ISO 9000:2005 Terms and Definitions Flashcards | Quizlet complaint definition iso

ISO 9000:2005 Terms and Definitions One imp tzezvucc. moncler shoes mensortant aspect of ISO 9000:2005 aims defining the important terms used in quality management.
complaint definition iso

moncler men
moncler bomber jacket womens
moncler polo sale uk
complaint letter writing
moncler outlet store locations What is ISO certified vs. ISO compliant? by SearchSecurity Discover the difference between an ISO 27002 certification report and an ISO 27002 compliant report. Sections Share this item with your network: Related Expert Q&A Can ISO 27002 be used as a standalone guide for ... – SearchSecurity Comparing certifications: ISO 27001 vs. SAS 70, SSAE ... – SearchSecurity When IT security costs are cut, which security ... – ComputerWeekly Sponsored News Leveraging a Security-First Approach to Compliance –evident.io Improve Security with Managed File Transfer –IBM See More Vendor Resources Open Group: FAIR -ISO/IEC 27005 Cookbook –ComputerWeekly.com

What is ISO certified vs. ISO compliant? What kind of report is issued to attest a company is ISO 27002 certified...

Sign in for existing members Continue Reading This Article

Enjoy this article as well as all of our content, including E-Guides, news, tips and more.

Step 2 of 2: You forgot to provide an Email Address.

This email address doesn’t appear to be valid.

This email address is already registered. Please login .

You have exceeded the maximum character limit.

Please provide a Corporate E-mail Address.

By submitting my Email address I confirm that I have read and accepted the Terms of Use and Declaration of Consent.

By submitting your personal information, you agree that TechTarget and its partners may contact you regarding relevant content, products and special offers.

You also agree that your personal information may be transferred and processed in the United States, and that you have read and agree to the Terms of Use and the Privacy Policy .

vs. a report that attests the company is ISO 27002 compliant?

First and foremost, ISO 27002 began its life as code of practice published by the U.K. government, which then evolved into a BSI standard ( BS7799 ), then into an ISO standard (ISO 17799). ISO/IEC 27001 is the requirement standard to which organizations certify towards, while ISO/IEC 17799 , which was renamed to ISO/IEC 27002, is actually "just" the code of practice.

A company that is ISO 27001 "certified" is given a report by a registrar that has gone through the required registration process by an approved body. This is a lengthy, time-consuming process, limited to select companies. As for being ISO 27001 "compliant," that could mean any number of things, such as a CPA firm issuing an Agreed Upon Procedures (AUP) report saying your company is ISO compliant, or an ISO lead auditor coming into your organization to help you become ISO "compliant" with all the relevant ISO requirements.

Lastly, ISO certification from an approved registrar can also mean you are ISO compliant. Certified vs. compliant can mean the same thing, but they can also mean two entirely different things.  It depends on your needs, your customer requirements and other ancillary issues.  With that said, there is much confusion on what ISO certification and ISO compliance really mean. For an ounce of clarity, just remember that true ISO certification can only happen from an approved registrar, while ISO compliance can be interpreted by any number of measures.

This was last published in November 2011 Dig Deeper on IT security audits and audit frameworks All News Get Started Evaluate Manage Problem Solve Mozilla Secure Open Source Fund to aid developers with audits Congress demands Juniper backdoor audits by government agencies What's the best way to handle external security auditors? How can companies avoid failing the annual FISMA audit? Load More Mozilla Secure Open Source Fund to aid developers with audits Congress demands Juniper backdoor audits by government agencies DHS audit details cyber mission failures and future efforts Cost of non-compliance outweighs cost of maintaining compliance, report finds Load More Network security audit guidelines: Inside the importance of audit planning Qualified Security Assessor (QSA) Risk-based audit methodology: How to achieve enterprise security PCI DSS Requirement 3: Protecting stored data Load More Cloud Compliance: Tackling Compliance in the Cloud GRC Management and Critical Infrastructure Protection How to select a set of network security audit guidelines Audit failure: How one lab raised IT security awareness and its audit grade Load More What's the best way to handle external security auditors? How descoping measures can help reduce regulatory compliance burden Pre-audit planning: Four keys to a successful IT security audit Does running end-of-life software lead to compliance violations? Load More How can companies avoid failing the annual FISMA audit? How descoping measures can help reduce regulatory compliance burden Pre-audit planning: Four keys to a successful IT security audit Does running end-of-life software lead to compliance violations? Load More PRO+ Content Find more PRO+ content and other member only offers, here.

Buyer's Handbook

Finding a secure managed file transfer tool: Key considerations

E-Handbook

Security analysis principles and techniques for IT pros

E-Zine

The best endpoint security practices are evolving and essential

Have a question for an expert? Please add a title for your question

Get answers from a TechTarget expert on whatever's puzzling you.

Add a title You will be able to add details on the next page.

Meet all of our Information Security experts

View all Information Security questions and answers



17-05-12 Samsung Amicus Brief Iso FTC Opp to QCOM m2d Uploaded by Florian Mueller Related Interests Sherman Antitrust Act Competition Law Federal Trade Commission Monopoly (Economics) Electronics Rating and Stats 0.0 ( 0 ) Document Actions Download Share or Embed Document Embed Description: May 12, 2017 amicus curiae brief by Samsung in support of the FTC's opposition to Qualcomm's motion to dismiss View More May 12, 2017 amicus curiae brief by Samsung in support of the FTC's opposition to Qualcomm's motion to dismiss Copyright: © All Rights Reserved Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd Flag for inappropriate content Recommended Documents Documents Similar To 17-05-12 Samsung Amicus Brief Iso FTC Opp to QCOM m2d 17-05-12 FTC Opposition to QCOM Motion to Dismiss by Florian Mueller 17-06-02 Qualcomm Reply Re. Dismissal of FTC Complaint by Florian Mueller 17-05-24 Qualcomm Motion for Preliminary Injunction by Florian Mueller Documents About Sherman Antitrust Act Sunday Ticket by Eriq Gardner Sitkin Smelting & Refining Co., Inc. And Monongahela Iron & Metal Co., Inc., in No. 77-1003 v. Fmc Corporation. Sitkin Smelting & Refining Co., Inc. And Monongahela Iron & Metal Co., Inc., V, 575 F.2d 440, 3rd Cir. (1978) by Scribd Government Docs Robert D. Nelligan and Owen B. Nelligan, Jr., Partners Doing Business Under the Partnership Name of the Nelligans v. Ford Motor Company, a Corporation, 262 F.2d 556, 4th Cir. (1959) by Scribd Government Docs More From Florian Mueller 17-07-20 Apple Public Interest Statement by Florian Mueller 17-07-20 ACT Public Interest Statement by Florian Mueller 17-07-14 Qualcomm Motion for Anti-suit Injunction Against Apple by Florian Mueller Recommended Documents Documents Similar To 17-05-12 Samsung Amicus Brief Iso FTC Opp to QCOM m2d Skip carousel 17-05-12 FTC Opposition to QCOM Motion to Dismiss 17-06-02 Qualcomm Reply Re. Dismissal of FTC Complaint 17-05-24 Qualcomm Motion for Preliminary Injunction 17-04-03 Qualcomm Motion to Dismiss FTC Case 17-04-20 Multi-Stakeholder SEP White House Letter 17-05-22 Apple Opposition to Samsung Cert Petition 17-04-19 FTC v. Qualcomm Case Schedule 17-06-20 Apple's Amended Complaint Against Qualcomm 17-05-12 Intel Amicus Brief Iso FTC Opp to m2d 17-04-10 Qualcomm Answer to Apple Complaint 17-04-12 FTC-Qualcomm Joint Case Management Statement 17-06-05 Samsung Reply Brief Iso Cert Petition 17-06-26 Order Denying Qualcomm Mtd 17-03-10 Samsung Cert Petition 2nd Apple Case 17-06-19 Apple Motion to Dismiss Qualcomm Cc 17-05-12 Samsung Motion for Leave to File Amicus Brief FTC v. Qualcomm 17-01-17 FTC Complaint v. Qualcomm 17-07-06 Qualcomm v. Apple Patent Infringement Complaint 17-07-10 Qualcomm Answer to FTC Complaint 17-07-17 Foxconn Impleading Apple in Qualcomm Case 16-12-20 Apple Complaint v. Acacia Et Al. Apple Qualcomm 17-07-06 Qualcomm v. Apple ITC Complaint 17-07-14 Qualcomm Motion for Anti-suit Injunction Against Apple 16-11-07 Samsung Motion for 2nd Hearing 15-12-23 Davis Declaration ISO Apple Motion 17-04-10 Public Knowledge EFF Engine Amicus Brief Huawei v. Samsung 16-08-25 Google Attorney Declaration 16-08-25 Oracle Response and Objection Documents About Sherman Antitrust Act Skip carousel Sunday Ticket Sitkin Smelting & Refining Co., Inc. And Monongahela Iron & Metal Co., Inc., in No. 77-1003 v. Fmc Corporation. Sitkin Smelting & Refining Co., Inc. And Monongahela Iron & Metal Co., Inc., V, 575 F.2d 440, 3rd Cir. (1978) Robert D. Nelligan and Owen B. Nelligan, Jr., Partners Doing Business Under the Partnership Name of the Nelligans v. Ford Motor Company, a Corporation, 262 F.2d 556, 4th Cir. (1959) Morris Communications v. PGA Tour, Inc., 364 F.3d 1288, 11th Cir. (2004) Montgomery Cnty Assn v. Realty Photo Master, 4th Cir. (1996) VIRGINIA VERMICULITE, LIMITED v. THE HISTORIC GREEN SPRINGS, INCORPORATED, AND W.R. GRACE & COMPANY — CONNECTICUT, NATIONAL TRUST FOR HISTORIC PRESERVATION THE LAND TRUST ALLIANCE, AMICI CURIAE. VIRGINIA VERMICULITE, LIMITED v. THE HISTORIC GREEN SPRINGS, INCORPORATED, AND W.R. GRACE & COMPANY — CONNECTICUT, NATIONAL TRUST FOR HISTORIC PRESERVATION THE LAND TRUST ALLIANCE, AMICI CURIAE, 307 F.3d 277, 4th Cir. (2002) The Cromar Company v. Nuclear Materials and Equipment Corporation and Atlantic Richfield Company, 543 F.2d 501, 3rd Cir. (1976) Sports Racing Serv. v. Sports Car Club, 131 F.3d 874, 10th Cir. (1997) James Scott Kreager v. General Electric Company, James Scott Kreager v. General Electric Company, 497 F.2d 468, 2d Cir. (1974) Berkey Photo, Inc. v. Eastman Kodak Company. Eastman Kodak Company v. Berkey Photo, Inc, 444 U.S. 1093 (1980) McLain v. Real Estate Bd. of New Orleans, Inc., 444 U.S. 232 (1980) Sol Winn v. Edna Hibel Corporation, 858 F.2d 1517, 11th Cir. (1988) William Owens and Jean Owens v. Aetna Life & Casualty Co., a Connecticut Corporation, and Its Subsidiary, Aetna Casualty and Surety Co., a Corporation of Connecticut, Durward M. Stayton, Jr., and Donald Millure, the Medical Society of New Jersey, a New Jersey Corporation, Chubb & Son, Inc., a New York Corporation, Federal Insurance Company, a New Jersey Corporation, Joseph A. Britton, Joseph A. Matt, Joan B. Snyder, Kay B. Imtello, William A. Reilly and William P. Muhl, Each Individually and Trading as Joseph A. Britton Agency. Aetna Life & Casualty Co., a Connecticut Corporation, and Its Subsidiary, Aetna Casualty and Surety Co., a Corporation of Connecticut, Duward M. Stayton, Jr. And Donald Millure, 654 F.2d 218, 3rd Cir. (1981) Lamp Liquors, Inc., a Wyoming Corporation v. Adolph Coors Company, a Colorado Corporation, and Cheyenne Beverage, Inc., a Wyoming Corporation, 563 F.2d 425, 10th Cir. (1977) Robertson v. SEA PINES REAL ESTATE COMPANIES, INC., 679 F.3d 278, 4th Cir. (2012) Electronics Communications Corp. v. Toshiba America Consumer Products, Inc. And Audiovox Corporation, 129 F.3d 240, 2d Cir. (1997) Kelly v. Kosuga, 358 U.S. 516 (1959) Christy Sports, LLC v. Deer Valley Resort Co., 555 F.3d 1188, 10th Cir. (2009) Montgomery County Association of Realtors, Incorporated v. Realty Photo Master Corporation, & Third Party and David K. Hermreck, Delores Gick Martha J. Schmidt Robert L. Gruen Barbara Stone George Matheos Lisa Taylor Donald May Bennie Walton Rita R. Orcino John Gilbert B. George Ballman Harold H. Huggins Judith Difilippo Patrick Kane Joanne Anderson Toby Rhodes Dale L. Ross Peter Rucci Shannon & Luchs Company William Ellis, Third-Party, 993 F.2d 1538, 3rd Cir. (1993) International Audiotext Network, Inc. v. American Telephone and Telegraph Company, 62 F.3d 69, 2d Cir. (1995) Lepage's Incorporated Lepage's Management Company, Llc, Appellees/cross-Appellants v. 3m (Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company) Kroll Associates, Inc. Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company, 277 F.3d 365, 3rd Cir. (2002) United States v. Brown University in Providence in the State of Rhode Island, and Providence Plantations the Trustees of Columbia University in the City of New York Cornell University the Trustees of Dartmouth College President and Fellows of Harvard College, Massachusetts Massachusetts Institute of Technology the Trustees of Princeton University the Trustees of the University of Pennsylvania Yale University, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, 5 F.3d 658, 3rd Cir. (1993) SENATE HEARING, 110TH CONGRESS - THE XM-SIRIUS MERGER NCO Portfolio Mgmt v. Witt, 4th Cir. (2001) Patel v. Scotland Mem Hosp, 4th Cir. (1996) Paul Kalmanovitz, Individually and as a Shareholder of Pabst Brewing Company, and S & P, a California Corporation v. G. Heileman Brewing Company, Inc., a Wisconsin Corporation Russell G. Cleary Hbc Acquisition, Inc., a Delaware Corporation Pabst Brewing Company, a Delaware Corporation and William F. Smith, Jr., Irwin Jacobs, Dennis Mathisen, Gerald A. Schwalbach, and Daniel T. Lindsay, Individuals, 769 F.2d 152, 3rd Cir. (1985) Allen Bradley Co. v. Local Union No. 3, International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, 325 U.S. 797 (1945) Tops Markets, Inc., Plaintiff-Appellant-Cross-Appellee v. Quality Markets, Inc. The Penn Traffic Company Sunrise Properties, Inc., James v. Paige, Jr., Defendant-Appellee-Cross-Appellant, 142 F.3d 90, 2d Cir. (1998) United States v. United States Gypsum Company, in 75-1836 Appeal of National Gypsum Company, in 75-1837. Appeal of Georgia-Pacific Corporation, in 75-1838. Appeal of the Celotex Corporation, in 75-1839. Appeal of Colon Brown, in 75-1840. Appeal of J. P. Nicely, in 75-1841. Appeal of Andrew J. Watt, in 75-1842, 550 F.2d 115, 3rd Cir. (1977) Kt & G Corp. v. ATTORNEY GEN. OF STATE OF OKLAHOMA, 535 F.3d 1114, 10th Cir. (2008) More From Florian Mueller Skip carousel 17-07-20 Apple Public Interest Statement 17-07-20 ACT Public Interest Statement 17-07-14 Qualcomm Motion for Anti-suit Injunction Against Apple 17-07-18 Apple's Opposition to Qualcomm's Motion for PI 17-07-18 Contract Manufacturers' Opposition to PI Motion 17-07-18 Contract Manufacturers' Answer to Qualcomm's Complaint 17-07-17 Foxconn Impleading Apple in Qualcomm Case 17-07-10 Qualcomm Answer to FTC Complaint 17-07-06 Qualcomm v. Apple ITC Complaint 17-07-06 Qualcomm v. Apple Patent Infringement Complaint 17-06-26 Order Denying Qualcomm Mtd 17-06-20 Apple's Amended Complaint Against Qualcomm 17-06-19 Apple Motion to Dismiss Qualcomm Cc 17-06-05 Samsung Reply Brief Iso Cert Petition 17-05-22 Apple Opposition to Samsung Cert Petition 17-05-12 Intel Amicus Brief Iso FTC Opp to m2d 17-05-12 Samsung Motion for Leave to File Amicus Brief FTC v. Qualcomm 17-04-19 FTC v. Qualcomm Case Schedule 17-04-10 Public Knowledge EFF Engine Amicus Brief 17-04-10 Law Prof Amicus Brief 17-04-12 FTC-Qualcomm Joint Case Management Statement 17-04-10 Qualcomm Answer to Apple Complaint 17-03-10 Samsung Cert Petition 2nd Apple Case 17-01-17 FTC Complaint v. Qualcomm "> Screen Reader Compatibility Information Due to the method this document is displayed on the page, screen readers may not read the content correctly. For a better experience, please download the original document and view it in the native application on your computer.     BRIEF OF AMICI CURIAE 5:17-CV-00220-LHK 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 IAN SIMMONS (  pro hac vice  application pending) isimmons@omm.com BENJAMIN J. HENDRICKS (Bar #288680)  bhendricks@omm.com JAMES W. CROOKS (Bar #310447)  jcrooks@omm.com O’MELVENY & MYERS LLP 1625 Eye Street, NW Washington, DC 20006-4061 Telephone: +1 202 383 5300 Facsimile: +1 202 383 5414 MICHAEL TUBACH (Bar #145955) mtubach@omm.com O’MELVENY & MYERS LLP Two Embarcadero Center, 28th Fl. San Francisco, CA 94111-2823 Telephone: +1 415 984 8700 Facsimile: +1 415 984 8701  Attorneys for Amici Curiae Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. Samsung Semiconductor, Inc.   UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA, SAN JOSE DIVISION FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION, Plaintiff, v. QUALCOMM INCORPORATED, a Delaware corporation, Defendant. Case No. 5:17-cv-00220-LHK BRIEF OF AMICI CURIAE   SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO. LTD. AND SAMSUNG SEMICONDUCTOR, INC. IN OPPOSITION TO QUALCOMM INCORPORATED’S MOTION TO DISMISS Date: June 15, 2018 Time: 1:30 PM Place: San Jose Courthouse, Cour troom 8 Judge: Hon. Lucy Koh Case 5:17-cv-00220-LHK Document 90-1 Filed 05/12/17 Page 1 of 19   TABLE OF CONTENTS Page i BRIEF OF AMICI CURIAE 5:17-CV-00220-LHK 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 I. STATEMENT OF INTEREST .................................................... ....................................... 1   II. INTRODUCTION .................................................... ........................................................ .. 1   III. FRAND COMMITMENTS VINDICATE KEY ANTITRUST PRINCIPLES ................. 2   A. Standardization can create monopoly power ........................................................ .. 2   B. FRAND commitments provide a necessary check on SEP market power.............. 3   1. To prevent exclusion, FRAND creates a duty to license all comers ........... 4   2. FRAND prohibits SEP holders from charging supracompetitive royalties ....................................................... ................................................ 6   IV. QUALCOMM’S FRAND VIOLATIONS CONSTITUTE UNLAWFUL EXCLUSIONARY CONDUCT ......................................................................................... 7   A. Qualcomm excludes competitors by refusing to license SEPs to make and sell licensed CDMA and premium chipsets in competition with its own chipsets ................................................. ........................................................ ........... 7   B. Qualcomm violates FRAND—and excludes competitors—by imposing onerous terms on handset manufacturers, including an unreasonable per handset tax ..................................................... ........................................................ 10   C. The Complaint does not rely on a “price squeeze” theory .................................... 12   V. CONCLUSION ................................................ ........................................................ ......... 13   Case 5:17-cv-00220-LHK Document 90-1 Filed 05/12/17 Page 2 of 19   TABLE OF AUTHORITIES Page(s) ii BRIEF OF AMICI CURIAE 5:17-CV-00220-LHK 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 C ASES    Allied Tube & Conduit Corp. v. Indian Head, Inc. , 486 U.S. 492 (1988) ............................................... ........................................................ ........ 3, 5  Apple Inc. v. Motorola, Inc. , 869 F. Supp. 2d 901 (N.D. Ill. 2012) aff’d in part and rev’d in part on other grounds , 757 F.3d 1286 (Fed. Cir. 2014) .................................................... ............................... 4  Apple Inc. v. Samsung Elecs. Co. ,  No. 11-CV-01846, 2012 WL 1672493 (N.D. Cal. May 14, 2012) ............................................ 3  Apple Inc. v. Samsung Elecs. Co. ,  No. 11-CV-01846-LHK, 2011 WL 4948567 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 18, 2011) ................................... 7  ASARCO, LLC v. Union Pac. R.R. Co. , 765 F.3d 999 (9th Cir. 20 14) ..................................................... ................................................. 8  Aspen Skiing Co. v. Aspen Highlands Skiing Corp ., 472 U.S. 585 (1985) ............................................... ........................................................ ............ 5  Broadcom Corp. v. Qualcomm Inc. , 501 F.3d 297 (3d Cir. 2 007) ...................................................... ........................................ passim City of Anaheim v. S. Cal. Edison Co. , 955 F.2d 1373 (9th Cir. 1 992) ................................................... ............................................... 13 Cont’l Ore Co. v. Union Carbide & Carbon Corp. , 370 U.S. 690 (1962) ............................................... ........................................................ .......... 13  Eastman Kodak Co. v. Image Tech. Servs., Inc. , 504 U.S. 451 (1992) ............................................... ........................................................ ............ 5  Ericsson, Inc. v. D-Link Sys., Inc. , 773 F.3d 1201 (Fed. Cir. 2014) ................................................. ....................................... 3, 6, 10 FTC v. Cement Inst. , 333 U.S. 683 (1948) ............................................... ........................................................ ............ 2 Funai Elec. Co. v. LSI Corporation ,  No. 16-cv-01210-BLF, 2017 WL 1133513 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 27, 2017) ..................................... 6  Laser Dynamics, Inc. v. Quanta Computer, Inc. , 694 F.3d 51 (Fed. Cir. 2012) ..................................................... ............................................... 10 Case 5:17-cv-00220-LHK Document 90-1 Filed 05/12/17 Page 3 of 19 Footer Menu About About Scribd Press Our blog Join our team! Contact Us Join today Invite Friends Gifts Legal Terms Privacy Copyright Support Help / FAQ Accessibility Purchase help AdChoices Publishers Social Media Copyright © 2017 Scribd Inc. . Browse Books . Mobile Site . Site Directory . Site Language: English 中文 Español العربية Português 日本語 Deutsch Français Turkce Русский язык Tiếng việt Język polski Bahasa indonesia Sign up to vote on this title Useful Not useful