Obama Administration Refuses To Overturn Import Ban On Samsung Products 298
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."
Re:Probably a good idea (Score:2, Informative)
Then Apple should have nothing at all to worry about.
Re:Proof that Obama is corrupt (Score:4, Informative)
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.
Re:Proof that Obama is corrupt (Score:5, Informative)
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 [androidcentral.com] ). Stop thinking of Apple as American just because their headquarters are here.
Re:Proof that Obama is corrupt (Score:5, Informative)
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...
Re:Obamaphone (Score:5, Informative)
Uh, um . . . patents on bouncy scrolling and slide to unlock.
Subleties matter (Score:4, Informative)
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 [iclarified.com]:
"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.
Re:Proof that Obama is corrupt (Score:5, Informative)
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 [voxeu.org]
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).
Re:Obamaphone (Score:5, Informative)
Apple will be quick to inform you that all profits are made by their Irish subsidiary and are not subject to US corporate taxes.
Who are you? (Score:3, Informative)
"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?
Re:Uh.. (Score:5, Informative)
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/ [forbes.com]
Re:Obamaphone (Score:5, Informative)
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.
Re:Obamaphone (Score:5, Informative)
And because the owners/controllers are American they aren't subject to Irish taxes either.
Re:Obamaphone (Score:4, Informative)
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?
Re:Proof that Obama is corrupt (Score:5, Informative)
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.
Re:Obamaphone (Score:5, Informative)
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.
Re:Proof that Obama is corrupt (Score:5, Informative)
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& [nytimes.com]
Re:Proof that Obama is corrupt (Score:5, Informative)
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 [samsung.com] in the Americas (mostly in the USA, see page 58). Around the same time (February 2012), Apple had 50,250 direct employees [apple.com] in the U.S.
Straight from the horses' mouths.