“the ITC has “banned all Samsung ‘electronic digital media devices and components thereof’ that infringe in the same way as certain exemplary investigated products do, regardless of their name or release date”. To me this means that only those that have been shown to infringe not every device under the sun. The legal system rests on the proving beyond reasonable doubt and innocent until proven guilty which basically means that it is up to Apple to show infringement of every Samsung device that it thinks is infringing. To be allowed to ship the product again Samsung must show that it has implemented a work around. In the recent ITC case where Apple won a ban, Samsung did just that with its more recent products against which infringement had been alleged.

IN the case heard by Judge Lucy Koh, Apple tried to get more of Samsung’s products added to the roster of infringers against which remedies were sought but failed to do so.

If what you say is true then Apple should have trounced Samsung by now but yet it has failed to do so. So either Apple’s legal team are bunch of cash gobbling morons or the situation is much more grey and less ideal than it would seem. I reckon its the latter.

“The main issue is that the legal cycle is much slower than the handset cycle meaning that by the time one has a finding of infringement the infringing product is no longer shipping. This has the effect of knocking almost all of the teeth out of any remedy imposed.”

This is often repeated by the unthinking herd but not true. If Apple succeeds in having Samsung products banned for patent infringement, the ban will apply to other Samsung products that infringe the same patents. You should be aware of this.
Here is the detail, from Floriam Muller’s FOSS Patents:

“the ITC has “banned all Samsung ‘electronic digital media devices and components thereof’ that infringe in the same way as certain exemplary investigated products do, regardless of their name or release date”. There’s been too much inaccurate, incompetent reporting (including commentary by financial analysts who failed to do their homework). I saw plenty of headlines on Twitter that said the ITC banned only older Samsung products. The ruling is not about old versus new. It’s about infringing vs. non-infringing. If Samsung modifies a product that was investigated and found infringing so as to steer clear of infringement now (for example, new firmware could be designed to longer infringe the “Steve Jobs patent”), then the ban doesn’t apply. But if a new product, such as the S4, infringed in the same way as an exemplary infringing product accused by Apple in this investigation, then the ban would apply unless Samsung could argue that the new product is licensed (so far, Apple has not extented a non-SEP license to Samsung) or no longer imported (but assembled in the United States, as Google submits with respect to the Moto X) or that it falls without the scope of the investigation, which is however defined (very broadly) by its title, “Certain Electronic Digital Media Devices and Components Thereof”, and not by a few names of obsolete products.”

If Colin reads some of other posts he will see that RFM agrees that Samsung abused the patent system with its use of SEPs. RFM applauds the White House veto as a way of making the patent system better and closer to that which Colin dreams of. (http://www.radiofreemobile.com/ipr-the-weakness-of-essential-part-vi/)

In almost every legal battle of this nature BOTH parties end up better off if a settlement can be reached. This is so much the case that every practitioner of the law who has his clients interest at heart rather than his fee schedule will recommend reaching a settlement rather than fighting it out in court.

It Colin reads many of the other blogs on Android he will discover that RFM does not follow the herd or Google’s mantra on Android. Quite the reverse. RFM believes that Android is both fragmented and vulnerable to market share loss and that Google is a company run solely for the benefit of its employees.

If we take Jobs figures of $5bn and 5 years of R&D to produce the iPhone as a realistic baseline and add in the expenditure since to keep the iPhone in the leading rank, Apple expecting Samsung to pay large sums in royalties is reasonable. From Samsung’s perspective, Apple has yet to prove its patent portfolio is that valuable.

Apple’s aim is to stop Samsung using its IP and to get compensation for loss of business so far. Apple will also move heaven and earth to further differentiate its products from Android phones and tablets with innovation that benefits users and disrupts established markets. Apple is making good progress towards all of these goals, as we’ll see when this autumn’s product announcements appear.

Samsung’s defensive litigation has been almost entirely an abuse of its FRAND licensing obligations in connection with components that rely on standards essential patents. Hence, various anti-trust investigations and the presidential veto of a mistaken ITC judgement in the USA.

Communication of what’s happening is hugely distorted in the media. Google in particular seems to be spending a fortune on getting out an unduly positive message about Android and seems to have set an agenda that few challenge. Perhaps media organisations are as scared of offending Google as PC manufacturers once were of offending Microsoft.

It’s a shame that Radio Free Mobile seems to be going along with the unthinking herd. Its readers should expect better. Richard would do himself and his readers a favour if he were to learn a great deal more about Apple, Google, Samsung and what’s happening in the phone market.