backtop


Print 37 comment(s) - last by michael2k.. on Jun 11 at 7:40 PM

The AT&T version of the iPhone 4, iPhone 3Gs, iPhone 3G and cellular versions of the first iPad and iPad 2 are part of the limited import ban

Samsung gained a win in its patent war with Apple today as the U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC) issued a limited U.S. import ban on certain Apple devices. 

The ban is the result of a complaint Samsung filed back in June 2011, where it asked the ITC to ban the import and sales of Apple devices that infringed on certain standard essential 3G wireless patents owned by Samsung. 

ITC determined today that some 3G-capable iPhone and iPad models infringed on Samsung's U.S. Patent No. 7,706,348 for "Apparatus and method for encoding/decoding transport format combination indicator in CDMA mobile communication system."

Hence, ITC has issued a limited U.S. import ban on the AT&T version of the iPhone 4, iPhone 3Gs, iPhone 3G and cellular versions of the first iPad and iPad 2. Apple's newest generations of the iPhone 5, iPhone 4S and specific iPhone 4 models are not affected by the ban because they use Qualcomm baseband chips (as part of a third-party licensing agreement with Samsung).

“We believe the ITC’s Final Determination has confirmed Apple’s history of free-riding on Samsung’s technological innovations,” said Samsung. “Our decades of research and development in mobile technologies will continue, and we will continue to offer innovative products to consumers in the United States.”

While this puts an end to the investigation of Samsung's 3G complaint, Apple can still appeal the ruling to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. 
 
The import ban is expected to go into effect after a 60-day President review period.

Apple isn't particularly happy, as you'd expect. Especially since Apple was cleared of infringement regarding this 3G case by ITC Administrative Law Judge James Gildea back in September 2012. But one month later, ITC said it would review that decision. 

“We are disappointed that the Commission has overturned an earlier ruling and we plan to appeal,” said Apple spokeswoman Kristin Huguet. “Today’s decision has no impact on the availability of Apple products in the United States. Samsung is using a strategy which has been rejected by courts and regulators around the world. They’ve admitted that it’s against the interests of consumers in Europe and elsewhere, yet here in the United States Samsung continues to try to block the sale of Apple products by using patents they agreed to license to anyone for a reasonable fee.”

Apple and Samsung have been warring over patent infringement lawsuits since April 2011, when Apple claimed Samsung was an "iPhone, iPad copycat" with its Galaxy S 4G, Epic 4G, and Nexus smartphones along with the Galaxy Tab 10.1.


Sources: CNET, Reuters



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

Not of much material impact at this point.
By michael2k on 6/4/2013 7:11:10 PM , Rating: 5
Interestingly, only two of the listed products are still available, the iPhone 4 and the iPad 2, and they are almost certainly going to be discontinued within 70 days anyway.




RE: Not of much material impact at this point.
By retrospooty on 6/4/2013 7:18:18 PM , Rating: 3
It kind of makes you think these lawsuits are pointless doesnt it?


RE: Not of much material impact at this point.
By michael2k on 6/4/2013 8:07:57 PM , Rating: 3
Yeah.

Especially if this boils down to a $0.03 patent.

I'm fairly certain the end result will be a patent cross license between the two companies, some undisclosed settlement (depending on who has more wins) that amounts to like 3 or 4 days of cash for either party, and some new lawsuit against LG or something.


RE: Not of much material impact at this point.
By Samus on 6/5/2013 2:32:33 AM , Rating: 5
It wouldn't have been so pointless if these devices had been banned two years ago when the infringement complaint was initially filed.

This is also very far from Samsung trolling. Apple stole the technology outright and while Steve Jobs was alive, completely rejected a licensing option with Samsung. This was one of those many license options Samsung kept talking about years ago that Apple failed to agree too.

Hey Steve, I know your dead, but when you were alive, I guess it was ok for you to steal others' IP but not for them to steal yours. Gotcha. Deadbeat.


RE: Not of much material impact at this point.
By retrospooty on 6/5/2013 8:20:12 AM , Rating: 4
"Hey Steve, I know your dead, but when you were alive, I guess it was ok for you to steal others' IP but not for them to steal yours. Gotcha. Deadbeat."

Exactly. It wasnt just the sueing that gets people's goats... Its the "burglar suing the other burglar" thing. Total hippocracy.


By cyberguyz on 6/5/2013 12:19:45 PM , Rating: 2
The only real winners in those is the lawyers.


RE: Not of much material impact at this point.
By michael2k on 6/5/13, Rating: 0
RE: Not of much material impact at this point.
By Reclaimer77 on 6/5/2013 9:49:38 AM , Rating: 3
Yeah well when negotiations fail, that doesn't give you a green-light to just steal the technology anyway. Otherwise why bother even having negotiations, just do whatever the hell you want right? Which is what Apple did..


RE: Not of much material impact at this point.
By Cheesew1z69 on 6/5/2013 11:27:59 AM , Rating: 2
It's quite funny these idiots think it's ok because "apple didn't reject it completely, just negotiations fell apart"

LOLLLLLLLLLLLLLLl


By Reclaimer77 on 6/5/2013 9:32:10 PM , Rating: 2
LMAO yeah, gotta love the logic Cheese. The Reality Distortion Field affects all things. Just reword things, and create a new reality!

"Noo nooo I didn't kill that man. The bullets and him bleeding did that!"


By michael2k on 6/11/2013 7:40:25 PM , Rating: 2
The argument was that both sides stole from each other, not that Apple was the only one on the hook.

You realize Samsung had injunctions placed on them too, in some countries, and also lost a patent lawsuit?

Apple is no more in the wrong here than Samsung.


RE: Not of much material impact at this point.
By Motoman on 6/4/2013 7:21:41 PM , Rating: 3
Yeah, at this point Apple may be more-or-less going "pfft...big deal."

But I wonder if (assuming this decision holds) Samsung can now use this ruling to sue Apple for licensing costs of what they "should have" paid for using their patent...and/or any punitive damages.

Anyway, as always when it's Apple getting smacked with the patent stick, schadenfreude like crazy.


By retrospooty on 6/4/2013 7:37:31 PM , Rating: 2
They absolutely can, but much like the other verdict, it will come to a lot of back and forth, appeal after appeal and probably wind up nothing either way.


RE: Not of much material impact at this point.
By sprockkets on 6/4/2013 10:36:31 PM , Rating: 2
Not true.

"The Commission has determined that the appropriate remedy is a limited exclusion order
and a cease and desist order prohibiting Apple from importing into the United States or selling or
distributing within the United States wireless communication devices, portable music and data
processing devices, and tablet computers that infringe claims 75-76 and 82-84 of the ’348 patent."

http://www.usitc.gov/secretary/fed_reg_notices/337...

Think about it: last year the ITC delayed the HTC One X to check for infringement, even though it was a new phone.


RE: Not of much material impact at this point.
By michael2k on 6/5/2013 9:49:25 AM , Rating: 2
Yeah, but the iPhone 4S and iPhone 5 aren't on that list, and if Apple continues to use fully licensed Qualcomm solutions the iPhone 5S won't be on the list either.


RE: Not of much material impact at this point.
By sprockkets on 6/5/2013 3:45:26 PM , Rating: 2
That's because there is no list, it is *any* device that infringes will be banned from import.

The fact that it is from Qualcomm is also irrelevant - if their hardware isn't already pre licensed.


RE: Not of much material impact at this point.
By PitViper007 on 6/6/2013 8:53:15 AM , Rating: 2
Isn't that the point though? The Qualcomm chips ARE already licensed, that's why the 4s and the 5 aren't affected.


By ven1ger on 6/7/2013 6:42:19 AM , Rating: 2
Actually, the point is that any shipments for Apple will now have to be inspected. Customs already has enough work on their hands and bans like these are difficult to enforce. Even if the 4s and 5 are not on the list, almost anything from Apple will have to be inspected to make sure they are not slipping anything through the ban, which will undoubtedly delay said products a few days or even weeks to reach the market.

I don't like import bans because it is anti-competitive but in this case Apple is reaping what they sowed, so it seems kind of hypocritical of Apple to be crying foul.


quotes
By leaot on 6/5/2013 10:53:30 AM , Rating: 2
There's an special on 'stuff appletards say' about this.
http://stuff-appletards-say.blogspot.com/2013/06/p...




RE: quotes
By Reclaimer77 on 6/5/2013 11:15:57 AM , Rating: 3
hahah omg what a great site!! I need to email this guy and turn him onto Tony Swash, he could provide endless material for this guy.


RE: quotes
By Cheesew1z69 on 6/5/2013 11:53:36 AM , Rating: 1
Those comments, smack of Tony/Tester/Mac/TYP to a fucking tee.

The Josh dude, nailed it, same shit everyone here says but of course, the AppleTards just reject it and claim it's not true.


RE: quotes
By leaot on 6/5/2013 1:13:27 PM , Rating: 2
Every post of 'Josh' were deleted and he got banned. Just another usual day on that forum.


RE: quotes
By Cheesew1z69 on 6/5/2013 1:34:19 PM , Rating: 2
Wow, for the truth. Sad...


RE: quotes
By leaot on 6/5/2013 1:46:11 PM , Rating: 2
Apple and censorship go good together...


RE: quotes
By Cheesew1z69 on 6/5/2013 1:49:07 PM , Rating: 2
So true.


RE: quotes
By leaot on 6/5/2013 1:14:21 PM , Rating: 2
Is tony swash like the iSheep shepherd of daily tech or who is he?


RE: quotes
By retrospooty on 6/5/2013 1:24:44 PM , Rating: 3
Yes... He is the sites resident Apple fanboy. Taking thier side no matter the issue, skewing facts and data to make them look better, and when that fails, he just points out something negative about a competing product to distract from the issue. A general full of it kind of guy.


RE: quotes
By leaot on 6/5/2013 1:31:35 PM , Rating: 2
Awesome. He deserves a special, right next to Tallest Skil (maybe the same guy?)


Yay for endless stupidity
By tayb on 6/4/2013 7:40:31 PM , Rating: 5
Whether Apple or Samsung wins, we all lose. No one should be celebrating this. It's idiotic.




RE: Yay for endless stupidity
By Old_Fogie_Late_Bloomer on 6/4/2013 9:21:17 PM , Rating: 4
I want to agree with you, I really do. But Apple started this $#!+. Any slap on the weew-...I mean, wrist that they get, in order to discourage this behavior in the future...I can't see that as a bad thing.


RE: Yay for endless stupidity
By superflex on 6/5/13, Rating: -1
RE: Yay for endless stupidity
By Old_Fogie_Late_Bloomer on 6/5/2013 10:10:24 AM , Rating: 2
How naïve can you get? Is Samsung supposed to just roll over?

Once Apple went down this path, there wasn't any other way for them to respond. They have every right to defend their business interests.


RE: Yay for endless stupidity
By Cheesew1z69 on 6/5/2013 12:34:42 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
How naïve can you get?
When you troll for Apple, it's pretty much given.


RE: Yay for endless stupidity
By xti on 6/5/2013 11:11:14 AM , Rating: 1
if they did (or didnt) start it, someone else would have.

lets not think that some companies are more "moral" or w/e, its all about the dollars for every.last.company.

there are no exceptions, no matter how pretty a picture their publicists paint.


RE: Yay for endless stupidity
By Reclaimer77 on 6/5/2013 8:46:21 AM , Rating: 5
Yeah you would say that.

Fact is Apple had a great concept for a game-changing smartphone back in 2007 with the iPhone, however the underlying technology that makes these devices really work, belonged to others. Apple isn't a technology company after all, they just take what others have developed and wrap it in their own package.

Instead of licensing this technology, which Samsung was more than willing to, Apple stole it and refused to negotiate. Blatantly.

This is far more relevant than Apple's silly trade dress and design lawsuits. Samsung and others poured billions of dollars in R&D to bring these technologies to the market for the benefit of us all.

So when you say "we all lose" here, ummm, yeah you aren't thinking. We all lose when innovation is discouraged, which is what would happen if Apple had it's way. Like the guy said:

“We believe the ITC’s Final Determination has confirmed Apple’s history of free-riding on Samsung’s technological innovations. Our decades of research and development in mobile technologies will continue, and we will continue to offer innovative products to consumers in the United States.”


Which should lead to the obvious question...
By MaulBall789 on 6/5/2013 7:26:10 AM , Rating: 1
Who did Samsung steal this technology from? There's no way they came up with it on their own. Samsung has been notorious for stealing the IP of other tech companies going on 60 years now, long before Apple ever existed.

Not saying Apple wasn't in the wrong here, but just sayin...




By ven1ger on 6/5/2013 1:53:45 PM , Rating: 3
Can you give any examples of what you're claiming? I've tried looking up if Samsung has stolen IP of others, but have only come up with Apple, Nokia and something about Rambus, which didn't give much information. Apple's and Nokia's claims only go back til a few years, but considering Nokia's and MS's relationship, and how MS likes to do things through proxies so that they can be a step removed in case if things turns bad. I don't know how much credence to give your claims.


“Then they pop up and say ‘Hello, surprise! Give us your money or we will shut you down!' Screw them. Seriously, screw them. You can quote me on that.” -- Newegg Chief Legal Officer Lee Cheng referencing patent trolls














botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki