Fair enough, I have seen plenty of comments on here assuming that SEPs are better patents than others but your view seems clearly much more nuanced. I mostly agree with your actual view and did incorrectly interpret the section I quoted.
I'm not sure the bounce back patent is inherently garbage (although it may be invalid due to prior art) but that sort of patent is entirely possible to work around. I'm not saying it is great patent but it does strike me as somewhat inventive, novel (AFAIK). I do understand what you mean about the likelihood of juries putting too much weight on what they understand.
I'm not aware of the details of the Samsung radio channel efficiency patents but I wonder why Samsung didn't bring them to (or didn't win with them) at the ITC where there isn't a jury. I'm not actually disagreeing here but it would be something ai would want to understand before completely agreeing with you about the lack of value in true technological patents (I'm in a don't know state rather than disagreement at this point).
The Obama administration vetoed ITC's Samsung-requested ban on importation of Apple phones last year. That ban depended on SEPs, so perhaps Samsung should start over with some of its other patents. Samsung seems to have unlimited money for American legal fees but little wisdom in spending it so far.
It seems quite unlikely, though, that an iconic American company like Apple will ever see an ITC action that really harms its interests sustained. It is especially unlikely to happen in favor of an Asian competitor company, given American trade politics.
Apple's ITC bans against Samsung phones don't face similar barriers so far.
In any case, since particular phone models are seldom sold for longer than two years and both district court and ITC cases take longer than that, it has almost always been obsolete phones targeted by injunctions. Until the companies get more clever about targeting broad classes of devices, that is some small relief for the industry from the insanity.
I don't know if the Presidential veto would have been applied if the companies' nationalities had been reversed (I hope it would have been as it was correct). [0]
ITC bans include devices that aren't explicitly listed if there is no colourable difference in the infringement.
I'm not sure the bounce back patent is inherently garbage (although it may be invalid due to prior art) but that sort of patent is entirely possible to work around. I'm not saying it is great patent but it does strike me as somewhat inventive, novel (AFAIK). I do understand what you mean about the likelihood of juries putting too much weight on what they understand.
I'm not aware of the details of the Samsung radio channel efficiency patents but I wonder why Samsung didn't bring them to (or didn't win with them) at the ITC where there isn't a jury. I'm not actually disagreeing here but it would be something ai would want to understand before completely agreeing with you about the lack of value in true technological patents (I'm in a don't know state rather than disagreement at this point).