Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!


Forgot your password?
DEAL: For $25 - Add A Second Phone Number To Your Smartphone for life! Use promo code SLASHDOT25. Also, Slashdot's Facebook page has a chat bot now. Message it for stories and more. Check out the new SourceForge HTML5 Internet speed test! ×
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This discussion has been archived.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.

  • Of Course (Score:5, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 08, 2013 @02:27PM (#45073209)

    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.

  • by hawguy ( 1600213 ) on Tuesday October 08, 2013 @02:32PM (#45073281)

    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?

    • by VortexCortex ( 1117377 ) <VortexCortex@nOs ... t-retrograde.com> on Tuesday October 08, 2013 @02:36PM (#45073321)

      Yes, but "on a (mobile) computer"! It's inNOvation, you see.

    • 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?

      Nope. This is actually a sensor to determine, when headphones are plugged in, whether they're just stereo headphones, headphones+mic, or headphones+mic+control interface.

      Whether there's anticipatory prior art for that is a different question, but the dumb normally-closed TRS jacks that have been used in patch bays for decades are not the same thing and all, and can make no determinations about the device plugged in, just whether a device is plugged in.

  • by mcelrath ( 8027 ) on Tuesday October 08, 2013 @02:36PM (#45073329) Homepage

    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.

  • I am not familiar with these import bans. Who sets them, and what power does the president hold here?

  • Bush, Obama, Putin, Merkel, Assad, Berlusconi, Gadafi, Mubarak, ..

  • EU agrees (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward

    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 slander

  • North Korea is promising death and destruction. South Korea can't afford to get
    it's feathers too ruffled.

  • by Stumbles ( 602007 ) on Tuesday October 08, 2013 @03:21PM (#45073939)
    I'm guessing Samsung did not bribe the Obama camp and are now being punished.
  • 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.

  • by Supp0rtLinux ( 594509 ) <Supp0rtLinux@yahoo.com> on Tuesday October 08, 2013 @04:11PM (#45074583)
    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.

The price one pays for pursuing any profession, or calling, is an intimate knowledge of its ugly side. -- James Baldwin