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."
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.
Surely not one from Chicago!
Tic-Tac-Toe, Global Thermonuclear War, and relationships all have the same winning move.
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.
Yes, but "on a (mobile) computer"! It's inNOvation, you see.
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'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.
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...
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.
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] 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.
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.
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.
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/
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.
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."
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.
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.
Must be nice when $12.2B is not considered "much".
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.
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.
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.