Slashdot Mirror


Obama Administration Refuses To Overturn Import Ban On Samsung Products

Chris453 writes "In August 2013, President Obama issued a veto to an import ban of the iPhone 4S after Samsung won several court battles against Apple claiming that the iPhone 4S violated several of Samsung's patents. A few months ago, Samsung was on the receiving end of a very similar case filed by Apple. The International Trade Commission decided that several of Samsung's phones (Transform, Acclaim, Indulge, and Intercept models) violated Apple's patents, and should face import bans. Despite the similarities between the two cases, the Obama administration today announced that it would not veto the International Trade Commission import ban against Samsung products. The move that could spark a trade dispute between the U.S. and South Korea."

12 of 298 comments (clear)

  1. This is Apple and Oranges by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    One was a US court ruling, the other a ruling by the International Trade Commission. Presumably, the ITC ruling affects imports to other countries as well.

  2. Re:Proof that Obama is corrupt by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    You could spy on every citizen in your country. That's pretty blatant.

  3. Re:Proof that Obama is corrupt by SuperDre · · Score: 5, Insightful

    It is precise that, Samsung ISN'T an american company, and therefore doesn't get the veto. It was very clear when Apple got the veto that something fishy was going on, normally Obamah wouldn't have anything to do with it..

  4. Re:Rightly So by DickBreath · · Score: 5, Insightful

    > Samsung's patents were standards essential patents which they promised to license under FRAND terms. >

    > Apple's patents are not standards essential as proven by the fact that Samsung has designed around them in their newer products.

    The end result of this is predictable.

    Samsung's patents are FRAND because they are over actual technology, you know, stuff like radios, modulation techniques, and other things actually developed in a lab.

    Apples patents are for things like bouncy scrolling, and slide to unlock.

    If the holder of FRAND patents cannot negotiate with an infringer for a fair price, and the infringer can also sue over its own patents and demand outrageous royalties per device, then the end result is clear.

    No more FRAND patents. No company making actual technology has any economic interest in putting its patents under FRAND terms. Decades of cooperation on technology standards come to an end.

    --

    I'll see your senator, and I'll raise you two judges.
  5. Re:Proof that Obama is corrupt by horm · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Samsung just needed to make small adjustments and has updated their models to provide models that don't violate the patents, the ban is on slightly older models that did violate the patents. Apple's ban was much wider and didn't have any small workaround and would have destroyed their market.

    But that doesn't make sense. Samsung commits relatively minor patent infringements, and the import ban stands. Apple commits major patent infringements that result in a much more severe ban and the ban is vetoed.

  6. Re:Proof that Obama is corrupt by oodaloop · · Score: 4, Insightful

    And they don't pay much taxes here. But how much did Apple vs Samsung contribute to campaign funds?

    --
    Tic-Tac-Toe, Global Thermonuclear War, and relationships all have the same winning move.
  7. Modern corruption. by boorack · · Score: 4, Insightful

    It is not about stupidity. It is about control. Obama is a sockpuppet for his corporate sponsors. He does not have his views, he just reads all this crap from his teleprompter and signs whatever his corporate sponsors want him to sign. That's all. After ending his silly presidency, he'll have his well paid, warm chair in Goldman Sachs, Apple or some other corrupt corporation. He'll have his speeches paid $500'000 a pop. Just like Bill Clinton or Tony Blair.

    You see, staying in office isn't an end in itself for modern politicians. It is merely an interim position in their quest of getting insanely rich. Their carreer begins AFTER they get out of office and stays until they collect few hundred milions dollars or so. Staying in office for entire life like those pesky congressmen do is so old school.

  8. Re:Proof that Obama is corrupt by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2013-08-05/apple-vs-samsung-lobby-spending-or-spot-reason-obamas-unprecedented-veto

  9. Re:Proof that Obama is corrupt by ebno-10db · · Score: 5, Insightful

    as long as people think of Samsung as a Korean company...

    And Apple as an American company.

  10. Re:Proof that Obama is corrupt by IamTheRealMike · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Apple claimed, and got a court to agree with them, that any rectangular phone with rounded corners violated their patents.

    There's no standard that says phones should not slice your fingers when you touch the edges, but it is nevertheless an essential design property. That's not a requirement of GSM, that's common fucking sense.

    If you think Samsung is somehow the aggressor here and Apple is a poor hurt little child, you need a serious reality check. Ever since it became apparent that the iPhone had a real competitor in Android, Apple has been trying to shut down the competition left right and center with bogus patents that should not exist.

    Firstly, a US court with a Silicon Valley jury found for Apple despite serious juror misconduct (to the extent that their judgement made no sense and they had to be told to do it again). Then after Samsung managed to hit back Obama himself vetoed the punishment.

    These events have made the US look like a banana republic where the justice system is weak and laughable.

  11. Re:Obamaphone by CadentOrange · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Must be nice when $12.2B is not considered "much".

  12. Re:Headphone jack sensor? by Uberbah · · Score: 4, Insightful

    That is so totally freaking innovative. I would never, ever have thought of building in a sensor to detect what type of headphones were plugged in.

    Man, these guys are smart.

    Everything is obvious, once someone else has done it. Magnetically attached power cords that don't rip your laptop off a table when your cat/kid/own clumsy self trips over the cable, for example.

    But it took a good 25 years or so from the first laptops for someone to think of it.