There was NO veto.
Read, people. Read.
Would you please elaborate on what you mean? Seems like a veto to me.
There was NO veto.
Read, people. Read.
Because the government should not intervene only to stop the "most egregious abuse of the system" leaving the merely "egregious abuse of the system" alone. In the past there were already plenty of abuses of the system deserving a veto which was never issued. I have my doubts the government would have vetoed a ban were not a popular american company selling very popular products involved.So if you acknowledge that this instance was "the most egregious abuse of the system", why do you keep implying that there was favoritism involved?
Because the government should not intervene only to stop the "most egregious abuse of the system" leaving the merely "egregious abuse of the system" alone. In the past there were already plenty of abuses of the system deserving a veto which was never issued.
I have my doubts the government would have vetoed a ban were not a popular american company selling very popular products involved.
But I agree that maybe it's just me not believing in coincidences. Maybe the fact that the government is acting only now is indeed a coincidence and it's truly acting because it finally figured out that patents are out of control. If this veto is just a first step which will bring a better patent system for all companies all the better. For sure it must not stay an exception.
Although I still have my doubts I admit that it's plausible. Were this the case it would be a pity if they don't take the chance and review patents in general together with SEPs.Or, maybe, it's about standards essential patents exactly like it claims to be.
Yes it's particularly bothersome to watch as Apple who's already stashed over 80 billion in off shore tax shelters, plus continues to sell massive quantities of their product, isn't impacted to any great degree by Samsung. Not only that Apples already ahead of the game with their stores, all the press that are on their side, and able to sell anything they build.
No I am not contradicting. I am saying the US should do it as long as the Koreans, amongst others, do not play on a level playing field. And Apple is "my interest" as a shareholder - and as a company listed on a stock exchange regulated by the US Government, its fair game to have the government intervene.
Good. Samsung is a company built on stealing ideas
Since Samsung has become the supplier of Apple again, can they find another way of dealing with apple?
The power to veto is also part of the laws of the land. Checks and balances or something
You don't think South Korea protects their industries too? South Korea, China, Japan, etc are all very protective of their industries.
And the US has protected their industries too. Steel companies, airline industry, the automotive industry(chicken tax and the bailouts), etc.
This wasn't simply the government giving Apple special treatment.
You seem to think that the US government acted somehow outside the law. But what they did was actually exactly what they are supposed to do: When the USITC makes a decision, it is actually up to the government to either accept or reject the decision.
You should also note the fact that in the EU, Samsung was threatened with major (multi billion dollar) fines if they should attempt to ban iOS devices over standard essential patents, which is exactly what they managed to do in the USA. If Samsung had gone to a German or French equivalent of the ITC and not the US one, _Samsung_ would have received a major fine.
But someone else found what is likely the reason for the government rejection of the ITC decision which you can check out at here:
http://tech.fortune.cnn.com/2013/08/05/apple-samsung-itc-pinkert/
Dissenting opinion by one of the ITC judges involved. According to this, the ITC decision was very, very wrong in the first place.
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.
In socialism the issue is not regulation, it's state ownership and control of the market. Even in a liberal free market regulation is necessary (e.g. to guarantee fair competition).No government should intervene in the free market. Regulating markets is what socialism is all about.
I disagree. In a democratic society the free market regulates itself. While not always fair, it's a proven system that until recently was highly respected, successful and self sustaining. Sadly the shift in power, and the anti-business attitude of the inexperienced humans at the top of the hierarchy, along with a society that rewards rock star status to pretty people that act cool and detached, has skewed the opinions of many somewhat uninformed Americans.In socialism the issue is not regulation, it's state ownership and control of the market. Even in a liberal free market regulation is necessary (e.g. to guarantee fair competition).
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.
Obviously Samsung has to defend their position, but all they would have to do change their UI (app launcher + other functionality) to something other than something that apes the iPhone UI as Windows did with Windows Phone and everyone could get on with business as usual.
Until recently when? As example antitrust laws in the US are more than a century old and it's definately a kind of regulation you need to keep a free market healthy.I disagree. In a democratic society the free market regulates itself. While not always fair, it's a proven system that until recently was highly respected, successful and self sustaining. Sadly the shift in power, and the anti-business attitude of the inexperienced humans at the top of the hierarchy, along with a society that rewards rock star status to pretty people that act cool and detached, has skewed the opinions of many somewhat uninformed Americans.
I agree 100%.Oh good grief. Samsung stock was down ~1% today. Big deal. Apple had lost billions in market value in a single day for no reason many times. This really is a non story.
Would you please elaborate on what you mean? Seems like a veto to me.
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.
If you go and read the letter where it was claimed they state they have vetoed, the word veto is not mentioned ONCE and the conclusion of it is not worded as such. If you wish to know where the guy is coming from, go and read the letter that was the original part of this story, one or two posts below this story on the front page.
No government should intervene in the free market. Regulating markets is what socialism is all about.
----------
If you go and read the letter where it was claimed they state they have vetoed, the word veto is not mentioned ONCE and the conclusion of it is not worded as such. If you wish to know where the guy is coming from, go and read the letter that was the original part of this story, one or two posts below this story on the front page.
Samsung is still entitled to collect FRAND rates.
Yup. Apple needs to pay up ... the same price that everyone else pays.
Would you please elaborate on what you mean? Seems like a veto to me.
So you think if they don't call it a veto in the letter, it's not a veto?!
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/veto