

Re:Shorting APPL (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43912337)

Why?

Who cares if they can't sell their old, dull junk?

Nobody any more - only out of touch wanna-be desperates and old people still use iPhones

Re:Shorting APPL (4, Informative)

Savage-Rabbit (308260) | about a year ago | (#43912463)

Why?

Who cares if they can't sell their old, dull junk?

Nobody any more - only out of touch wanna-be desperates and old people still use iPhones

I'll try to ignore the juvenile condescension dripping off that post and try to stay factual. Millions of people who do not fit your description still buy the iPhone, the iPhone 4 is Apple's entry level phone and entry level devices are kind of important for enticing new customers. The problem (for Samsung) is that firstly, this will be appealed and secondly, the iPhone 4 is about to be succeeded as the entry level model by the unaffected 4S and possibly the rumoured low cost iPhone model. So for Samsung this is mostly a propaganda victory whose magnitude depends on how much the Samsung PR department and Samsung/Google's army of fanboys can inflate it's importance

I found the article linked to in the summary to be a bit confused, there is a somewhat better analysis available here [forbes.com]

U.S. Patent No. 7,706,348 concerns an “apparatus and method for encoding/decoding transport format combination indicator in CDMA mobile communication system” (an allegedly UMTS-essential patent). Newer iPhones and iPads coming with Qualcomm QCOM +0.84% baseband chips (starting with the iPhone 4S) are definitely not affected, limiting the potential impact of this decision on Apple’s revenues — basically, Apple would have to make the iPhone 4S its entry-level iPhone model and discontinue U.S. sales of older iPhones (and the “new iPad 4G”, the third-generation iPad, its entry-level model for iPads with cellular connectivity; WiFi iPads are not affected at all). Formally the decision also relates only to the AT&T versions of those older products, but Samsung reserved the right to allege infringement by Apple products running on other networks (unless they come with Qualcomm baseband chips).”

Re:Shorting APPL (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43912719)

You started your post saying you were going to keep it factual, but then you posted about all the problems Samsung has.

Let's keep things in context here. Samsung has lost nothing. Apple has lost the ability to import and sell certain things. Who has the problem?

In other News (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43912723)

Samsung buys Qualcomm and breaks all contracts to supply with Apple.

Re:Shorting APPL (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43913217)

Its going to be pointless soon, though. Apple has always kept the 2 gen back model as entry level, and with a new iPhone due out in 4 months or so, the 4S will become the entry level.

Re:Shorting APPL (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43913453)

And then they will start arguing over the new technologies. The problem here is that when the elephants fight it is the grass that gets trampled. As an aside, I heard on the radio that Apple is still making a lot of money on these old phones so it is not as trivial as it first sounds.

You know what they say.. (0, Troll)

OhANameWhatName (2688401) | about a year ago | (#43911871)

.. those who can't compete, litigate.

Re:You know what they say.. (5, Insightful)

myurr (468709) | about a year ago | (#43911917)

If we're lucky Apple will realise that patent reform is in their best interests as well as ours. More likely though is that this will be seen by Apple as a sign they need to step up their legal activities even further.

I know there will be apologists but Apple really brought this upon themselves with their frivolous lawsuits based on patenting rounded corners and their seeking of bans of other devices. Whilst the rest of the phone manufacturers have all joined in the same rotten game, and many were playing at it before Apple, it was the Cupertino based company that (in my view) turned to the courts as their primary competitive strategy.

Let the flamewar begin!!

Re:You know what they say.. (4, Insightful)

GNious (953874) | about a year ago | (#43911993)

If we're lucky Apple will realise that patent reform is in their best interests as well as ours. More likely though is that this will be seen by Apple as a sign they need to step up their legal activities even further.

If Apple and others conclude that Patent Reform is unavoidable, or in their interest, they will refocus part of their lobby and legal teams to ensure that it is as much in their interests(...) as possible, and as little-as-possible in ours (the public).

Re:You know what they say.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43912495)

Which is not always possible. Sometimes you have to be good before you can become bad.

Re:You know what they say.. (-1, Offtopic)

oztiks (921504) | about a year ago | (#43912003)

Lets look at this objectively.

1. Phones exist (very important logical point I believe).
2. American company asks an Asian company to make a new type of phone based on a set of blue prints that the American company provides.
3. Asian company builds a machine that makes said blue prints.
4. American company asks for X number of phones to be built. Asian company delivers X number of phones.
5. Asian company realises they can make Y number of phones which is x2 as much as X.
6. Asian company sells X-Y=Z phones which in turn pisses off the American company.

So who sues who? The guy came up with the blue prints? or the guy who came up with the blue prints to the blue-print-making-machine?

Re:You know what they say.. (4, Insightful)

Grey Ninja (739021) | about a year ago | (#43912021)

Are you honestly suggesting that Apple had Samsung make their iPhones and then Samsung took those designs and made identical copies on their own?

Re:You know what they say.. (0, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43912063)

The Apple Sect believes that.

Re:You know what they say.. (1, Interesting)

oztiks (921504) | about a year ago | (#43912145)

I'm not saying that at all. Though I can see that if you take my 6 dot points 100% literally you could say that I am making that judgement :)

It's not as if way back when Steve Jobs had his first keynote showcasing his new iPhone creation it had a "Powered by Samsung" logo underneath the iPhone logo. Why not? I've seen plenty of PC's with "Intel Inside" stickers plastered on it.

Samsung created the IP that ensured that Apple's IP would work. I guess you could then argue that Samsung should be sued by the creator of the screwdriver that was used in the creation of creating their IP but sufficed to say here in lays the problem.

If Apple gets the rights to sue, Samsung should get equal rights to do so as well. Don't allow favouritism via product preference or country of origin allow you to be swayed.

Re:You know what they say.. (1)

Savage-Rabbit (308260) | about a year ago | (#43912347)

I'm not saying that at all. Though I can see that if you take my 6 dot points 100% literally...

Religious fundamentalists tend to do that ;-)

Re:You know what they say.. (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43912737)

Are you honestly suggesting that Apple had Samsung make their iPhones and then Samsung took those designs and made identical copies on their own?

What... are you stupid? No, of course not. Samsung had no choice. Apple forced Samsung to copy Apple's innovations... by innovating in the first place. You have a lot to learn about Chinese culture, my friend.

Re:You know what they say.. (4, Informative)

jo_ham (604554) | about a year ago | (#43912769)

Are you honestly suggesting that Apple had Samsung make their iPhones and then Samsung took those designs and made identical copies on their own?

What... are you stupid? No, of course not. Samsung had no choice. Apple forced Samsung to copy Apple's innovations... by innovating in the first place. You have a lot to learn about Chinese culture, my friend.

What does Chinese culture have to do with it? Samsung are a Korean company.

Re:You know what they say.. (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43912815)

dude... genetically the Chinese and South Koreans are like... so totally different, and so is their language, but I guess you're right about their business culture, which is not all that different from some Native American cultures... "What's yours really belongs to everyone." The concept of privately owned property is really a throwback to European imperial culture. What right does Apple to attempt to apply archaic European imperialistic principles to the most excellent and more modern and liberal Asian business culture? Apple fucked up by not investing in an entirely in-house, and fully American technology production. Had Apple merely manufactured iPhones in a new factory in Austin, TX, and never tried to sell in Asian markets, none of this would have happened.

Re:You know what they say.. (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43912941)

Seeing as Apple stoke the iPhone format from Sony, even creating blue prints, and has been shown to be the case in court, I find it bizarre that Apple fans still bleat on about copying.

Re:You know what they say.. (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43912057)

1. Phones exist (very important logical point I believe).

What a revelation.

2. American company asks an Asian company to make a new type of phone based on a set of blue prints that the American company provides.

Yeah.

3. Asian company builds a machine that makes said blue prints.

'said blue prints'? So a machine that makes the exact blueprints that were sent to them such that the american company did nothing other than turn on the machine that makes the blue prints and sent the output to the asian company? Or did the american company create them somewhere and just print them out on the blue print making machine?

4. American company asks for X number of phones to be built. Asian company delivers X number of phones.

That's generally how it works.

5. Asian company realises they can make Y number of phones which is x2 as much as X.

Y number of what phones? The ones the American company contracted them to make? Or different ones? Or are they built from the output of the asian blue print making machine?

6. Asian company sells X-Y=Z phones

So they sell -X phones? According to point 5 Y = 2X so given the above Z = -X.

which in turn pisses off the American company.

Damn straight, they're selling negative phones instead of building phones they were contracted to build!

So who sues who?

The guy who came up with the idiotic math, then we praise the blue print making machine that made the Americans redundant and wonder what the fuck the Asians are doing.

Re:You know what they say.. (0, Troll)

oztiks (921504) | about a year ago | (#43912169)

The guy who came up with the idiotic math, then we praise the blue print making machine that made the Americans redundant and wonder what the fuck the Asians are doing.

Sorry about the simple math X-Y. I didn't proof my text before sending it.

Asian's I've found to be very philosophical when it comes to doing business. Provided both companies benefit from their transactions and you don't mistreat them they make life pretty easy.

I find it totally mind boggling that after an American organisation shows an Asian company how to create a successful product and when the Asian company actually does so the American's get pissed off? Haven't you guys learned anything from the catastrophes in the middle easy?

Re:You know what they say.. (0)

oztiks (921504) | about a year ago | (#43912195)

east

Fucking racist, man (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43912107)

All asians might look same to you, but Samsung (who provided some of chips for iPhones) is a different company from Foxconn (who can be said to "make" iPhones - as in assembles them).

I doubt Samsung ever saw the blueprints for iPhone (if dem slanties could even make anything out in those blueprints with their slit eyes</poes-law>)

Re:Fucking racist, man (-1, Flamebait)

oztiks (921504) | about a year ago | (#43912151)

Not racist. I put both American and Asian's in the same basket here. The same argument can be made that a series of American companies actually sell and distribute the iPhone and that it's not all "Apple" putting their product on shelves.

But I resent being called racist, so fucking die you piece of scum sucking shit, whatever creed you may be!

Re:You know what they say.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43912221)

5. Asian company realises they can make Y number of phones which is x2 as much as X.
6. Asian company sells X-Y=Z phones which in turn pisses off the American company.

Why would that annoy the American company? If Y is x2 as much as X and X-Y=Z then Z must be negative X. So the Asian company must be buying up all the surplus phones. The American company doesn't lose out.

Re:You know what they say.. (1)

oztiks (921504) | about a year ago | (#43912859)

It was a dumb typo, I know that, most level headed people would see that. I'm concerned that you don't.

Re:You know what they say.. (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43913011)

A "dumb typo" is when you hit the "T" key instead of the "R" key. What you did was just the first word.

Re:You know what they say.. (0)

TrollstonButterbeans (2914995) | about a year ago | (#43912183)

Patent reform actually isn't in anyone's interest --- not anyone who would take the time and effort and initiative to do something about it, except possibly Google (which is against all intellectual property and internet laws as a nature of their business model).

This crazy patent system rewards large companies, individuals, lawyers and politicians --- and does not hurt non-commercial works (open source included) because lawyers don't sue where there is no money (#1 rule of lawyers).

There is no evidence any of these anti-patent sentiments are going anywhere, and our messed up patent system generates short term monopolies which spur business growth.

It is a terrible system, but one with no true losers except in theory --- but this theory can't manifest in reality (i.e. no one will bother to sue you unless you make it big, if you made it big you were successful anyway).

An occasional patent troll annoys Microsoft or RIM, gets a settlement that is of no practical concern to target (Microsoft doesn't cry over 60 million). If you are a growing company, you pay the license fees for patents you need and expense it and move on.

Re:You know what they say.. (4, Informative)

AmiMoJo (196126) | about a year ago | (#43912199)

It's actually worse than that.

Apple's patents are on design, silly things like rounded corners and page bounce. They are easy to work around. Everyone else's patents are on the technology needed to connect to mobile networks and other standards essential stuff which, as demonstrated here, is clearly enforceable and impossible to avoid.

Samsung did offer to license the patent to Apple, as they are required to do under FRAND rules. Most companies don't pay cash for this, they just cross license their own technology patents and call it even. Apple doesn't have any tech patents to bargain with and its design patents are worthless, so they have to pay $$$ instead. Apple didn't like the fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory rates so refused to pay, and now the court is punishing them for it.

Patent reform won't help them. Patent reform is only going to destroy their own design patents, not the technology patents they don't want to pay for.

Re:You know what they say.. (5, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43912365)

Apple has more than 400 FRAND patents mostly acquired from Nortel, but they decided to never sue based on FRAND patents.

Samsung ask 2.5% of the price of the whole iPhone as a "reasonable and fair" price. This is exactly what Motorola ask to Apple and Microsoft as well for FRAND patentd. Recently, a court has considered that in a Motorola vs Microsoft case, a fair price would be 1/2000 to what Motorola asked.

Nobody can seriously think that 2.5% rate is a fair price as there are thousands of FRAND patents involved in any smartphone concerning 3G, 4G, WiFi, Bluetooth etc.

Re:You know what they say.. (-1, Troll)

gnasher719 (869701) | about a year ago | (#43912397)

Apple's patents are on design, silly things like rounded corners and page bounce. They are easy to work around.

Of course they are easy to work around. The problem is Samsung didn't want to work around them, they wanted their products to look like iPhones and iPads. And look what happened: All those companies that didn't sell iPhone and iPad lookalikes are not selling. The one company that copied Apple's designs became the most successful.

Re:You know what they say.. (1, Interesting)

gaiageek (1070870) | about a year ago | (#43912917)

Are you actually trying to make the argument that Samsung's success as an Android device manufacturer, which largely came with the devices released after the "copied Apple" ones in question (which, it's been shown, Apple used Photoshopped evidence in making its case for), is entirely based upon the fact that, under your assumption, their first generation devices looked more like an Apple's than the devices released by other manufacturers? Really?

Re:You know what they say.. (1)

stealth_finger (1809752) | about a year ago | (#43913007)

Apple's patents are on design, silly things like rounded corners and page bounce. They are easy to work around.

Of course they are easy to work around. The problem is Samsung didn't want to work around them, they wanted their products to look like iPhones and iPads. And look what happened: All those companies that didn't sell iPhone and iPad lookalikes are not selling. The one company that copied Apple's designs became the most successful.

I never got this. Samsungs look no more familiar to iphones than other smart phones. A rectangle with rounder corners. Ive recently upgraded to a sony xperia z and thats the most different looking to an iphone I've had but only because it doesnt have a physical button at the bottom middle. Before this I had a nokia e7 which had most of the physical features and an iphone. Take any of the flagship models really, describe them to a blind person and they'll probably think they all look the same.

Re:You know what they say.. (4, Insightful)

jo_ham (604554) | about a year ago | (#43912783)

Nice spin. You can say that the rate was "fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory" but that doesn't make it so. Apple certainly didn't believe so, hence the lawsuit. If they felt it was fair they would have paid up right away, like they did for the many, many hundreds of other FRAND patents that are essential to the iPhone's function.

Re:You know what they say.. (-1, Troll)

StripedCow (776465) | about a year ago | (#43912649)

If we're lucky Apple will realise that patent reform is in their best interests as well as ours.

You must be kidding. Apple is a law firm that happens to sell consumer electronics.

Re:You know what they say.. (2, Insightful)

fredgiblet (1063752) | about a year ago | (#43911933)

Which is why Apple spends so much time litigating amirite?

Re:You know what they say.. (5, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43911941)

What strikes me as how both the interviewee's in the news clip shown in the TFA constantly confuse the terms "around the country" and "around the world". Americans' are bred thinking that the country and the world are one of the same. These Freudian slips are just proof of their cultural ignorance.

If Obama did overturn the ITC I'd ask the question, why even allow Samsung the freedom to file cases against Apple in the first place? I'd say if Obama did overturn the decision (no matter the ethics behind the decision) it's just proof that the USA is doomed. Ideally the Govt should be held accountable to it's respective laws, that fact a committee even exists for this sort of thing just highlights how Totalitarian the US has become.

And someone explain WTF "public-policy" is?

Re:You know what they say.. (2)

erroneus (253617) | about a year ago | (#43912333)

It's interesting that all this mention of Obama is being mentioned. It's as if they are literally calling on him to intervene... or announcing it.

He would do well to steer clear of this one. After all, his push for patent reform is in no small part addressing the issue of software patents among other things like patent trolls. Samsung is a practicing and participating entity. Ideologically, they are precisely what Obama's patent reform push would serve to protect. For Obama to act against the ITC now would be hyp... oh, okay... I see it now. Nevermind.... business as usual.

Re:You know what they say.. (2)

exomondo (1725132) | about a year ago | (#43912029)

.. those who can't compete, litigate.

Seems like something morons say, if that was the case then it suggests nobody is capable of competing, all these companies are suing and counter-suing eachother.

Re:You know what they say.. (4, Interesting)

Attila Dimedici (1036002) | about a year ago | (#43913023)

You do know that it was Apple that sued Samsung first, right? That this particular suit was a response to Apple suing Samsung for violating their "look and feel"?

Re:You know what they say.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43913441)

I presume you're referring to Apple, who started this entire litigation war rather than rely on the merits of their products.

Nothing New Here (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43911885)

Companies exist to generate profit, this means suing each other constantly, no company is your friend, blah blah blah.

Sigh (1)

Guinness Beaumont (2901413) | about a year ago | (#43911911)

It's shitty when Apple does this, and it's shitty when Samsung does this. With that said I'm astounded. A good share of those iPhone internals are Samsung parts; isn't this biting the hand that feeds a bit for Samsung - indirectly blocking the import of their own parts? When you have your finger in every pie...

Re:Sigh (1)

fredgiblet (1063752) | about a year ago | (#43911921)

Apple has been moving away from Samsung parts. It's more lucrative to have the market themselves anyway.

Re:Sigh (1)

smash (1351) | about a year ago | (#43912159)

Apple also sells a lot more iphones outside of the USA now.

Re:Sigh (4, Insightful)

myurr (468709) | about a year ago | (#43911935)

Component sales to Apple are a relatively small percentage of Samsung's profits from the mobile sector. They've probably calculated that the potential gain in market share, and related profits, easily outstrips any drop in component orders by Apple.

Re:Sigh (1)

jo_ham (604554) | about a year ago | (#43912813)

Given this involves the 4 and the older iPads, I'm not sure how that follows.

The bulk of Apple's orders from Samsung are for the iPhone 5 and retina iPad (Samsung makes the CPU and other components).

Winning an abuse-the-frand-process lawsuit on a selection of products that Apple barely sells any more (the 4 is still available as an entry level, but it is not long for this world) is hardly beneficial for Samsung.

There's certainly an element of biting the hand that feeds you, but Samsung also knows it is in a relatively strong position - the parts it has available are better than Apple can get from its competitors. This is especially true for displays, so it's not entirely without a bargaining position. It's also in partnership with Apple in some cases - the cash injection into Samsung's Texas plant came from Apple, for example. As with any two giants, they are intertwined and often fight among themselves.

Re:Sigh (1, Informative)

whisper_jeff (680366) | about a year ago | (#43912835)

Component sales to Apple are a relatively small percentage of Samsung's profits...

Even assuming the numbers in these two articles are off a bit and slightly dated, I don't think "relatively small" is an accurate representation of Apple's impact on Samsung's revenue. Feel free to cite contradicting numbers if you can find any but I seriously doubt you will - Apple is a massive client for Samsung.

http://www.idownloadblog.com/2012/08/07/apple-now-accounts-for-8-8-of-samsungs-revenue/ [idownloadblog.com]

http://www.theinquirer.net/inquirer/news/2269565/apples-iphone-and-ipad-chips-generated-83-percent-of-samsungs-processor-revenue [theinquirer.net]

That said, Samsung may have still decided to go for the short term direct profit route of increasing their device sales at the cost of their long term relationship with a massive client, but don't think for a second that Apple is a small part of Samsung's revenue stream.

Re:Sigh (1)

im_thatoneguy (819432) | about a year ago | (#43911945)

Apple presumably will continue manufacturing them and paying Samsung for the parts. And after a $1B payout to Apple I imagine that Samsung just wants vengeance a this point. Both of them are already going to lose when the scorecard gets rung up but I doubt Samsung wants Apple to come out ahead.

Re:Sigh (2)

TrollstonButterbeans (2914995) | about a year ago | (#43912201)

Neither Samsung or Apple lose. Some other company X, Y or Z that would like to grow market-share or compete against Samsung loses because both Apple and Samsung are affirmed by the courts to have patents that "count" to participate in the market in a specific way.

Re:Sigh (1)

Grey Ninja (739021) | about a year ago | (#43911995)

Samsung wants to let Apple know that they will not be bullied. They are able to fight them back.

Re:Sigh (1, Troll)

gnasher719 (869701) | about a year ago | (#43912407)

Samsung wants to let Apple know that they will not be bullied. They are able to fight them back.

Apple reacted when Samsung copied the design of their products. That's not exactly "bullying". On the other hand, Samsung seems to be very good at bullying. Like journalists and even members of parliament in Korea losing their jobs when they critisize Samsung.

Re:Sigh (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43912125)

The ban is only about the USA. World > USA so the loss isn't that big especially compared to teaching Apple a lesson and gaining some negotiation points, which are both worth money.

Re:Sigh (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43912127)

When you have your finger in every pie... [?]

You trailed off there — what where you saying?

Re:Sigh (1)

Plumpaquatsch (2701653) | about a year ago | (#43912275)

It's shitty when Apple does this, and it's shitty when Samsung does this. With that said I'm astounded. A good share of those iPhone internals are Samsung parts; isn't this biting the hand that feeds a bit for Samsung - indirectly blocking the import of their own parts? When you have your finger in every pie...

So what if the components implementing the infringed patent are actually made by Samsung?

Balance (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43911953)

Currently, the most agressive parties in patent disputes use trivial and/or overly broad patents. FRAND patents are used more defensively. In this picture, successful FRAND claims are a good thing.

Those who live by the sword... (3, Insightful)

mykos (1627575) | about a year ago | (#43911981)

I wish karma were a real thing.

Re:Those who live by the sword... (2)

gentryx (759438) | about a year ago | (#43912049)

On /. it is.

Re:Those who live by the sword... (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43912251)

Sounds like an augmented reality dream. Lots of people walking around with "+5 Helpful", "-3 Arse" and "+/-??? Weirdo" floating above their heads.

Re:Those who live by the sword... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43912281)

If it were a real thing, Apple would be forced to recall all the infringing iPhones they sold and give their owners new Samsung phones. That would be karma.

Instead we get an import ban on obsolete models that I was unaware were still being made in the first place.

Re:Those who live by the sword... (2)

jkrise (535370) | about a year ago | (#43913513)

Not swords, Jobs talked of ThermoNuclear warfare. By definition both parties are destroyed in such a warfare. Jobs foolishness is tanking Apple big time. He deserved to be alive to see his warfare panning out like this.

Wait, what? (1)

NettiWelho (1147351) | about a year ago | (#43912089)

It's getting so complicated we need a scorecard to keep track of who's winning these offensive patent battles

You serious? Whos winning?
My take from past few years is more along the lines of... this [youtube.com]

Old hardware still being produced?? (1)

dimethylxanthine (946092) | about a year ago | (#43912131)

Is this really such a big deal? How long since iPhone 4 / iPad 2 have gone out of production and replaced by newer models? Doubt the ruling will have any serious impact...

Re:Old hardware still being produced?? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43913185)

That won't stop Fandroid Lusers from stroking themselves all morning! Glad I wore a raincoat today!

Does anybody else find it funny... (5, Funny)

lxs (131946) | about a year ago | (#43912139)

...that a US company can't sell their product in the US because of an import ban on that product?

Re:Does anybody else find it funny... (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43912319)

Apple is not a US company. It doesn't pay taxes there or in any country.

Re:Does anybody else find it funny... (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43912507)

Apple is not a US company. It doesn't pay taxes there or in any country.

There's a long-ass list if that is the qualifier...

Re:Does anybody else find it funny... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43912729)

Yes, there is. But we're not talking about any of those.

Re:Does anybody else find it funny... (0)

stealth_finger (1809752) | about a year ago | (#43912447)

...that a US company can't sell their product in the US because of an import ban on that product?

Yep. I wonder if they would have the issue if they made the phones in america. They seem pretty proud that the stuff was designed there, but are happy to farm of production to the cheapest option and avoid tax at every term. Anyway I'm convinced steve jobs sold his soul for the massive boom in popularity from the ipod days (even though they were shit), actually, he probably sold the souls of the marketing dept and everyone who clicks I agree. Bollocks to them.

Re:Does anybody else find it funny... (1)

aliquis (678370) | about a year ago | (#43912689)

At some time "Think different" changed meaning from "take LSD" to "I to must have an iPhone!"

From my perspective Apple has only been interesting for their software, but since it's filled with vendor lock-in it's not all that useful.

Re:Does anybody else find it funny... (1)

jo_ham (604554) | about a year ago | (#43912853)

Goodness me, that is the most chafed neckbeard I have ever seen! How do you cope?!

"iPods were popular but shit" is just a weak argument. It works better with hipster glasses, but then, I thought it was all the Apple users who were the hipsters. I get so confused!

The amount of butthurt from nerds on slashdot over the success of the iPod and subsequent iOS devices is hilarious. The tangible sense of "not getting it" swirls around like a dark cloud, just because something became popular that wasn't exactly what you wanted from a product, thus it is impossible to believe that the success is down to anything other than marketing to braindead consumers.

Re:Does anybody else find it funny... (0)

stealth_finger (1809752) | about a year ago | (#43913077)

thus it is impossible to believe that the success is down to anything other than marketing to braindead consumers.

That's exactly what it is. They didn't even try to convince people it was the best. It somehow became a style thing. There were plenty of better and cheaper mp3 players on the market. Still are. Sure ipods now are a lot better than they were back then but they're still no better than the competition and more expensive. Loads of people buy apple because of the badge and say oh macs are better for this or that but they can't give a single tangible reason why. Personally, if someone wants to get a mac for either the fact it's 'cooler' or they have a reasoned preference for that machine, that's their issue but don't get all defensive because someone else doesn't like it or want it.

Re:Does anybody else find it funny... (4, Insightful)

gtall (79522) | about a year ago | (#43913157)

The iPod succeeded because Apple built a store front where you could easily buy music and install music for it. You didn't have to read a bunch of geeky stuff, you didn't have to download stolen music, you just clicked a few buttons. The specs on the device itself only matter to...uh...you and two friends.

Re:Does anybody else find it funny... (5, Insightful)

jo_ham (604554) | about a year ago | (#43913231)

There were plenty of better and cheaper mp3 players on the market.

In your opinion. This is the point I'm making, and the point that Apple realised. Better in what way?

- Sound quality? At first yes - the amp in the early iPods wasn't as good as some of the others out there, but this is no longer the case (everyone pretty much uses the same chips for standard parts like this now)
- Storage space? Depends what you're looking for. The first iPod didn't have as much space as a Nomad (so lame!) but it was physically smaller.
- Price? It cost more, but if it's still value for money for the people that buy it, what's the issue? You are not obligated to buy one.
- UI? Hands down this is where the iPod beat everything else and the reason it became so popular. It was easy to use, and people loved it.

I can see that you're not going to be swayed from your rock solid opinion that Apple's success is anything other than some sort of black magic marketing and convincing people to buy something over many generations by somehow making them ignore "how shit" it is, over and over and over again, but such is life. If you're unwilling to look at the reasons for the success of a product then there;s not much debate.

Personally, if someone wants to get a mac for either the fact it's 'cooler' or they have a reasoned preference for that machine, that's their issue but don't get all defensive because someone else doesn't like it or want it.

But that's not what you're doing. You are saying that people are being fooled by the marketing and are not buying products that would be better for them. You are free to hate Apple as much as you like. Froth, wail, scrunch up your eyes and wish really, really hard that all their success has nothing to do with making products that people actually want to buy all you like, but don't be surprised if people call you on it.

There's a difference between not liking a product (even call it shit if you like - it's an opinion), and stating that the success of that product and its successors/derivatives in the marketplace over a decade are solely down to clueless sheep falling for a marketing trick.

Marketing will only take you so far before the shit starts to stink. No matter how hard you try to wish it wasn't so, but consumers actually *like* Apple's products. You don;t have to - that's fine - but you can't dismiss people who buy them as somehow being "fooled" because they didn't make the same choices as you did.

Re:Does anybody else find it funny... (1)

geminidomino (614729) | about a year ago | (#43913397)

Sure ipods now are a lot better than they were back then but they're still no better than the competition and more expensive.

Sadly, that's not even true anymore. To my knowledge, the iPod classic is the only hard-drive based music player (not media player) available anymore, and I've been looking. Everything else has either gone to flash, which is all the rage but gives significantly less storage for the price, or the "media player" route, with oversized screens and controls even less suited for eyes-free use than the thumbwheel thing (that I still loathe).

It's a strange, scary world when Apple is wins in "bang-for-the-buck" in anything.

Pot. Kettle. Black. (3, Interesting)

Anubis IV (1279820) | about a year ago | (#43912165)

“We believe the ITC’s Final Determination has confirmed Apple’s history of free-riding on Samsung’s technological innovations,” Samsung said in a statement to AllThingsD.

http://allthingsd.com/20130604/samsung-wins-import-ban-against-older-iphones-ipads/ [allthingsd.com]

I can't imagine them saying it without at least some irony in their voice. Seriously though, Apple has all but confirmed that they're violating patents for various reasons (e.g. FRAND terms were not offered) and has always been rather blasé about much of this stuff, while Samsung has at times blatantly ripped off a number of its competitors, most recently Apple (before Apple, a number of their designs ripped off Blackberry and others), sometimes doing so rather shamelessly yet denying it entirely.

And all of this won't matter much in the end anyway, since sixty days will get us darn close to the post-back-to-school time when Apple typically announces new versions of their devices anyway, including the heavily rumored low-cost iPhone that will be replacing the iPhone 4 (quick note: this injunction only applies to the iPhone 4 model used by AT&T, apparently, since the iPhone 4 had different chipsets for GSM and CDMA in all but one of the models (the late-released white iPhone 4)), and a new version of the iPad and iPad mini, which will be obviating the need to keep the iPad 2 in the lineup.

So, kudos to Samsung for winning a victory where one was deserved, but in the end, it's all just more of the same.

Re:Pot. Kettle. Black. (2)

MrDoh! (71235) | about a year ago | (#43912285)

It's probably one of those things that they're putting the boot in at last. Apple have yelled it from the rafters everytime they've had a win and Samsung's been fairly quiet. Bridges are burnt out now, the relationship between them will never be repaired, so Samsung are trying to set the story straight in the press (who /usually/ tend to veer towards being pro-Apple in their reporting). Plus, it's a nice point to make in other cases still raging around the world.

Re:Pot. Kettle. Black. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43912491)

The press know who their bosses are... and Apple has done a ton of advertising.

Re:Pot. Kettle. Black. (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43912389)

This is AFAIK the first import ban granted on a FRAND patent: one can expect soon a lot of bans from FRAND patent holders in any standard technology. Nokia for example could become immensely profitable by suing everybody on their FRAND patents and asking for an absurd 2.5% royalty rate as Samsung did. The Pandora box is open: hopefully the ITC ban will be quickly canceled by the appeal court.

Re:Pot. Kettle. Black. (3, Informative)

AmiMoJo (196126) | about a year ago | (#43913127)

FRAND terms were not offered

Yes they were, Apple just didn't like them. Most companies do a patent exchange to avoid paying any actual cash, but Apple doesn't have any tech patents to offer and it refuses to license design patents. So Apple was obliged to pay the same percentage as everyone else, it's just that because Apple products are rather expensive that translated into a several dollars per device which they thought was too much. Well, you know what Apple, too bad, everyone else agreed to this deal and now the court agreed that it was fair.

Samsung has at times blatantly ripped off a number of its competitors, most recently Apple

If you mean that they look somewhat similar then I would direct your attention to Braun's product line [gizmodo.com] which pre-dates Apple's [visual.ly] .

And all of this won't matter much in the end anyway

It certainly will because this isn't the only tech patent that falls under FRAND rules which Apple has tried to ignore, and Samsung isn't going to relent on those. Its the nature of litigation that it takes years and in the mean time new products come out, so at the end you apply for a quick judgement on other patents and the new gear based on the arguments that were resolved during the trial. On top of that you can expect Samsung to press for damages and of course the unpaid license fees.

This has been coming to Apple for a long time. You can't just ignore patents vital to implementing standards because you don't like the FRAND terms that everyone else has agreed to. That is the price of joining the club, the alternative being to go set up your own world-wide cell data network.

Re:Pot. Kettle. Black. (0)

cyborg_monkey (150790) | about a year ago | (#43913239)

You're a moron.

how convenient for (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43912339)

apple... now folks are going to be forced to pay more

Not getting complicated (5, Insightful)

iapetus (24050) | about a year ago | (#43912361)

No need for a scorecard. As always, the patent lawyers are winning, and the consumers are losing.

This sort of shitty competition through litigation was vile when Apple did it to Samsung, and it's equally vile when Samsung do it to Apple. Showing more and more why we desperately need patent reform. I'm not even that concerned about the impact on Apple and Samsung - it's the smaller players who can be crushed by litigation like this that I've got more sympathy for.

Re:Not getting complicated (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43913541)

This sort of shitty competition through litigation was vile when Apple did it to Samsung, and it's equally vile when Samsung do it to Apple.

If somebody comes up to you in the street and punches you in the face, and you punch them back in self-defence, you're saying those actions are equal.
You're an idiot.

The only people winning are... (0)

Ev!LOnE (1207842) | about a year ago | (#43912449)

... the lawyers. You knew it anyway.

How does it feel Apple? (0)

AbRASiON (589899) | about a year ago | (#43912513)

Well,.........? How does it feel?
You started it.

Re:How does it feel Apple? (1)

jo_ham (604554) | about a year ago | (#43912871)

Well,.........? How does it feel?
You started it.

I'm sure it feels amusing. Losing a patent lawsuit on a FRAND patent opens up a whole new can of worms. Do you know how many Apple holds? They're free to go out in force, guns blazing, with that sort of precedent behind them. You thought they were litigious before now?!

Too Late (1)

PanAmaX (1102857) | about a year ago | (#43912637)

Is it just me, or is an import ban on a 3 year old iPhone 4 and a 3 year old iPad 2 really going to make much difference to Apple? Those products are winding down anyway? So banning them now is a bit too little too late. When you compare this to the billion dollar lawsuit from a year ago, this is not much of a punishment at all. They should also impose a penalty for every single unit of these makes that has been sold within the U.S. and make apple pay that to Samsung. That's only fair. Also I agree with an earlier poster who said that if Obama can overturn this ruling, what is the point of the whole system in the first place.

Re:Too Late (1)

jo_ham (604554) | about a year ago | (#43912915)

This was a FRAND lawsuit - I'm amazed it got as far as it did (Samsung's litigation is... well, if not illegal, it's certainly wide of the gentlemanly thing to do), so it's not like the damages suit that Apple won over the design patents it held. There's no financial losses to Samsung from Apple using this patent, other than the licencing fees, since it's in the pool. Samsung's got no claim to loss of earnings or brand confusion, or any of that angle of attack (whether you believe it's bullshit or not), just the angle that Apple doesn't want to pay up for a patent that they literally must use (since it's in a FRAND pool attached to a component that is essential to make the radio hardware work). The argument boils down to "They're asking too much money for this" on one side and "They don't want to pay, we believe x is a fair price" on the other. The solution is either "Apple pays what Samsung asks", "Apple pays what a judge thinks is fair" or "Apple stops selling devices affected by this".

I'm willing to bet Apple's lawyers selected the latter, given the choice, given how long this has been drawn out.

They'll still appeal it, of course, but even if they lose it's not the end of the world for them.

It's interesting that in both the Motorola case and the Samsung case, a single FRAND patent out of the whole slew of patents involved in the radio hardware that just so happen to belong to the respective litigant are miraculously found to be non-compliant after Apple files lawsuits over design patents. Given how sure Samsung and Motorola were, I assumed everyone else who had a patent in that pool would also sue Apple, since it seems very odd that Apple would pay for a hundred or so patents and then just "refuse to pay" for a couple. Were I a cynic, I'd suspect shenanigans. Fortunately I'm not a cynic.

Re:Too Late (1)

PanAmaX (1102857) | about a year ago | (#43913017)

"There's no financial losses to Samsung from Apple using this patent, other than the licencing fees, since it's in the pool."

This is part of the penalty I was referring to.. it doesnt matter whether its FRAND or not.. if you don't pay the licencing fee of a FRAND patent then you're in violation of the terms of use of the patent.

"They're asking too much money for this" on one side and "They don't want to pay, we believe x is a fair price" on the other."

unfortunately the only things that really count here is that the licencing is Fair.. Reasonable and Non-Discriminatory.. hence unless Apple can prove that Samsungs rates to them are discriminatory, then they need to just shut up and pay the licensing fee

I was just saying that banning the old products does nothing, and the court should be forcing apple to pay the cost of licencing per product (as you state either as agreed by the court, which in my opinion is ridiculous as the court doesn't know the value of technology, or they pay the rates which samsung requested, which is the same fee that everyone else using that essential patent pays.) plus a slight penalty as they quite blatantly decided not to pay the licencing for the FRAND patent.

Quite frankly without some kind of extra penalty why not employ this as a standard mode of operation. Use all frand patents without licence and then only pay the licence after being forced to by a court with no extra penalty.. thats not in the spirit of patent law.

Re:Too Late (1)

jo_ham (604554) | about a year ago | (#43913151)

That's exactly the point - Apple contended that the fees Samsung was asking were not Fair and Non-discriminatory. It's not easy to determine exactly what the value is, due to the way many companies simply cross licence, but I think it's 'reasonable' to assume that 2.4% per device is not it as a cash sum. Apple absolutely wants to pay a fair rate, as they do for every other frand patent they licence.

Remember, this is for a single patent in a large pool of standards-essential patents. If a single, relatively insignificant one, is worth that much, then how is anyone able to afford to compete with Samsung? Unless the amount charged to everyone else who uses it (and that list is essentially everyone who ever made a wireless device that worked on a CDMA network) was different to the amount Samsung was asking of Apple.

Apple is simply not going to contest it in court if they believe it's legitimate - like I mentioned, it's one of hundreds of patents in FRAND pools that they licence as part of the cost of making iOS devices compatible with wireless standards (3G/GSM/CDMA/WiFi/BT/etc).

You wouldn't use this as a standard method of operation (not pay and wait for lawsuits) because then no one would submit patents into FRAND pools in the first place, and you'd be stuck with a total mess when it came to things that needed interoperable standards.

The only companies that have raised a stink about it are companies that have been involved in expensive design patent lawsuits with Apple... against Apple. Under every day situations, the FRAND system works well. We didn't start seeing FRAND abuse until Moto/Nokia/Samsung started to hunt around for a way to 'strike back' at Apple for suing them. It's all very convenient, and very bizarre. If Apple really aren't playing by the rules, why is it only with very specific single patents cherry picked out of a FRAND pool that happen to belong to people they're "at war" with? Surely if they're this off the mark on their obligations to licence the common pool patents than there should be hundreds of lawsuits aimed at them from everyone who put into the pool (let's not even get into the fact that you often don't licence the patents individually and instead pay for them collectively when you purchase an off the shelf part for your device, with the various royalties being handled by the cost of the component as is the case with many of Qualcomm's and Broadcom's parts, yet somehow Apple needs a special extra licence to use one of Nokia's patents rolled into a Qualcomm chip over and above the licencing cost Apple already paid...).

Re:Too Late (1)

PanAmaX (1102857) | about a year ago | (#43913327)

Actually you raise a very good point in the following line

"let's not even get into the fact that you often don't licence the patents individually and instead pay for them collectively when you purchase an off the shelf part for your device"

that is 100% accurate as usually it is the component manufacturer that will pay for the fact that their component operates according to the accepted standard of which the FRAND patent applies. So (forgive my ignorance on this one as I'm guessing) wouldn't apple have bought the components off (lets say) Samsung? and hence have already paid for the use of that patent?

I mean obviously this isn't the case otherwise this patent wouldn't be in the suit.. So perhaps its that apple have built their own component which has not paid for the use of the essential patent? in which case it becomes fair game.

In any case I agree with you 100% that the value of a patent should be a fixed cost per use and not as a % of a device. That's just ludicrous. I wasn't aware that was what Samsung were claiming.


There is however one point I disagree with..
"Apple absolutely wants to pay a fair rate, as they do for every other frand patent they licence."

Im not sold on this point, as lets face it, there seem to be a hell of a lot of FRAND patents being thrown at Apple in these patent suits. If they really were committed to paying whats fair, then this wouldn't come up so often. And the amount of effort it takes to develop a standards essential patent is a LOT greater than the design and trade dress of a product. Hence that effort should be rewarded through the appropriate payment of licencing. Who are apple to say how much is fair rate for a technology they didn't develop? if thats the cost, and its shown to be that for every vendor, then so be it.. suck it up, or develop your own standard and try and get everyone else to adopt it.

Re:Too Late (1)

jo_ham (604554) | about a year ago | (#43913471)

There aren't that many FRAND suits being thrown at them, relative to the number of patents they licence, and it seems to be specifically with companies they have got into a beef with. If Apple really weren't playing by the rules (and negotiating the fair rate is part of those rules, as much as Samsung wants to class that as "refusing to pay") then there would be a hell of a lot more suits.

Nokia's suit against Apple was for a patent included in a radio chip that Nokia did not make, but was a third party part that Apple bought as an off-the-shelf GSM system for the iPhone. This included the licence cost for all the patents that went into it, except it seems for that one very specific one somehow. Funny that, eh?

The patent in question that Samsung is suing over is probably the same - I doubt it's in a chip or component that Samsung itself sells. It's more likely to be in one of the off-the-shelf radio chips that dozens of phone manufacturers use - Qualcomm makes those, for example, for GSM phones. You can buy a standard part from them and put it in your phone design. The licencing for the hundreds of patents is part of the cost (or so you would think).

I'm not arguing that Apple doesn't make some ridiculous moves in litigation (something that I hope they'll stop doing with a change in leadership once all of the current nonsense is tied up), but I'm not buying that they don't want to play fair on FRAND patent costs - there are just so many, and they are so fundamental to the operation of any mobile device they are just not going to take that chance. These single-patent-out-of-many suits that they are facing just don't seem like the usual state of affairs. If apple was commonly ducking out of playing fair and paying the right rates then they would be seeing *a lot* more lawsuits of this type.

Re:Too Late (1)

Saint Gerbil (1155665) | about a year ago | (#43913443)

It was filed in June 2011, when the products were still relevant, and then delayed twice.

I wonder how many backhanders it takes to get 2 delays ?

I'm a rebel (1)

Dan East (318230) | about a year ago | (#43913285)

I feel like a rebel, reading this story on my iPad 2 while in the USA. Quite exhilarating actually.

Re:I'm a rebel (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43913381)

I guess when you live in your mom's basement that's the equivalent of a blow job?

Ha take that Apple (1)

Saint Gerbil (1155665) | about a year ago | (#43913429)

So Samsung filed this motion nearly 2 years ago for an import ban of then relevant product. it been delayed and delayed and now is an irrelevant product, So Apple cannot import any more iPad2's or iPhone4's but isnt stopped from importing iPhone4S's, iPhone5's, iPad3's, iPad4's and iPad Mini's, with no consequence.

I'm happy that Samsung won but what did they really win Apple cant sell products it doesn't care about any more ?

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?