| | | All that argues for is maybe they should not get into 5G at all. Not for the judge to give them a pass on infringement because "sob, sob, I only got one customer, you honor."
A significant number of the 1400 pages of testimony cover how an exclusion order would impact Intel and what that might mean to US competitiveness in 5G. I think it is generally BS, but it is up to Q's lawyers to convince the judge. It was taken as a baseline assumption that overall competitiveness in 5G was in the US interest.
I agree there would be a substantial impact on Apple, which Apple can fix easily by agreeing to terms. Consider the people who would buy an iphone, but now can't. If they must have a new phone (old iphone broke) and they absolutely refuse to buy a non-iphone, it's their choice. If they want a new iphone as an upgrade, but now they defer instead of buying a nice Pixel, it's also their choice. Total handset sales would drop some. But so what? The only lost sales would be iphones, as it should be, because those phones infringe on somebody's patents and Apple refuses to pay! The rest of the industry and the public would be just fine.
What am I not gettign here?
They didnt talk much about the broader impact of a broad iPhone exclusion order during the hearing. My assumption is that is because the current units that would be subject to the exclusion order are the 2017 models and so Apple could simply use more Q enabled iPhones. The only real impact would be to Intel.
However, I would expect that a potential exclusion order against 2018 iPhones would see many third parties weigh in about the impact. The retailers, accessory makers, all of the mobile operators, the other US semi vendors that supply the iPhone and app developers would all argue vociferously against a ban.
FWIW, the USITC is mandated to consider the public interest when considering an exclusion order.
usitc.gov
Under the statute, if the Commission finds a violation of section 337, it will issue an exclusion order to keep
violating products out of the country (and may also issue cease and desist orders to violators), unless it
finds an order should not be issued after considering the effects of a remedial order on:
the public health and welfare;
competitive conditions in the United States economy;
the production of like or directly competitive articles in the United States; and
United States consumers.
|
|
