Apple products banned for patent infringement

[Keith_W]

Source: http://www.engadget.com/2013/06/04/samsung-apple-itc-ban-iphone-ipad/

Samsung got a big win in the International Trade Commission today, as the ITC handed down a final ruling finding that several models of AT&T-compatible iPhones and iPads infringe a Samsung patent, and issued an exclusion order preventing them from being imported, sold or distributed in the US. This final ruling comes months after an ALJ determined that Apple did not infringe any of Samsung's IP, but clearly, the commission felt differently upon its review. This final determination holds that AT&T models of the iPhone 4, 3GS and 3G, plus AT&T iPad 3G and iPad 2 3G models infringe four claims of Samsung's patent number 7,706,348 for encoding mobile communications.

As I have explained in other threads - Samsung holds four times as many patents as Apple, and these are real patents on things like telecommunications, manufacturing processes, screen technology, LED's, etc. as opposed to Apple's frivolous patents such as rounded rectangles. Apple thoroughly deserve it.

 

[rockitman]

Here we go again...lol. Just for the record, I'm a pc guy (Falcon Northwest Mach V) That said I like apple devices like the iPhone and iPad.

 

[amirm]

It will be interesting to see how this plays out. It certainly is not good news for Apple.

A bit of background, this is a Samsung patents that reads on European ETSI specification for 3G cellular communication. It was granted in 2004. From my quick read it appears to be an optional feature that is usually implemented by carriers and phones. So likely this is what AT&T is using and hence the core of the litigation addressing that branch of iPhone business.

The interesting angle is that Qualcomm which holds a ton of CDMA patents, entered a cross licensing agreement with Samsung where Samsung granted rights to its portfolio of 57 patents together with a hefty $1.3 *billion* dollar check and future royalties to be able to use Qualcomm patents. The question then becomes whether Apple, by buying Qualcomm chips, was covered under that cross license. Samsung asked for the details of the agreement between Qualcomm and Apple last year. It is likely that Qualcomm did not extend that protection to Apple and hence the reason for ITC siding with Samsung.

It is almost as obvious as air and water that you cannot build a product based on international standards without having to pay boatload of money to classic, old guard companies like Samsung. They were there at the table when these standards were being created and put in their patents for this exact reason and to generate significant revenue. These organizations seem to be good doers but they are a cartel for big companies to create specs, force their adoption due to their immense commercial power, and then tax anyone who is not the club. Which in this case is Apple.

So both Apple's patents and that of Samsung in my opinion are not deserving. There was no competition to find an alternative to Samsung's patent. They were there at the table and got it written in. A system of sending a signal to the receiver about variable rate data.