Apple bullying Samsung some more [patent]

Maybe it's because through teacher's college we go through a lot of training to spot bullying, and now my son's in school, there's a ton of talk about it as well... or maybe it's because I'm sensitive about Android...

For whatever reason, I spotted this article and immediately saw it for the bullying it is.
For those of you who followed me back at AiC, I used to report a lot on the #Patentwars / #Patentfun out there, and it just got almost to be too much.  So I semi-vowed not to write too much of it on this blog a) it can get hairy too quickly b) I wanted to have more Canadian focus.  Plus, I try not to use Foss at all, as he's VERY heavily biased against Android (despite how he often reminds us that he currently uses a Galaxy Note).

But a story like: "ITC judge wants Samsung to post a bond of 88% of its U.S. smartphone sales due to Apple patent case" cannot be ignored.  It truly is just simple bullying.

This is from the company that thought that a 3% royalty per license was too steep to pay, but yet turned around and demanded more than 20% per patent from some.  Or even that the $1 billion decision wasn't enough.

To hear that Apple bullies its way into the ITC to put a ban on Samsung devices (note, not all Android, just Samsung, as they're they heavy hitters in marketshare currently).  Well, the ITC can't just slap a ban in quickly, but they get Samsung to post a bond, pending the outcome of the case.  And a bond of 88% of sales?  WTF?

Now, I've never really been involved in the law too much to my own good nature, so I've never had to post bail/bond before.  So I don't know how much is an appropriate amount -- however 88% of sales?  That's a ridiculous amount of money to fork over because some bully is trying to push you out of the market.

And, after some prodding by Apple, we read that the judge has reprimanded Samsung, saying that if they try to suggest again that 4.9% is the more appropriate amount that the judge will impose 100%.

That is bullying.

And listen to Apple's reasoning for the 88%
the 88% rate for mobile phones is based on too high a price differential between the two companies' products because Samsung sells significant quantities of phones at a much lower price point, such as $200 (compared to a $600 non-subsidized iPhone
nuts!  just ... bizarro that it has been allowed to continue like it has.  Were it any other product sphere (say TVs, or washing machines) this would have been thrown out for the bullying it is.