This will be interesting to say the least. I was really surprised at how they blew over the who blackberry suit with the federal government over ruling the injunction in order to protect their own users.
I think in the long run it will hurt us if we do not allow companies to protect their intellectual property. Why do I want to invest in R&D if a competitor is allowed to copy my work? This is a Qualcom problem and if they are guilty both Sammy and Verizzy should be protected. The question is wether or not they will be allowed to continue to provide devices with the questioned chipset during the interim. If I was broadcomm I would want them to because i would be looking at getting a kick from every phone that QC produced with my technology.
Also - I think it is safe to say that Verizon will not roll out a new phone if they cant keep the supply and demand balanced.
Also - I think it is safe to say that Verizon will not roll out a new phone if they cant keep the supply and demand balanced.
This is the second time I've seen this statement and it makes no sense. Phones are either grandfathered or not. So if what I've read is correct, the i760 was most likely imported before the ban and therefore is grandfathered.
If a phone is grandfathered, there will be no limitation in future imports. This part is not conjecture, this is how the ruling was written.
This ruling is simply not going to affect the i760 or the 6800 from what I can tell.
This is the second time I've seen this statement and it makes no sense. Phones are either grandfathered or not. So if what I've read is correct, the i760 was most likely imported before the ban and therefore is grandfathered.
If a phone is grandfathered, there will be no limitation in future imports. This part is not conjecture, this is how the ruling was written.
This ruling is simply not going to affect the i760 or the 6800 from what I can tell.
I would not trust CNETs article or any of their reporting. How the ban was intended, how it was written, and if/how it will be implemented are three entirely different things.
As I said previously it will be interesting to see how this all plays out. The feds have set a precedence of over-ruling these tatics during the blackberry case. I am still optimistic that we will see the end of June begining of July release date.
So, RWC, according to your quote the 760 would not be grandfathered in because the june 7th deadline has passed, unless of course VZW decided to sell five a day or something in order to usurp this issue. So there are two questions...what will be the requirements to be grandfathered into this and if a device is grandfathered in, is their stock limited to what is already here in the US? Should I go buy Palm stock?
__________________
John 3:16 is more than a sign between the goal posts.
You said: This ruling is simply not going to affect the i760 or the 6800 from what I can tell.
Your argument is persuasive. The i760 and x6800 would seem to be grandfathered under the ruling and thus, unaffected.
Still, even without a stay, settlement or White House intervention, there are other ways that future imports could be allowed to continue.
One is with the posting of a bond, underwritten by QCOM and/or handset vendors. The disputed patent claim has a finite value, so potential liabilty can be fixed on a per unit basis. An appropriate bond amount could be derived fairly easily.
Finally, while we acknowledge VZW's argument in this matter as correct, the hollow ring of sanctimony is deafening.
So, RWC, according to your quote the 760 would not be grandfathered in because the june 7th deadline has passed, unless of course VZW decided to sell five a day or something in order to usurp this issue. So there are two questions...what will be the requirements to be grandfathered into this and if a device is grandfathered in, is their stock limited to what is already here in the US? Should I go buy Palm stock?
LOL - I think if Verizzy was selling 5 units a day we would have been all over it. Even then they would have to prove that it was actually being sold. I think it will be overturned or a stay will be issued. Have faith in the system.
I wonder what their actual stock on hand is. I can tell you from a logistics perspective most companies prefer to minimize stock and go with the JIT (just in time) from their manufacturers. Unsold items in stock directly affect the bottom line. How many "high end" pda phones do you think they can sell during the first month of rollout? The average VZW customer is clueless about what is out there. We just happen to all suffer from the same technology sickness. I would guess that there probably isn't some warehouse with 1000's of 760s sitting in them.
LOL, after RWC's post, I'm doubting my own arguments. Sounds like I'm flat out wrong.
Well, goes to show we don't KNOW anything. It's like going to North Korea, you'll know you're going to get in when you're looking at the border from the inside. (Sorry, kind of an inside joke.)
I honestly believe that something will happen along the lines of a settlement or veto.
The import ban covers new cell phone models that contain the infringing chips, but also exempts those imported for sale to the general public on or before the June 7, 2007 date of its order, the ITC said.
--PC Magazine
OK...
If 1) the phrase "imported for sale" actually appears in the ITC order, and 2) any reasonable quantity of i760s and/or x6800s was sitting in US warehouses as of 06/07/07, the devices should be easily grandfathered.
And note, the warehouses don't have to be the carrier's. They can equally be the vendor's, as long as the devices came into the US.
This is so because this key phrase does not mean that actual sales had to occur. What it means is "imported and held for sale," or "imported and sold."
The theory here is that if a substantial good-faith investment has been made--before the cut-off date--in the importation or distribution of a device, such device should be exempt from the restriction. The ITC obviously didn't want to hurt innocent parties who relied on QCOM's right to fab the chip, to wit, device-makers, carriers and consumers.
Still, the freeze was not the right way to handle the case. QCOM can afford to post a bond until its appeals are exhausted or the case settled. The ITC should have coaxed the bond alternative out of QCOM, as it wouldn't have harmed bystanders.
And RWC, assuming the i760 has commenced shipping to VZW, the carrier might be sitting on in excess of 60k units already. This number is barely 1/10 of 1 percent of VZW's subscriber base and has to cover 2k+ store demos and stock, B2B, Web, sales rep demo units, tech support, warranty exchanges, insurance claims, etc.
And famously, it has to cover our incessant clamoring!
Hang in there, Geckotek!
--BAM
P.S. Haven't actually read the ITC decision, but the PC Mag report probably has the language right.
it is what it is....this stuff makes my head hurt. it would be interesting to see how vzw actually manages their stock. Last year I got a BT headset on sale. Advertised sale on black friday. Each store was given 3 and I was number 5 in line. The sent me the sale item fed ex overnight from a LOCAL warehouse. So $60 headset selling for $9.00 and they pay $20.00 in shipping on it. Go figure.
Besides after seeing the demo of the HTC Touch on their website i am wondering about that now.
The import ban covers new cell phone models that contain the infringing chips, but also exempts those imported for sale to the general public on or before the June 7, 2007 date of its order, the ITC said.
--PC Magazine
OK...
If 1) the phrase "imported for sale" actually appears in the ITC order, and 2) any reasonable quantity of i760s and/or x6800s was sitting in US warehouses as of 06/07/07, the devices should be easily grandfathered.
And note, the warehouses don't have to be the carrier's. They can equally be the vendor's, as long as the devices came into the US.
This is so because this key phrase does not mean that actual sales had to occur. What it means is "imported and held for sale, or imported and sold.
The theory here is that if a substantial good-faith investment has been made--before the cut-off date--in the importation or distribution of a device, such device should be exempt from the restriction. The ITC obviously didn't want to hurt innocent parties who relied on QCOM's right to fab the chip, to wit, device-makers, carriers and consumers.
Still, the freeze was not the right way to handle the case. QCOM can afford to post a bond until its appeals are exhausted or the case settled. The ITC should have coaxed the bond alternative out of QCOM, as it wouldn't have harmed bystanders.
And RWC, asuming the i760 has commenced shipping to VZW, the carrier might be sitting on in excess of 60k units already. This number is barely 1/10 of 1 percent of VZW's subscriber base and has to cover 2k+ store demos and stock, B2B, Web, sales rep demo units, tech support, warranty exchanges, insurance claims, etc.
And famously, it has to cover our incessant clamoring!
Hang in there, Geckotek!
--BAM
P.S. Haven't actually read the ITC decision, but the PC Mag report probably has the language right.
Don't forget....it has to cover dangerous's exchanges....... lol
__________________
VZW, It's 2009! Time to embrace technology, not suppress it. - oops too late I've moved on over to the iPhone w/ AT$T!
The import ban covers new cell phone models that contain the infringing chips, but also exempts those imported for sale to the general public on or before the June 7, 2007 date of its order, the ITC said.
--PC Magazine
OK...
If 1) the phrase "imported for sale" actually appears in the ITC order, and 2) any reasonable quantity of i760s and/or x6800s was sitting in US warehouses as of 06/07/07, the devices should be easily grandfathered.
And note, the warehouses don't have to be the carrier's. They can equally be the vendor's, as long as the devices came into the US.
This is so because this key phrase does not mean that actual sales had to occur. What it means is "imported and held for sale, or imported and sold.
The theory here is that if a substantial good-faith investment has been made--before the cut-off date--in the importation or distribution of a device, such device should be exempt from the restriction. The ITC obviously didn't want to hurt innocent parties who relied on QCOM's right to fab the chip, to wit, device-makers, carriers and consumers.
Still, the freeze was not the right way to handle the case. QCOM can afford to post a bond until its appeals are exhausted or the case settled. The ITC should have coaxed the bond alternative out of QCOM, as it wouldn't have harmed bystanders.
And RWC, assuming the i760 has commenced shipping to VZW, the carrier might be sitting on in excess of 60k units already. This number is barely 1/10 of 1 percent of VZW's subscriber base and has to cover 2k+ store demos and stock, B2B, Web, sales rep demo units, tech support, warranty exchanges, insurance claims, etc.
And famously, it has to cover our incessant clamoring!
Hang in there, Geckotek!
--BAM
P.S. Haven't actually read the ITC decision, but the PC Mag report probably has the language right.
I completely agree with KBAM's analysis, assuming the PC Magazine article is accurate and once you throw in the additional inventory necessary to cover dangerous' returns.
__________________
-Jay The Fine Print:Nothing in this post (or any of my other posts) is intended to constitute legal advice or the establishment of an attorney-client relationship. For purposes of this forum, I'm just another nerd like you. :-)
Login
Panel
