Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

Samsung Loses $1 Billion in Market Value After U.S. Veto on Apple Ban, Files Appeal Against Patent Ruling

Gasu E. said:
LOL. The President does not have to power to veto the Judicial branch-- the US courts-- that is NOT part of checks and balances.

But the ITC is not part of the Judicial branch. It is subject to the President's veto.

A lot of people are not getting that this veto was a. totally legal, b. nothing to do with your usual perception of courts, and c. the only remediation available under the current law-- there is no 'court of appeals' for these rulings.
Click to expand...

Yeah not a checks and balances thing. I was wrong, but the point remains. The person I was responding to stated that laws are laws and my point was that the president, or in this case his administration, acted within the confines of the law. The law allows him to veto these decisions.

Saying checks and balances was obviously wrong on my part.
 
Josheh said:
I'm glad somebody in here gets it. Seriously people around here need to read up on this stuff before they start spouting their mouth. I'm not saying Apple acted the best during all of this, but the injunction should have never been granted. There's a reason a lot of companies stepped up and backed Apple on this.

I suggestion that all of you start following the FOSS Patents blog. http://www.fosspatents.com/ Maybe you'll gain a little better of an understanding as to what's going on between these companies.

I'm of the personal opinion that watching the patent litigation between companies shows more about those companies than the PR does. Apple has shown how childish it can be, but generally it's in the right, despite it's actions. The lawsuits it brought against Samsung were over non-essential patents. Samsung is the one that has been pushing apple over standard essential patents. The litigation between Motorola and Apple is interesting too. Another case where Apple was in the right, but played childishly and it bit them. Microsoft and Motorola on the other hand, they've been grown up about it and Motorola has been losing hard in the courts because of it. If Apple stopped playing so childishly they'd probably fair a little better.
Click to expand...

Protecting the IP of your company is not "childish", and certainly, Motorola is not acting as the "grownup" with its treatment of SEP's in its battle with MS.
 
gnasher729 said:
It's not quite like that. Samsung has to make these patents available to everyone, including Apple, under fair and non-discriminatory conditions. So if Samsung isn't doing that, what is Apple supposed to do? Not build a phone? Pay extortion money? Or use the patent and let the courts sort out what "fair and non-discriminatory" means?

I think quite recently the Google owned Motorola has been suing Microsoft to get $4 billion in a similar situation, and was finally awarded $2 million, which is 0.05% of what they were asking for. Samsung's situation is quite similar.
Click to expand...

That's not the point here - the point is: the administration vetoed the court ruling but wouldn't do the same for a foreign company.
 
kis said:
That's not the point here - the point is: the administration vetoed the court ruling but wouldn't do the same for a foreign company.
Click to expand...

Why so you refuse to understand why this case was different? I'm really curious.
 
orthorim said:
Mistake - please. Money was flowing, that's all. It's blatantly obvious that this should never have gone through. Miraculously, it happened. Follow the money to know why.
Click to expand...

I agree it really looks like a government shakedown. Sad and pathetic, but still, that's on our government. Making bad decisions after bad decisions. And this is a bipartisan shakedown too, let's be clear, they all want their "Lobby" money.
 
mtneer said:
they better act like they belong and completely open up their economy.
Click to expand...

You mean like the US? You're contradicting yourself. Also, Apple isn't "your interest". Apple is a private company. Do you think Samsung doesn't employ anyone in the US?

----------
Plutonius said:
They were not FRAND patents. I expect the administration to overturn any sales bans based on FRAND patents no matter who the company is.
Click to expand...

And I'm willing to bet that it's not gonna happen.
 
rjohnstone said:
The ITC ruled that Samsung was negotiating in good faith and that it was Apple who walked away from the table.
The President is playing protectionism politics and it will come back and bite him (politically) in the future.
Remember... FRAND does not mean Free.
And anyone arguing about the deal Samsung had with Infinion fails to understand what the deal was.
It was renewal time and Samsung was under no obligation to renew the licensing deal under the previous terms.
Click to expand...

The dissenting opinion was that this was not the case. Plenty of people have linked to it already.
 
kis said:
That's not the point here - the point is: the administration vetoed the court ruling but wouldn't do the same for a foreign company.
Click to expand...

The veto was not about the companies involved. If the ban was based on a FRAND patent, the government would veto it regardless who the company was. Look at the list of companies that requested the veto. They all realized the consequences on future licensing if the ITC ban stood.

kis said:
And I'm willing to bet that it's not gonna happen.
Click to expand...

Seeing how this is the first time in history that a product was banned over FRAND patents, you might have to wait a long time before you see if you would win your bet.
 
ElTorro said:
It's the opposite. Apple's suing Samsung came back and bit them in the ass with this ITC ruling, but due to unknown behind the scenes dealings the President showed that Apple is above the law. This will not go down well with a lot of people and at the end, it will hurt Apple more than you'd think.
Click to expand...

well do you remember what the first lawsuit was for?
 
rjohnstone said:
The President is playing protectionism politics and it will come back and bite him (politically) in the future.
Click to expand...

Just curious-- in what form do you envision this will come back to bite him politically? The tea-party reps in Congress won't negotiate with him because he is being mean to a big business (Samsung)? The trade unions won't support him because he is favoring a US company over a foreign one? Some group of voters is going to switch their allegiance from Dem to Rep over this? Samsung stockholders will adopt a "Second amendment Solution"? What exactly is going happen politically?
 
TMay said:
Protecting the IP of your company is not "childish", and certainly, Motorola is not acting as the "grownup" with its treatment of SEP's in its battle with MS.
Click to expand...

Regardless of one's position, the use of the word "childish" (by prior respondants) to describe corporate business decisions is in itself "childish".

----------
kis said:
That's not the point here - the point is: the administration vetoed the court ruling but wouldn't do the same for a foreign company.
Click to expand...

That's not your point. But it was the Trade Representive's point went he issued the ruling-- it is 100% about FRAND. Read the ruling!!!!
 
Four oF NINE said:
I don't even understand how this is a big deal.. Those iPads are obsolete, so is the iPhone 3G, 3GS, and the 4 will be as well in a few weeks.
Click to expand...

But, if the injunction was granted, it would set a precedent for for samsung to use FRAND patents to go after other companies.

And an unethical company like samsung would have no issues doing this.
 
Chupa Chupa said:
You can't logically use the argument "laws are laws" and then state the U.S. went over the judge's head as if it was a rogue effort.

It's the U.S. President's legal right to veto an ITC decision. See: 19 U.S.C. § 1337(j). (If you don't know what that is its a legal site to the U.S LAW that gives the president veto power here -- laws are laws, right?).




Confused by this. The ITC itself is independent of the administrative branch and only Obama, as the U.S. President, has the power to veto an ITC decision. So what exactly do you mean when you say it was his administration that dealt with it? I don't follow as far as the ITC decision and veto are concerned.
Click to expand...

Yeah.... so that's gotta be one of the most epic forum wins I've ever seen. Congrats, sir! :cool:
 
thepowerofnone said:
Not surprised. The veto was a really, really stupid thing to do. These devices aren't on sale anymore, with the exception of the iPhone 4 which is soon to be redundant too. It looks like Apple is being uniquely protected by the American government - its the sort of thing you might expect of a news report out of China, not the States.

Laws are laws; whether the patent battles are silly or not, a judge rules that a sales ban was necessary and the US government just went over their heads.
Click to expand...

You really, really need to check your facts. This was an appeal of an ITC ruling, not a judicial ruling. The administrative "court" operating as part of the ITC is not part of the judiciary created by Art. III of the Constitution. Rather, the ITC was created by Congress for the purpose of protecting U.S. trade interests and the agency is under the control of the Executive Branch, i.e., the President of the United States. Any order issued by the ITC is subject by law to presidential veto. It is not a court, at least not like any court you've ever seen.

Nor did Apple receive preferential treatment. The ITC's order amounted to a trade sanction against a U.S. company, exactly the opposite of the agency's purpose. It also placed the agency in conflict with the way courts were interpreting some of the relevant patent law. The president does not have the power to eliminate the entire agency (although that would be proper -- it truly is the worst example of beauracracy run amok -- so he acted within his authority, as explicitly granted by Congress, to protect U.S. trade interests.
 
Gasu E. said:
Just curious-- in what form do you envision this will come back to bite him politically? The tea-party reps in Congress won't negotiate with him because he is being mean to a big business (Samsung)? The trade unions won't support him because he is favoring a US company over a foreign one? Some group of voters is going to switch their allegiance from Dem to Rep over this? Samsung stockholders will adopt a "Second amendment Solution"? What exactly is going happen politically?
Click to expand...

The Republic of Samsun..... errr... I mean the South Korean republic might just invite Edward Snowden to Seoul and grant him permanent asylum, just to spite Obama. :D
 
The ITC should never have granted the ban in the first place. The FTC had already warned them not to do it. Now it just made the whole situation much messier than it would have been if they had just denied the ban.
 
Solomani said:
The Republic of Samsun..... errr... I mean the South Korean republic might just invite Edward Snowden to Seoul and grant him permanent asylum, just to spite Obama. :D
Click to expand...

I realize you're probably being facetious but I'm willing to bet South Korea would not want to risk jeopardizing US/SK relations by doing such a thing, considering the Wacko that resides to the north of them and the resources the US have invested over there to help protect them from said Wacko. Just sayin'.;)
 
bryanck said:
The ITC should never have granted the ban in the first place. The FTC had already warned them not to do it. Now it just made the whole situation much messier than it would have been if they had just denied the ban.
Click to expand...

Eh there's really no mess, the veto can't be appealed and Samsung is still free to seek compensation for their patents.
 
rjohnstone said:
The ITC ruled that Samsung was negotiating in good faith and that it was Apple who walked away from the table.
The President is playing protectionism politics and it will come back and bite him (politically) in the future.
Remember... FRAND does not mean Free.
And anyone arguing about the deal Samsung had with Infinion fails to understand what the deal was.
It was renewal time and Samsung was under no obligation to renew the licensing deal under the previous terms.
Click to expand...

Was it good faith to request a royalty of 2.4-2.7% of the entire cost of the phone, and/or the inclusion of non-SEP patent licensing?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back