A ruling is due on May 31 by the ITC to make a final decision on the Samsung and Apple case to determine whether or not Apple infringed on one or more claims of Samsung's patents. In March they asked questions to define the scope of an import ban on Apple related products, should one be ordered. Since the case dealt with third and fourth generation Apple products that operate on AT&T networks, the Commission is wondering if an import ban would apply to Apple products that operate on other wireless networks and later generation Apple products. In the proceedings, Samsung accused Apple products of infringement, only for AT&T models of the iPhone 4 (not the 4S or 5), 3GS and 3, and for the iPad 3G and iPad 2 3G.
Apple responded by saying that Samsung couldn't enforce an exclusion order against newer Apple products since those don't infringe because they use Qualcomm baseband chips which are licensed. The ITC staff agreed with Apple and acknowledged that there is no evidence in the record concerning other networks or newer Apple products.
Samsung has finally admitted that the newer Apple products which incorporate Qualcomm chips should not apply to this ban (if granted) but still contend that other carriers outside of AT&T should also be considered as infringing. That being said, the past where Samsung confirms that Applie products with Qualcomm baseband chips are fine is much more important that the other carrier claim. Should there be an import ban of older iPhones and iPads, Apple will only be affected at the low end and in the repair business. In the meantime, a new generation of Apple products will come to market thus making the older models even more irrelevant to their revenue streams. Even if the ITC does ban any Apple products, which it is unlikely to do because regulators have concluded that Samsung failed to comply with its FRAND licensing obligations, its impact will be very miniscule.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h5jJXisLRSU
I found it interesting how Apple delayed the injunctive relief for so long that they got away pretty much unscathed. They pretty much delayed it to the point that they could push a new generation of products and avoid major damage.
ReplyDeleteThis is interesting--we discussed in class how you cannot withhold a lawsuit to accrue increased legal damages. I wonder if there is a similar standard in stalling legislation until the next generation of products comes out.
DeleteWe really see the effectiveness of the delay tactic. I agree with the above poster's comment that they definitely lessened the impact of damage by the delay. Furthermore, the import ban of older versions also minimizes the impact, and I'm sure that the secondhand marketplace isn't short on devices anyways, which is a primary source for older models.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Sandy. This patent litigation case between Apple and Samsung delineates the time strategy. The tech industry moves so fast, that putting a case on delay for more than a couple months does not affect the companies products as much--especially for companies like Apple who can concentrate on innovating and manufacturing even with a huge case on their hands.
ReplyDeleteTo respond to all of your posts, I think this brings up the question of why the patent industry does not reflect the pace of the tech industry. Given that patent litigation takes so much time and goes through so much bureaucracy, it almost renders any time sensitive technology debate irrelevant by the time a final decision comes out. Perhaps just another reason why patent reform needs to happen in order to make the process more efficient and reflective of the industry it's trying to regulate.
ReplyDeleteBy the time this import bans reaches the stage of enforcement, it will be pretty much irrelevant; this is a pretty common theme that i've seen. The legal system is so much slower than the technology industry that by the time the results are in, it's more or less too late for anything interesting to happen.
ReplyDelete