Forum Home | Log in | Signup | My Page | Rules | FAQ | Boards | Members | Search
« IDCC Home | Email msg. | Reply to msg. | Post new | Board info. Previous | Home | Next

Re: U.S. Trade Representative Michael Froman 

By: magillagorilla in IDCC | Recommend this post (3)
Wed, 07 Aug 13 12:38 PM | 364 view(s)
Boardmark this board | InterDigital Communications 		Msg. 46879 of 48237
(This msg. is a reply to 46875 by tfwg)
Jump:
Jump to board:
Jump to msg. #

Aug. 9, 2013 – Samsung v Apple ITC 337-794
Apple will argue before the CAFC that the ruling allowed Samsung to take U.S. market share and limits the rights of any patent owner whose invention is used in a complex product like a smartphone or computer.
The trade commission has a different standard, looking at economic impact and public interest.
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-08-01/apple-against-samsung-over-phones-turns-on-who-copied-who.html?cmpid=yhoo

Aug. 9, 2013 – Extended Target Date in the Apple v Samsung ITC 337-796
(Commissions final decision on whether devices made by Samsung Electronics Co Ltd infringe Apple Inc's patents - which the ALJ found Samsung infringed in the ID)
Investigation No. ITC -337-796 – Apple v Samsung on whether devices made by Samsung Electronics Co Ltd infringe on Apple Inc's patents.
Target Date: August 1, 2013 (approximately 24 months), extended from March 13, 2013 (approximately 19 1/4 months), extended from Feb. 19, 2013 (18 1/2 months), extended from Feb. 5, 2013 (18 months)
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=90581046


Aug. 30, 2013 –Expected date for The Commission to determine whether to review the ID, in whole or in part of
ITC 337-800 (IDCC v Nokia, ZTE and Huawei - which originally included LG prior to the ITC deletion due to arbitration. That was appealed and sent to the CAFC who disagreed and remanded back to the ITC where it seems to remain in limbo)

» You can also:
- - - - -
The above is a reply to the following message:
U.S. Trade Representative Michael Froman’s Aug. 3 decision on Apple found that a product ban wasn’t appropriate because the patent at the heart of the dispute was part of an industry standard and
By: tfwg in IDCC
Tue, 06 Aug 13 7:54 PM 		Msg. 46875 of 48237

U.S. Trade Representative Michael Froman’s Aug. 3 decision on Apple found that a product ban wasn’t appropriate because the patent at the heart of the dispute was part of an industry standard and was supposed to be licensed at reasonable terms...

So who decides what rate is frandly...france, china, the us courts? I don't know where the process stands anymore. August 9th just became a big day for this shareholder.

« IDCC Home | Email msg. | Reply to msg. | Post new | Board info. Previous | Home | Next