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."
surprise (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Of course not, they're thoroughly folded in half.
Re:surprise (Score:5, Funny)
This is Apple and Oranges (Score:4, Insightful)
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)
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.
Headphone jack sensor? (Score:3)
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?
Re:Headphone jack sensor? (Score:5, Funny)
Yes, but "on a (mobile) computer"! It's inNOvation, you see.
Re: (Score:3)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
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.
Again, from my post, because you apparently missed it:
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 at all, and can make no determinations about the device plugged in, just whether a device is plugged in.
I never claimed it was "totally freaking innovative". I merely pointed out that it's not the same as a normalling plug. Is that too complicated for you?
Re:Headphone jack sensor? (Score:5, Insightful)
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: (Score:2)
no it's not
didn't i already respond to you the last time this came up?
Well gee, I don't know. I can't keep track of every Anonymous Coward post on this site. But if you did reply to me before, then just post the link to that reply and not only can you save yourself from mustering up some fake indignation, but you can actually answer my question.
Patents and trade bans (Score:3)
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.
What power does he have? (Score:2)
I am not familiar with these import bans. Who sets them, and what power does the president hold here?
Rules for everyone but them who rule ! (Score:2)
Bush, Obama, Putin, Merkel, Assad, Berlusconi, Gadafi, Mubarak, ..
EU agrees (Score:2, Insightful)
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
Oh right. (Score:2)
North Korea is promising death and destruction. South Korea can't afford to get
it's feathers too ruffled.
Hmmm. (Score:3)
Can someone give us an INTELLIGENT summary? (Score:2, Insightful)
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.
There's no similarities here... (Score:3)
hmmm (Score:3)
I wonder why he did that?
http://influenceexplorer.com/organization/apple-inc/6fba97b1038744ad8ab27d5fac99bfd7 [influenceexplorer.com]
http://influenceexplorer.com/organization/samsung-group/803d3e5b892545db9b30ea9236d67c2a [influenceexplorer.com]
Oh, that's why.
Re:Proof that Obama is corrupt (Score:5, Insightful)
You could spy on every citizen in your country. That's pretty blatant.
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: (Score:3)
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.
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: (Score:2)
This is the reality... Samsung abused FRAND patents towards Apple.
Or did they?
You claiming it doesn't make it so.
As far as I know no court has ruled on that matter yet.
Re: (Score:2)
That's an awful lot of incredulity towards the fact that I have an opinion and recognize it as such. I'm not sure what to tell you, other than chill. I could do without the patent nonsense entirely, but once you accept it, this situation is quite complex.
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:Proof that Obama is corrupt (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:Proof that Obama is corrupt (Score:4, Insightful)
Bizarre. You think I just made that up? Go read the summary on Wikipedia [wikipedia.org] and in particular pay attention to the following section:
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
As if we needed more proof. I can think of some WWII vets who have even better proof.
Re: (Score:2)
Do you mean the veterans who were admitted to the memorial 15 minutes [bbc.co.uk] after they got there? Wow, 15 minutes to find a couple politicians and get them down to the memorial to open it up for so they can appear to help there constituent even though they were the cause of the problem in the first place. Call me cynical but I smell some planning in this. Just because the Republican Party is not as easy a target as the POTUS does not mean they are not corrupt.
Re: (Score:3)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
That''s not relevant. The fact that other countries are worse does not make the US any better.
Re: (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
This is yet more proof that Obama is utterly corrupt. He vetoes a ban on Apple's products but not on Samsung's. How much more blatant can you get?
Does anyone have an armchair-legal analysis of these bans? Off the cuff, I would have questioned being able to veto a court judgment as being a huge stretch of Presidential Pardon privileges. But I don't really know where the bans originate.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
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: (Score:3)
IANAL, but the quick Google based research I did I could find nothing to suggest there is much in the way of codified law out there that makes special consideration for SEPs vs other patents. It all comes down to FRAND licensing which is contractual agreement between members of the standards organization / patent pool. The Administration is not a party.
If a court adjudicates the dispute between Apple and Samsung and determines in Samsungs favor the Administration does not seem to be doing anything other than "making it up as they go along" by stepping in here. I'd love to see some documentation to the contrary if anyone can point something out, but it sure looks like just another case Obama abusively broad interpretation of presidential power.
There's a ton of precedent in antitrust law having to do with SEPs vs. other patents. But yes, at their heart, they're contractual agreements and the administration is not a party. So? If Microsoft has a contract with OEMs that force them to include IE pre-installed and no other browsers, the DoJ can still step in, even though they're not a party. This is a similar anti-trust issue.
And this isn't a court dispute per se, either - it's at the International Trade Commission, which is an executive branch body.
Re:Proof that Obama is corrupt (Score:5, Insightful)
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: (Score:2)
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.
Lesson learned here, if you're going to infringe on a patent go big and get away scott free.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Patents are disgusting to begin with, so this entire situation is yet another example of government corruption (and nothing to do with one specific party, as even the party that claims to want small government largely loves government-enforced monopolies over ideas and procedures).
Re: (Score:2)
So? Apple should diversify their mobile products, if they want to insulate against this possibility. Samsung, on the other hand, creates a multitude of products, and SOME of them were banned. Besides, if I recall correctly, the Apple devices banned were the iPhone 4, which is a three year old design, anyway. Banning that product, specifically, doesn't "destroy" their market, as they probably sell very, very few, if at all.
Re:Proof that Obama is corrupt (Score:5, Insightful)
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:Proof that Obama is corrupt (Score:5, Insightful)
as long as people think of Samsung as a Korean company...
And Apple as an American company.
Re: (Score:3)
In case someone didn't get that reference: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double_Irish_arrangement#Dutch_sandwich [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:3)
I don't think Samsung donated enough to the Democratic Party. They need to pay up.
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.
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, Insightful)
Re:Proof that Obama is corrupt (Score:5, Insightful)
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2013-08-05/apple-vs-samsung-lobby-spending-or-spot-reason-obamas-unprecedented-veto
Re:Proof that Obama is corrupt (Score:4, Funny)
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.
Re: (Score:3)
Cite?
Re: (Score:3)
Well, that's what Apple tries to imply [apple.com] (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 Goog
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, Interesting)
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.)
Re: (Score:2)
Never seen "Assembled in the USA"?
Re: (Score:3)
Never seen "Assembled in the USA"?
Because nothing is.
Re:Proof that Obama is corrupt (Score:4, Funny)
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."
Re: (Score:3)
In small type, inside the bottom stripe of the flag, it says "Made in China".
Re: (Score:3)
I'm guessing Apple donated more money to the Obama campaign(s) than Samsung (if any) did.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Nevermind the gun i'm carefully aiming at your head, i won't shoot it.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Exactly how does China enter into this?
Isn't this a dispute between Apple (American company) and Samsung (South Korean company)?
Re:Obamaphone (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Obamaphone (Score:5, Informative)
Uh, um . . . patents on bouncy scrolling and slide to unlock.
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.
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: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:Obamaphone (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
A lot of their competition didn't make $12.2B in profit.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The only thing Apple makes in the US are profits and vacation plans.
And iMacs [slashdot.org]. And R&D [slashdot.org]. Etc.
Re: (Score:3)
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: (Score:3)
Which is the typical way this president handles everything: He cares a great deal about the rule of law, except when its inconvenient.
Re: (Score:3)
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 t
Re: (Score:3)
So does Samsung.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Then Apple should have nothing at all to worry about.
Re:Rightly So (Score:5, Insightful)
> 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.
FRAND is voluntary (Score:3)
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
Re: (Score:2)
Perhaps, but a different kind of technology. FRAND patents covering radio communications require billions of dollars in research and development to push the envelope of how much data can be transmitted, how to transition from one tower to another in the middle of a phone call with no interruption, etc. I seriously doubt Apple's "R&D" on bounceback scrolling and slide to unlock is anywhere near the amount of money Sam
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Who said they're being jerks, Perhaps its Apple that's being unreasonable. As far as I know the ITC agreed that Samsung's requests were reasonable, but no one knows the exact nature of the negotiations.
If you have a non-standard patent, you can get an injunction against import, because the infringer has the option to design around the patent. If you have a standard patent, you have already agreed that you will not get injunctions as part of promoting the standard, and can only get monetary damages.
Do you have a source for that? Is it in the agreement? Also this quote from groklaw [groklaw.net] "That told the world that injunctions are available to FRAND patent owners"
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
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 lice
Re:Rightly So (Score:5, Interesting)
> 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.
Re: (Score:3)
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
Re: (Score:2, Offtopic)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
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] [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
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]
Modern corruption. (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)