Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 4, 2013 13:11:56 GMT -8
The United States International Trade Commission (USITC, or just ITC) has just ordered a U.S. import ban against older iPhones and iPads which were found to infringe a cellular standard-esential patent (SEP) asserted by Samsung, U.S. Patent No. 7,706,348 on 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 baseband chips are definitely not affected.
The decision terminates the investigation of Samsung's complaint against Apple. The exclusion order (import ban) will enter into force unless vetoed by the White House during the 60-day Presidential Review period. Apple can appeal the ruling to the United Startes Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.
This decision is a major surprise. The ITC has completely thrown out Apple's FRAND defense, taking a position that is fundamentally inconsistent not only with how U.S. federal courts have recently adjudged SEP-based injunction requests but also with opinions expressed by antitrust regulators and, especially, U.S. lawmakers. The White House earlier today proposed a package of patent reform measures, one of which aims to raise the bar for ITC exclusion orders. Under these circumstances it is quite possible that the White House will veto the ITC's decision, and the ITC could not have done more to show to Congress that its granting of injunctive relief is far too permissive and a threat to the U.S. tech sector, irreconcilable with the ITC's original mission to protect domestic industry against unfair imports.
|
|
Mav
Member
[img style="max-width:100%;" alt=" " src="http://www.forumup.it/images/smiles/simo.gif"]
Posts: 10,784
|
Post by Mav on Jun 4, 2013 13:13:12 GMT -8
It's terribly sad and damaging that AAPL is under threat of not importing iPhone 4s and iPad 2 3Gs into the US. (/sarcasm) As for iPhone "3", 3GS, and iPad 1 3G...
Luckily, what's bad for Apple (in terms of "swift justice") applies for its opponents as well.
Context first. Let Wall Street do what it will, I guess.
|
|
Mav
Member
[img style="max-width:100%;" alt=" " src="http://www.forumup.it/images/smiles/simo.gif"]
Posts: 10,784
|
Post by Mav on Jun 4, 2013 13:14:34 GMT -8
www.usitc.gov/secretary/fed_reg_notices/337/337-794_notice06042013sgl.pdf"Under the modified constructions, the Commission has determined that Samsung has proven that the accused iPhone 4 (AT&T models); iPhone 3GS (AT&T models); iPhone 3 (AT&T models); iPad 3G (AT&T models); and iPad 2 3G (AT&T models) infringe the asserted claims of the ’348 patent." Emphasis mine. Devastating, isn't it.
|
|
|
Post by phoebear611 on Jun 4, 2013 13:14:41 GMT -8
Know what I believe...I believe that our government is corrupt and since AAPL is fighting the DOJ on the e-Books....they decided to screw with AAPL. This is how it works...just ask the IRS ... they have it down to a science.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 4, 2013 13:15:39 GMT -8
Most of apples "opponents" in SEP suits are patent trolls with no shipping products - this is a huge win for them.
|
|
Mav
Member
[img style="max-width:100%;" alt=" " src="http://www.forumup.it/images/smiles/simo.gif"]
Posts: 10,784
|
Post by Mav on Jun 4, 2013 13:15:43 GMT -8
Oh, it's stupid, but I don't think it'll stand. Even if it does, it's not tremendously harmful.
The ITC isn't the court system, so it's not over yet.
|
|
|
Post by jmolloy on Jun 4, 2013 13:17:11 GMT -8
Do Samsung have to post a bond and pay Apple if this gets repealed?
|
|
|
Post by phoebear611 on Jun 4, 2013 13:18:27 GMT -8
It may not be over but the media will drag AAPL thru the mud because that is what the media does ... that is how they get their ratings. It would be immensely helpful if some analysts came out and clarified the significance of the ruling.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 4, 2013 13:18:57 GMT -8
www.usitc.gov/secretary/fed_reg_notices/337/337-794_notice06042013sgl.pdf"Under the modified constructions, the Commission has determined that Samsung has proven that the accused iPhone 4 (AT&T models); iPhone 3GS (AT&T models); iPhone 3 (AT&T models); iPad 3G (AT&T models); and iPad 2 3G (AT&T models) infringe the asserted claims of the Â’348 patent." Emphasis mine. Devastating, isn't it. AT&T sells a lot of iPhone 4 units - it's at least 1 million units this quarter, but thankfully delays in implementing any import ban would likely be enough to see apple clear remaining inventory before the iPhone 4 replacement arrives.
|
|
|
Post by tuffett on Jun 4, 2013 13:19:32 GMT -8
I don't think any of us are thinking $100 when we think lower cost. $250-$300 minimum.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 4, 2013 13:21:23 GMT -8
WTF IS GOING ON AFTER HOURS?! STOCK IS DOWN OVER 6 POINTS! Wait - I just read some of the comments....are you kidding me?! Older iPhones and iPads are being targeted. I see this as a narrow, limited victory by Samdung. In other words, it either will have limited effect or the decision will not stand from early reading. It's such B.S. In another note, iOS7 is getting some positive press. bgr.com/2013/06/04/ios-7-redesign-praise-far-superior/And I've also seen where Apple might roll with square icons -- in another story (I prefer square to rounded corners)
|
|
Mav
Member
[img style="max-width:100%;" alt=" " src="http://www.forumup.it/images/smiles/simo.gif"]
Posts: 10,784
|
Post by Mav on Jun 4, 2013 13:21:53 GMT -8
Yup, probably immaterial. Can't affect this quarter (ends in 4 weeks), and until the ban takes effect (August), Apple has channel control to supply iPhone 4s to AT&T through September in _some_ fashion. Same with the "ancient" iPad 2s.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 4, 2013 13:22:13 GMT -8
It may not be over but the media will drag AAPL thru the mud because that is what the media does ... that is how they get their ratings. It would be immensely helpful if some analysts came out and clarified the significance of the ruling. It's impossible to quantify considering the amount of SEP trolls targeting apple.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 4, 2013 13:22:17 GMT -8
Oh, it's stupid, but I don't think it'll stand. Even if it does, it's not tremendously harmful. The ITC isn't the court system, so it's not over yet. Thanks Mav. You said it better than I did.
|
|
|
Post by appledoc on Jun 4, 2013 13:22:44 GMT -8
Know what I believe...I believe that our government is corrupt and since AAPL is fighting the DOJ on the e-Books....they decided to screw with AAPL. This is how it works...just ask the IRS ... they have it down to a science. It's not really the government though. White House could overrule this, and should overrule this if they maintain their stance on this issue. From Foss Patents...
|
|
Mav
Member
[img style="max-width:100%;" alt=" " src="http://www.forumup.it/images/smiles/simo.gif"]
Posts: 10,784
|
Post by Mav on Jun 4, 2013 13:23:17 GMT -8
Again, the ITC isn't the court system.
It's a decision of some weight, but it goes far, far against the trend. I don't expect AAPL to tank 20 points tomorrow because of either this or the Boogeyman implications.
|
|
|
Post by phoebear611 on Jun 4, 2013 13:23:45 GMT -8
The dilemma becomes - is this a gift for those of us that want to buy cheaper....or does it hurt the technical picture for the future?
|
|
|
Post by aapl4kiki on Jun 4, 2013 13:26:35 GMT -8
www.usitc.gov/secretary/fed_reg_notices/337/337-794_notice06042013sgl.pdf"Under the modified constructions, the Commission has determined that Samsung has proven that the accused iPhone 4 (AT&T models); iPhone 3GS (AT&T models); iPhone 3 (AT&T models); iPad 3G (AT&T models); and iPad 2 3G (AT&T models) infringe the asserted claims of the ’348 patent." Emphasis mine. Devastating, isn't it. I read the ITC decision and my reaction is yawn. Down $5 in AH. Yawn. We'll be pinned higher come Friday anyway. Did we get a bump when we prevailed in court over Samsung last year? I don't remember. Hopefully Apple gets to collect its settlement from that case before we see iPhone X.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 4, 2013 13:28:11 GMT -8
WTF? The ITC isn't part of the US government or court system? That's pretty F'D up! Who on earth gave them power to grant import bans???
The USA bamboozles me often.
|
|
|
Post by tuffett on Jun 4, 2013 13:29:16 GMT -8
Wow. I am speechless.
Immaterial or not, this is a huge negative for perception and a huge incentive to keep filing SEP lawsuits. Ridiculous.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 4, 2013 13:30:48 GMT -8
Jon fortt clarifying what products it applies to on cnbc right now. Good summary, but emphasizing small victory for Samsung.
|
|
Mav
Member
[img style="max-width:100%;" alt=" " src="http://www.forumup.it/images/smiles/simo.gif"]
Posts: 10,784
|
Post by Mav on Jun 4, 2013 13:31:57 GMT -8
WTF? The ITC isn't part of the US government or court system? That's pretty F'D up! Who on earth gave them power to grant import bans??? The USA bamboozles me often. Look, I'm no expert on the matter, but the Int'l Trade Commission, while it's obviously a part of the government, isn't part of the judiciary branch. It's court-like with judges and all, but it's not part of the US judicial system because it was created by Congress. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_International_Trade_Commission
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 4, 2013 13:32:53 GMT -8
Melissa lee calling small AH sell off in apple an over reaction.
Did hell just freeze over?
|
|
|
Post by phoebear611 on Jun 4, 2013 13:33:03 GMT -8
Jon fortt clarifying what products it applies to on cnbc right now. Good summary, but emphasizing small victory for Samsung. Yes I was watching as well Karen Finerman - who I respect tremendously - said it is a nonevent. These are old products - the focus should be on what new products or improvements AAPL will be delivering in the future.
|
|
|
Post by appledoc on Jun 4, 2013 13:33:38 GMT -8
The dilemma becomes - is this a gift for those of us that want to buy cheaper....or does it hurt the technical picture for the future? 433-439 EW target before we begin the real wave up.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 4, 2013 13:34:05 GMT -8
WTF? The ITC isn't part of the US government or court system? That's pretty F'D up! Who on earth gave them power to grant import bans??? The USA bamboozles me often. Look, I'm no expert on the matter, but the Int'l Trade Commission, while it's obviously a part of the government, isn't part of the judiciary branch. It's court-like with judges and all, but it's not part of the US judicial system because it was created by Congress. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_International_Trade_CommissionAh right. Thanks. Still bizarre.
|
|
|
Post by appledoc on Jun 4, 2013 13:35:18 GMT -8
Melissa lee calling small AH sell off in apple an over reaction. Did hell just freeze over? Yes. Not only is she correct, but it's a pro-AAPL statement! I'm shocked.
|
|
|
Post by phoebear611 on Jun 4, 2013 13:39:34 GMT -8
The dilemma becomes - is this a gift for those of us that want to buy cheaper....or does it hurt the technical picture for the future? 433-439 EW target before we begin the real wave up. Thanks Doc!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 4, 2013 13:39:51 GMT -8
It's ironic given TCs comments regarding judicial success at clarifying SEP legal issues at the D11 conference.
If Obama doesn't Veto this immediately it will undercut the anti-patent troll measures he introduced just today.
It wouldn't surprise me if this is a partisan move by ITC - do we have a breakdown of Republican vs Democrats ITC numbers on the hearing?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 4, 2013 13:48:55 GMT -8
Apple just released a rather strongly worded statement.
|
|