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."

7 of 298 comments (clear)

  1. 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.

  2. 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..

  3. 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.
  4. 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.

  5. 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

  6. 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.

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

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