Samsung Fails to Win Presidential Veto of Potential U.S. Import Ban in Apple Patent Case

[MacRumors]

Samsung has failed to win a presidential veto overturning a looming import ban on several of its older mobile devices, reports Bloomberg. The ban is based on a verdict in a U.S. International Trade Commission case in which the company was ruled to have infringed upon patents held by Apple.

"After carefully weighing policy considerations, including the impact on consumers and competition, advice from agencies, and information from interested parties, I have decided to allow" the import ban to proceed, Obama's designee, U.S. Trade Representative Michael Froman, said in a statement today.

The Office of the United States Trade Representative last month vetoed a similar ban that had been issued against Apple over Samsung patents. That order was the first such veto since 1987 and came amid increasing calls for less reliance on the threat of barring product imports as part of patent litigation strategies. In particular, Samsung's wielding of "standards essential" patents covering basic functions of the device necessary for its operation was seen as overly aggressive when such patents are required to be licensed under reasonable terms.

Samsung had argued that its ban should be overturned on grounds similar to those cited in the Apple ban veto, but Froman disagreed, noting that Samsung had already released several devices with approved workarounds for the features that had been ruled to be infringing upon Apple's patents.

Samsung may still seek a delay in the import ban, but that will require a full review of the case on legal ground by a U.S. appeals court.

Article Link: Samsung Fails to Win Presidential Veto of Potential U.S. Import Ban in Apple Patent Case

 

[JAT]

Not surprising. Isn't the govt too busy ignoring its job to do its job?

 

[street.cory]

Ugh.

I know this is necessary to realize that this patent litigation is still going on, but man does it frustrate me.

 

[thermal]

The president has other things on his mind at the moment....

 

[Ursadorable]

Copy THAT bitches!

 

[IbisDoc]

Grinning like a clown at the state of the union speech pays off......again.

 

[DougTheImpaler]

So what's actually banned? Are we talking about the Galaxy S2 or something that you can still actually buy? Does this make much difference to the consumer?

 

[2bikes]

So what's actually banned? Are we talking about the Galaxy S2 or something that you can still actually buy? Does this make much difference to the consumer?

I think it was Galaxy S, Galaxy Tab 10.1... things that Samsung may not even be producing anymore. But this ban could set ground for other items.

Edit: From Bloomberg`s report link...
The import ban is on a limited number of products. The ITC said newer models by Suwon, South Korea-based Samsung had worked around two Apple patents, which covered a multitouch feature and one for a sensor for headphone jacks.

So was this more than a pissing contest between Apple and Samsung?

 

[jonAppleSeed]

"noting that Samsung had already released several devices with approved workarounds for the features that had been ruled to be infringing upon Apple's patents."

So if Samsung didn't actually work around those infringing patents, they would have gotten a presidential veto as well?

 

[Rettun1]

"Samsung fails to win"

That about sums it up right there

 

[KPOM]

"noting that Samsung had already released several devices with approved workarounds for the features that had been ruled to be infringing upon Apple's patents."

So if Samsung didn't actually work around those infringing patents, they would have gotten a presidential veto as well?

I think the fact that they were able to work around it shows that they weren't essential patents. The iPhone 4 and iPad 2 relied on a standards-essential patent that is impossible to work around while maintaining compliance with the standard.

 

[ElTorro]

It's all a big farce. A legitimate ban was vetoed and an illegitimate was upheld. Gives you a lesson on our government's protectionism.

 

[gnasher729]

"noting that Samsung had already released several devices with approved workarounds for the features that had been ruled to be infringing upon Apple's patents."

So if Samsung didn't actually work around those infringing patents, they would have gotten a presidential veto as well?

No. If it was impossible to work around these patents, they might have got a veto. Having worked around them just proved it wasn't impossible to work around them.

----------

It's all a big farce. A legitimate ban was vetoed and an illegitimate was upheld. Gives you a lesson on our government's protectionism.

That's your stated opinion and worth nothing. And the legitimate reasons why one ban was vetoed and the other wasn't are quite clear.

 

[BC2009]

Samsung to ITC: We have a single standards-essential patent that is one of over 200 patents licensed for an $11 baseband chip that is a single part among many in some older iPhones to enable a small piece of a single function of those iPhone and we want a ban on those iPhones even though we have failed to license it on fair and reasonable terms.

Samsung to President Obama: Utility patents that make up a small part of the functionality of a larger smartphone but could have been avoided by implementing alternate methods of accomplishing the same thing should not cause our older smartphones to be banned and we want a veto.

 

[pacalis]

That's your stated opinion and worth nothing.

Pot calling the kettle. Why are you here?

And the legitimate reasons why one ban was vetoed and the other wasn't are quite clear.

It is clear. It's protectionism.

Apple didn't take license to those standard setting patents so that's why the veto. So they didn't innovate and didn't pay. And note, essential standards don't just pop out of nowhere. People invent them. So if Apple is held out by not having access to standard essential patents it's because either they didn't pay later, or they didn't participate earlier, by doing R&D and collaborating in the creation of the standard.

In this case, it's not standard essential so Apple doesn't have to offer a license and didn't. So now they're arguing that because Samsung "innovated," it will be punished.

 

[cmwade77]

Why is anything continuing on patent litigation while the government is shutdown and they are keeping national monuments, parks, etc. closed?

 

[PracticalMac]

woot!

Broke the news here first!

Trying to contribute to this fun and rumorative (nee informative) site.

 

[Xenu007]

Samsung is dirty, and everyone knows it

Samsung is as dirty as Steve Jobs was innovative. Some of the components in the products I use may be Samsung, but I will never purchase a Samsung branded product, ever.

 

[everything-i]

It's all a big farce. A legitimate ban was vetoed and an illegitimate was upheld. Gives you a lesson on our government's protectionism.

Not even the same thing, one was a ban based on standards essential patents and the other was based on patents that have been worked around already. Obtaining a veto is valid where 'standards essential' patents are concerned but not for something that has already been worked around and are therefore not essential. You seem to have no idea what this is all about.

 

[bkushner]

It's all a big farce. A legitimate ban was vetoed and an illegitimate was upheld. Gives you a lesson on our government's protectionism.

The Samesung force is strong in this one. Your cheque is in the mail after 10 more Samesung posts.

 

[Coleman2010]

Good decision. As the right would say Muurica 1st!

 

[giantfan1224]

Pot calling the kettle. Why are you here?



It is clear. It's protectionism.

Apple didn't take license to those standard setting patents so that's why the veto. So they didn't innovate and didn't pay. And note, essential standards don't just pop out of nowhere. People invent them. So if Apple is held out by not having access to standard essential patents it's because either they didn't pay later, or they didn't participate earlier, by doing R&D and collaborating in the creation of the standard.

In this case, it's not standard essential so Apple doesn't have to offer a license and didn't. So now they're arguing that because Samsung "innovated," it will be punished.

I'm failing to see how you don't understand the difference between the two. Not offering reasonable licensing to your patents under FRAND for SEP's vs. being lazy and stealing patents that are not SEP's. That's the difference here and why one ban was vetoed and the other was not.

 

[MikhailT]

Pot calling the kettle. Why are you here? It is clear. It's protectionism.

Apple didn't take license to those standard setting patents so that's why the veto. So they didn't innovate and didn't pay. And note, essential standards don't just pop out of nowhere. People invent them. So if Apple is held out by not having access to standard essential patents it's because either they didn't pay later, or they didn't participate earlier, by doing R&D and collaborating in the creation of the standard.

In this case, it's not standard essential so Apple doesn't have to offer a license and didn't. So now they're arguing that because Samsung "innovated," it will be punished.

it is not protectionism, it is two very clear separate situations and does not prevent Apple from being fined for not paying the SEPs license. The administration made it clear that Apple can still be fined for not paying the SEPs at FRAND prices.

Apple can still be taken to court for refusing to pay for the SEPs if Samsung can prove that the rate they offer was fair and it will be up to the courts to decide the SEP that Apple have to pay if Apple disagrees with Samsung's price.

What's not allowed and has been veto'ed is the use of SEPs to ban imports as a way to negotiate the price.

 

[Someyoungguy]

Pot calling the kettle. Why are you here?



It is clear. It's protectionism.

Apple didn't take license to those standard setting patents so that's why the veto. So they didn't innovate and didn't pay. And note, essential standards don't just pop out of nowhere. People invent them. So if Apple is held out by not having access to standard essential patents it's because either they didn't pay later, or they didn't participate earlier, by doing R&D and collaborating in the creation of the standard.

In this case, it's not standard essential so Apple doesn't have to offer a license and didn't. So now they're arguing that because Samsung "innovated," it will be punished.

You make my head hurt. Do you also get confused by traffic lights?

 

[longofest]

Apple is based in the USA. Samsung is based in Korea.

President of the USA sides with USA based company.

How amazing.