Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed


Forgot your password?
Patents Cellphones United States Apple

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."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Obama Administration Refuses To Overturn Import Ban On Samsung Products

Comments Filter:
  • surprise (Score:3, Insightful)

    by rainmouse ( 1784278 ) on Tuesday October 08, 2013 @02:19PM (#45073115)
    US politicians, bent you say? Surely not!
  • by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 08, 2013 @02:21PM (#45073135)

    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.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 08, 2013 @02:27PM (#45073211)

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

  • by jedidiah ( 1196 ) on Tuesday October 08, 2013 @02:34PM (#45073311) Homepage

    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.

  • by SuperDre ( 982372 ) on Tuesday October 08, 2013 @02:36PM (#45073327) Homepage
    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..
  • Re:Rightly So (Score:5, Insightful)

    by DickBreath ( 207180 ) on Tuesday October 08, 2013 @02:39PM (#45073383) Homepage
    > 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.
  • by horm ( 2802801 ) on Tuesday October 08, 2013 @02:42PM (#45073445)

    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.

  • Re:Uh.. (Score:3, Insightful)

    by ebno-10db ( 1459097 ) on Tuesday October 08, 2013 @02:49PM (#45073549)

    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 [] [] ). 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.

  • by oodaloop ( 1229816 ) on Tuesday October 08, 2013 @02:49PM (#45073569)
    And they don't pay much taxes here. But how much did Apple vs Samsung contribute to campaign funds?
  • EU agrees (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 08, 2013 @03:01PM (#45073699)

    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.

  • Re:Rightly So (Score:0, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 08, 2013 @03:03PM (#45073721)

    Samsung's patents are FRAND because...

    Samsung's patents are FRAND because they, themselves, submitted their patents to a standards body for inclusion in an industry standard and they, themselves, agreed to license the patents under FRAND terms.

    The FRAND terms were not forced upon them. They 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.

    Please stop pretending that Samsung is the victim here and put a smidge of effort into understanding how the entire standards essential process works.

  • Modern corruption. (Score:5, Insightful)

    by boorack ( 1345877 ) on Tuesday October 08, 2013 @03:14PM (#45073849)

    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.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 08, 2013 @03:21PM (#45073941)

  • by ebno-10db ( 1459097 ) on Tuesday October 08, 2013 @03:25PM (#45073987)

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

    And Apple as an American company.

  • by IamTheRealMike ( 537420 ) on Tuesday October 08, 2013 @03:49PM (#45074305)

    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.

  • by GodfatherofSoul ( 174979 ) on Tuesday October 08, 2013 @03:54PM (#45074367)

    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.

  • Re:Obamaphone (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 08, 2013 @04:43PM (#45075023)

    The only thing Apple makes in the US are profits and vacation plans.

    And iMacs []. And R&D []. Etc.

  • by IamTheRealMike ( 537420 ) on Tuesday October 08, 2013 @04:52PM (#45075117)

    Bizarre. You think I just made that up? Go read the summary on Wikipedia [] and in particular pay attention to the following section:

    On August 24, 2012 the jury returned a verdict largely favorable to Apple. It found that Samsung had willfully infringed on Apple's design and utility patents and had also diluted Apple's trade dresses related to the iPhone. The jury awarded Apple $1.049 billion in damages and Samsung zero damages in its counter suit.[51] The jury found Samsung infringed Apple's patents on iPhone's "Bounce-Back Effect" (US Patent No.7,469,381), "On-screen Navigation (US Patent No.7,844,915), and "Tap To Zoom" (US Patent No.7,864,163), and design patents that covers iPhone's features such as the "home button, rounded corners and tapered edges" (US D593087) and "On-Screen Icons" (US D604305).

  • Re:Obamaphone (Score:5, Insightful)

    by CadentOrange ( 2429626 ) on Tuesday October 08, 2013 @05:00PM (#45075195)
    Must be nice when $12.2B is not considered "much".
  • by Uberbah ( 647458 ) on Tuesday October 08, 2013 @06:20PM (#45075995)

    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.

  • Re:Obamaphone (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 08, 2013 @06:26PM (#45076061)

    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.

"Oh my! An `inflammatory attitude' in alt.flame? Never heard of such a thing..." -- Allen Gwinn, allen@sulaco.Sigma.COM