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."
US politicians, bent you say? Surely not!
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.
I read the summary and now know all of the details of the two cases and will now give you my strong, educated opinion of the matter.
You could spy on every citizen in your country. That's pretty blatant.
What is their patent on a "headphone jack sensor"? Is this anything like the sensor that portable radios have had for decades that let them switch off the speaker when the headphones are plugged in?
> Just more evidence of China's influence over the American economy.
Exactly how does China enter into this?
Isn't this a dispute between Apple (American company) and Samsung (South Korean company)?
I'll see your senator, and I'll raise you two judges.
He bailed out Apple in order to "preserve the market" or some such claptrap. How is treating Samsung differently remotely consistent here?
The subtleties of the two bans don't really matter since that wasn't the stated reason for giving Apple a free ride last time around.
Flaming hypocrisy.
Of course getting near the presidency will ensure that your candidate is just like any other corrupt white guy regardless of whether your candidate is black or a woman. No one should ever had any delusions in that regard.
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
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..
Patent enforcement should be purely economic. How much money did the infringing party make off using the patent, how much did the patent holder invest to create the patent, and therefore how much do they owe to the patent holder? Restitution should consist entirely of monetary awards.
The patent holder is often not the most capable or appropriate entity to utilize the patent. Enforcing bans like this is anti-competitive and doesn't help anyone. The patent holder would be better off receiving money from a more competent implementation of its patent, than banning all competitors and forcing everyone to use their incompetent device.
1^2=1; (-1)^2=1; 1^2=(-1)^2; 1=-1; 1=0.
> 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.
Samsung's case hinged on a standards-essential patent they had agreed to license on fair and nondiscriminatory terms and was decided by the ITC. Apple's patent was not part of a standard and was decided by a US court of law. The cases aren't even remotely similar, no there's nothing "blatant" here.
E pluribus unum
Is Samsung an American company all of a sudden?
Is Apple an American company? At least one Apple exec told US workers to stuff it, as Apple doesn't owe them anything. Apple makes almost everything overseas. Meanwhile, Samsung has US operations (for example http://www.androidcentral.com/samsung-expand-us-operations-two-new-california-facilities ). Stop thinking of Apple as American just because their headquarters are here.
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.
As if we needed more proof. I can think of some WWII vets who have even better proof.
In SOVIET RUSSIA... erm...NSA AMERICA, the Internet logs onto YOU!
I'm a free trade guy but in fairness if you are going to start blaming countries for unfairly imposing barriers to foreign products, the US would be near the bottom of the list.
Negative moral value of force outweighs the positive value of good intentions.
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..
Samsung America has more employees in the USA than Apple does. However, as long as people think of Samsung as a Korean company...
Apple is an American company.
How do you figure? At least one Apple exec told US workers to stuff it, as Apple doesn't owe them anything. Apple makes almost everything overseas. Meanwhile, Samsung has US operations (for example http://www.androidcentral.com/samsung-expand-us-operations-two-new-california-facilities [androidcentral.com] ). Stop thinking of Apple as American just because their headquarters are here.
I have no, none, zero, zip, nada loyalty or favor towards "American" companies. They have no loyalty towards this country, so why should they get special favor from the US government? There is no quid pro quo, so tell 'em to stuff it.
Meanwhile my wife and I drive Toyota's. They're 80% and 85% value added in the USA, which makes them more American than most so-called American cars.
P.S. Part of the 1st paragraph is a cut and paste from my post above, but it seemed even more appropriate here.
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.
Well, in my own view, the problem is the "blatantness". The obvious, easily-seen facets of what happened appear prejudicial. The nuance of the situation basically gets no discussion.
The text for this item is misleading, failing to account for the reasons given for these decisions. And anyone still suggesting this is American bias for their own companies, please explain why the EU is leaning in the same direction? It's not like the EU is pro-US in many decisions.
Obamas decision, and the EU's charges against Samsung (not Apple), hinge around the use of standards-essential patents as a weapon to stifle innovation and competition.
I'd rather not see such obviously one-eyed political slandering pandered as a tech item on sites like Slashdot - save it for the tabloids.
The only thing Apple makes in the US are profits and vacation plans.
I got here through a series of tubes
Stop thinking of Apple as American just because their headquarters are here.
But, but... Apple products say "Designed in USA" Surely that's almost the same as "Made in USA"?
(I don't know of any other product that tries that trick to counter the "Made in China" note.)
> The only thing Apple makes in the US are profits and vacation plans.
Uh, um . . . patents on bouncy scrolling and slide to unlock.
I'll see your senator, and I'll raise you two judges.
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.
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.
User interfaces are also "actual technology", Linux die-hards gripes notwithstanding.
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.
Samsung didn't put its patents under FRAND because of the goodness of their hearts - it's because they get guaranteed royalties at a Fair and Reasonable rate from every participant with the standard. That's a nice income stream, provided they don't start being jerks about it and demanding unreasonable rates from people they don't like.
But even more importantly, your fundamental point is wrong:
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.
These pair of decisions do not mean that FRAND patent owners "cannot negotiate with an infringer for a fair price". It's just that they can't hold the infringer's products hostage by preventing import. Basically:
> [Samsung] elected to participate in the standards process and they elected to abide by the FRAND licensing requirements.
> And then they broke their promise by selectively targeting certain competitors with unreasonable rates, breaking their FRAND obligations.
FRAND does not mean you cannot negotiate royalty rates.
The rates only have to be fair, reasonable, and non discriminatory.
Just because the other party does not like the negotiation does not mean the FRAND promise is broken.
You completely fail to address my argument. The end result is that there are no longer going to be any FRAND patents. Obligating yourself to FRAND while a competitor plays badly is obviously not a good move. The lesson is that you should play the same way your competitors are playing and not handicap yourself with FRAND. If Samsung wanted the same royalties for its technology from Apple as Apple wants from Samsung over bouncy scrolling and other trivialities, then you would be screaming bloody murder.
I'll see your senator, and I'll raise you two judges.
I'm guessing Samsung did not bribe the Obama camp and are now being punished.
My karma is not a Chameleon.
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2013-08-05/apple-vs-samsung-lobby-spending-or-spot-reason-obamas-unprecedented-veto
as long as people think of Samsung as a Korean company...
And Apple as an American company.
He bailed out Apple in order to "preserve the market" or some such claptrap. How is treating Samsung differently remotely consistent here?
Because one is a patent on a non-standard user interface, and the other is a patent on a standard radio technology. Because the owner of former did not agree to let others use the technology, while the owner of the latter voluntarily said "yes, everyone can use this technology and I will not exert undue pressure or attempt to get injunctions against you, and will instead accept a reasonable monetary royalty."
The subtleties of the two bans don't really matter since that wasn't the stated reason for giving Apple a free ride last time around.
You're wrong, it was explicitly the reason:
"The Policy Statement expresses substantial concerns, which I strongly share, about the potential harms that can result from owners of standards-essential patents ("SEPs") who have made a voluntary commitment to offer to license SEPs on terms that are fair, reasonable, and non-discriminatory ("FRAND"), gaining undue leverage and engaging in "patent hold-up", i.e., asserting the patent to exclude an implementer of the standard from a market to obtain a higher price for use of the patent than would have been possible before the standard was set, when alternative technologies could have been chosen."
Flaming hypocrisy.
Of course getting near the presidency will ensure that your candidate is just like any other corrupt white guy regardless of whether your candidate is black or a woman. No one should ever had any delusions in that regard.
I'm guessing Apple donated more money to the Obama campaign(s) than Samsung (if any) did.
Cite?
Clearly Samsung has a few things to learn about the American way of doing business. I'm willing to be a consultant to them in this regard, and all for the low, low price of$1M/yr. My advice? Give half of what's in petty cash, because that's all it takes. To companies this size, it's not much money, and it's the best ROI you'll ever see.
Not sure what that link is supposed to prove. US does more international trade than any other country, of course it's name will pop up in trade disputes. The closest thing to an authoritative ranking of the countries by protectionism I could find:
http://www.voxeu.org/article/protectionism-s-quiet-return-gta-s-pre-g8-summit-report
Scroll down to "Table 1. Which countries have inflicted the most harm since November 2008?"
It is compiled from GTAâ(TM)s annual reports (which don't rank the countries).
Negative moral value of force outweighs the positive value of good intentions.
Apple will be quick to inform you that all profits are made by their Irish subsidiary and are not subject to US corporate taxes.
I saw some tools with a brand name of "Chicago Tools from Illinois" and a logo on the left that said "Proudly Distributed in the USA."
On the back, it still said "Made in China."
"This is the reality... Samsung abused FRAND patents towards Apple"
This is indeed what Apple claim.
However, the courts did not agree.
Yet here you are pretending that Apple's claim is "reality".
What colour is the sky there?
Not even close. Apple is trying to play catch-up with some petty cash. Starting to build a $100M manufacturing facility? In Texas alone Samsung has an existing $13B investment: http://www.forbes.com/sites/realspin/2013/10/07/memo-to-u-s-politicians-samsung-is-a-very-american-company/
Indeed, while the situations aren't the same, the situations speak to resolutions that we're getting the opposite of. The FRAND patents are very important tech patents, the very fact that they are vital speaks to their importance, while the design patents aren't, yet, the design patents are getting more protection than the tech patents. That really makes no sense. Maybe Samsung was abusing things, I can't really say for sure, but the reasoning that they are FRAND therefore they should be bypassable is just destructive.
There was an import ban on iPhones because Samsung won such a ban using FRAND patents, and the President overturned that ban based on that fact. It set a dangerous precedent and weaken's the FRAND patent and it's ability to allow anyone to enter into a competitive field.
The reverse that the summary so easily ignores is that the patents that Samsung infringed on, and were banned with as a result, are garden variety infringements, and don't require a response.
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.
Never seen "Assembled in the USA"?
Because nothing is.
I'm a good cook. I'm a fantastic eater. - Steven Brust
Slapping "Obama" on a headline just starts up a bunch of uninformed hyperbolic responses that add zilch to the discussion. I'm not a lawyer, so I'd like to know what the difference is between both cases. I'm assuming they're not symmetrical.
BTW, to you editors: Fuck you and all your red meat summaries.
I swear to God...I swear to God! That is NOT how you treat your human!
Your entire argument is predicated on the notion that FRAND patents and non-FRAND patents have no other differences between them that would make FRAND licensing advantageous to the companies holding those patents, which is simply not the case. The fact is, FRAND licensing is paired with patents that are considered to be essential to a standard, which means that those patents get licensed for virtually any and all devices in that product category (Apple devices excluded, apparently :-\). That's a lot of licensees paying a lot of license fees, and it only works because of FRAND terms. Without them, those patents would not be included in the standard and some other standard that worked around those patents would be decided upon.
At the end of the day, the reason that this decision actually does make sense is because the wrong committed by Apple against Samsung can be righted with a simple monetary payment that settles the debt Apple owes for not having paid the licensing fees for the patents that Samsung is obligated to offer under FRAND terms. As such, it makes no sense to enact an import ban against Apple, since those patents are always on the table and Apple can be compelled to license them at any time to set things straight. In contrast, the wrong that Samsung committed against Apple is significantly less severe, but cannot be righted with a simple monetary payment, since Apple has chosen to keep those patents to themselves as a product differentiator/competitive advantage, and is under no obligation to offer them under any terms to anyone else.
Samsung has already gotten in trouble in Europe for abusively using their FRAND patents as a weapon against other companies (not just Apple), as well they should be. They chose the route that leads to more money pouring in for the life of that standard, and are being justly compensated for having done so (Apple notwithstanding), but with that route come certain obligations, and one of them is to license it under those terms, which means that it's never a question of whether or not it can be licensed, it's simply a matter of how much the license will cost.
And because the owners/controllers are American they aren't subject to Irish taxes either.
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
These aren't all that similar. One violation dealt with standard essential patents that Samsung refused to fairly license to Apple. The other dealt with design patents that Samsung willfully copied as evidenced by the fact that they refused to remove the offending issues and instead offered workarounds. The only similarity is that there were two cases and two injunctions. The similarities end there. There is a huge difference between banning a product because it copies your patented design versus not banning a product because it needs a standards essential patent that the owner refused to license to you at reasonable costs.
Apple will be quick to inform you that all profits are made by their Irish subsidiary and are not subject to US corporate taxes.
So why do they pay so much in US taxes?
Of course news about a fake are Fake News.
I wonder why he did that?
http://influenceexplorer.com/organization/apple-inc/6fba97b1038744ad8ab27d5fac99bfd7
http://influenceexplorer.com/organization/samsung-group/803d3e5b892545db9b30ea9236d67c2a
Oh, that's why.
The White House explicitly stated that they were not making a statement regarding the validity of Samsung's case, but argued that SE patents should not be used as a basis for Cease and Desist orders. The ITC has found that Samsung was in the right about that patent. Neither the White House, nor the ITC, nor any court of law has determined that Samsung was abusing their FRAND patent.
The only thing Apple makes in the US are profits and vacation plans.
And iMacs. And R&D. Etc.
Apple will be quick to inform you that all profits are made by their Irish subsidiary and are not subject to US corporate taxes.
So why do they pay so much in US taxes?
Umm... they don't. According to their 2012 10-K Annual report Apple paid $12.2B in Federal taxes, this was most at a 35% rate applied to securities that their foreign-based subsidiaries (e.g. ireland-based) owned in the US since these values are not considered revenue. These were cashflows that occurred in the US and could not be avoided. Apple also paid $1.2B in foreign taxes at a lower rate (which lowers their effective US tax rate) and avoided $6B in US taxes all together by keeping funds in foreign subsidiaries. So if it were not for their subsidiary, they would be on the line for almost 50% more in taxes than what they are actually paying into the system.
Bizarre. You think I just made that up? Go read the summary on Wikipedia and in particular pay attention to the following section:
Must be nice when $12.2B is not considered "much".
In small type, inside the bottom stripe of the flag, it says "Made in China".
If the masses can keep you down, you're not the Ubermensch.
A lot of their competition didn't make $12.2B in profit.
And they don't pay much taxes here.
When you say "they" do you mean Samsung or Apple because Apple pays more in corporate taxes than any other American corporation.
Apple's effective tax rate: 14%
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2013/05/25/sunday-review/corporate-taxes.html?_r=1&
There is no "I disagree" mod for a reason. Flamebait, Troll, and Overrated are not substitutes.
I understand your point, and always understood your point. But it is misses my point. In fact, your numbers reinforce my point.
If Apple can ask for unreasonably high royalties for patents that never should have been granted (and some of which have since been invalidated) but Samsung is bound to not to ask for similar royalties, then this will be the end of FRAND patents. And it's not only Samsung learning this lesson. Microsoft and Motorola are in a similar dispute about what is reasonable for FRAND patents.
As to how your numbers reinforce my point, if 2.25% is not reasonable for Samsung's technology (and I'm not arguing that it is reasonable), then how can Apple's demands for much larger amounts or even outright injunctions be reasonable for patents on bouncy scrolling, pinch to zoom, or slide to unlock? Apple contends that those items are the entire reason someone bought the phone and therefore should get a significant cut of the retail price. That starts to make 2.25% seem quite reasonable. So which player is actually being reasonable here? (Maybe neither.) But it will spell the end of FRAND patents.
FRAND patents were for when everyone could get along and cooperate, while also being competitors. In the future players will individually negotiate reasonable rates with competitors that they perceive will not treat them the way Apple or Microsoft do.
I'll see your senator, and I'll raise you two judges.
I don't think Samsung donated enough to the Democratic Party. They need to pay up.
If I was paying 2/3 of what I currently pay in taxes I would certainly consider it not much in taxes.
I guess just because they didn't keep all the money for themselves it's OK.
I mean, we should be happy they even paid what they did.
So does Samsung.
Samsung America has more employees in the USA than Apple does. However, as long as people think of Samsung as a Korean company...
Bullshit. At the end of 2011, Samsung had 21,531 employees in the Americas (mostly in the USA, see page 58). Around the same time (February 2012), Apple had 50,250 direct employees in the U.S.
Straight from the horses' mouths.
Well, that's what Apple tries to imply (page 2):
Note that that is an official testimony of Apple to the US Senate, so if it's a lie it's not likely to be very blatant. The fact that they payed $6 billion in 2012 has really not been contested, as you can check through a Google search. Whether it really makes Apple the largest tax payer, I can't confirm.
And 27" iMacs and the new Mac Pro.
I run: Windows, OS X, Linux, FreeBSD. Just because you have a hammer, doesn't mean everything is a nail.
Which is the typical way this president handles everything: He cares a great deal about the rule of law, except when its inconvenient.
Repeal the 17th Amendment TODAY! Also Please Read http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html
Actually no, he's sending a clear message that a company trying to extort unfair terms in order to grant license to a companies FRAND patents sets a bad precedent, and undermines the very reason for a FRAND patent. It forces those entering into a competitive market to give up too much, often times with cross patents that allow a new company to offer unique features that differentiate it from a competitor. A FRAND patent on the other hand is required by every competitor in that market and should be offered to all under the same terms.
Apple was not offered a 'fair and reasonable' request from Samsung for it's FRAND patents. Samsung was demanding cross licensing of key Apple patents in order to grant Apple access to these FRAND patents. Rather than simply charging a standard rate, Samsung saw some unique patents that Apple had and made them a condition of cross licensing their own FRAND patents.
The President was fully justified in overturning this specific import ban for that reason. If such extortion was allowed, you and I would be paying substantially higher costs for just about anything with a FRAND patent associated with it. It raises the bar to entering into a competitive field where a company could be forced to give away any competitive edge they had in 'regular' patents, just to gain access to industry essential patents.
If you can't see the forest for the trees due to some obsessive fanboi-ism, then there is no help for you.
In case someone didn't get that reference: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double_Irish_arrangement#Dutch_sandwich