3 ms·
Regarding the ITC's exclusion order against Apple
- josephlord 13y agoI disagree strongly with at least parts of this article. Offering no cash alternative but instead demanding a cross license to non-FRAND patents is by definition discriminatory as not every licencee will have patents and no one else will have the same patents.
- hga 13y agoNothing in this article implies that Samsung wouldn't be willing to do a deal in cash with such a no/not enough patents company. For that matter, did Apple make a cash counteroffer?
- sgift 13y agoNot stated, but if I read the article correctly Samsung made a money or patent offer: "Notably, the Commission dismissed Apple’s arguments that (1) Samsung’s initial offer was so high as to show bad faith, and (2) Samsung’s attempts to get a cross-license to Apple’s non-SEPs violated its FRAND commitments." This reads to me like they offered Apple an cash deal and an alternative patent deal. Sounds fair to me.
- josephlord 13y agoFirstly the article explicitly stated the authors belief that it could be FRAND and I disagree with that. Really that is probably the fundamental area for disagreement in these FRAND cases and can be debated without reference to a particular case (and having to get into a detailed who did and said what session). Secondly I'm not sure that there is much dispute that any cash deal offered was probably beyond the bounds of reasonableness. I fear the ITC wants to be relevant so it is using the only sanction it has (import bans) despite the inappropriateness in the case of FRAND patents.