President fails to use veto; some older model Samsung devices are now impacted by import ban
0. phoneArena 08 Oct 2013, 13:20 posted on
The 60 days that President Obama had to veto an import ban won by Apple against Samsung have now expired; that means that certain older model devices from the Korean based manufacturer are no longer allowed to be shipped into the U.S. There will be many who feel that Obama's response is unfair since he vetoed a potential ban on the Apple iPhone 4 and other iPhone and iPad models...
This is a discussion for a news. To read the whole news, click here
1. Ninetysix (Posts: 2044; Member since: 08 Oct 2012)
No biggie. These are ancient devices anyways.
6. 14545 (Posts: 1286; Member since: 22 Nov 2011)
It is a biggie. It's still about the fact that this lame president, just like the last one, showed who paid his campaign. He should be impeached and put on trial for war crimes, just like his predecessor. I wish the people of this nation weren't so stupid to actually believe the things these idiots say.
9. Dorothy69 (banned) (Posts: 498; Member since: 21 May 2013)
They are and unfortunately it's the future of this once great nation.
13. techaman (unregistered)
this is correct the fact he allowed apple in because his kids wanted one, and its and "American" company that makes phones over in china for pennys on the dollar and then sell them for hundreds it not thousands to others and most are made from parts from Samsung and lg. f the president bring in Hillary to fix the mess he continued to bring us.
91. 14545 (Posts: 1286; Member since: 22 Nov 2011)
Hillary won't fix anything. She is just as back as Obama/Shrub jr./Bill/Shrub Sr./Reagan/Etc. Politicians are all the same. None of them know what to believe until the polling comes out. Also, they all want supreme State power(intentionally capitalized). They just want to use it for their own specific purposes. (IE, the right wants the power of the state to prevent gays from marrying etc. The left wants to raise taxes, etc. ) This is the fundamental difference between liberty and tyranny, and it is BOTH PARTIES that stand in the way of the people and their freedoms.
85. 14545 (Posts: 1286; Member since: 22 Nov 2011)
How exactly. If you can't speak in specifics then STFU.
31. clevername (Posts: 1435; Member since: 11 Jul 2008)
his predecessor wasn't impeached or put on trial for war crimes. idk what you're talking about. also, any alleged war crimes have nothing to do with this. keep it relevant or you're just trolling
70. RebelwithoutaClue (Posts: 2112; Member since: 05 Apr 2013)
I don't think he meant that his predecessor was put on trial, but that he should be on trial, same as Obama.
87. 14545 (Posts: 1286; Member since: 22 Nov 2011)
At least someone here can read. Thanks for clarifying for 31. I guess some people can't be bothered to actually read, they just have to jump to conclusions based on a couple of key words.
86. 14545 (Posts: 1286; Member since: 22 Nov 2011)
I never said he was. Reading is FuDaMeNtAl.
36. xtremesv (Posts: 276; Member since: 21 Oct 2011)
Yeap that's lame but understandable as the US has the largest corporacracy of the world. It's a pity that the power of their nation resides in those who can patronize politicians.
54. Dr.Tom (Posts: 46; Member since: 11 May 2013)
War crimes? REALLY! You compare a liar who bankrupt our country (BUSH) with a lame black guy? You sound like an obtuse imbecile! The products are not for sale now for the last two years. This is just verbal diarrhea with no effects on real market.
84. 14545 (Posts: 1286; Member since: 22 Nov 2011)
You must be really dense. Also, you claim me to be "an obtuse imbecile" but yet you can't even put together a sentence. "The products are not for sale now for the last two years."
WTF does this mean? Either it is not for sale not, or it hasn't been on sale in two years. The statement is redundant. Also, what is so hard to understand about war crimes? You claim "x" president bankrupted the country, but the national debt is on track to DOUBLE under the current admin. Not even the dipsh!t criminal shrub jr. did that. Shrub jr. took the national debt from ~6 trillion to ~10 trillion, Obama in half the time has gone from 10t to 16t in ALMOST HALF THE TIME. So please get a grip on reality before you speak next time. NO POLITICIAN actually cares about this country, they care about their next campaign donation and winning the next election AT ALL COSTS. DO YOU NOT GET THIS? Also, BOTH Shrub and Obama have killed INNOCENT people via drone strikes and other. Not to mention the deaths to a few american citizens WITHOUT DUE PROCESS. But I guess that is OK too, right? It's idiots like you that drive me insane. YOU ARE WHAT IS WRONG WITH THE WORLD, not just this country.
15. Topcat488 (Posts: 1314; Member since: 29 Sep 2012)
USA! USA! USA!
If you don't like it, LUMP it... Apple rules on this side of town, don't forget it.
26. gust3r3u (Posts: 84; Member since: 11 Apr 2013)
yes it does, not something to be proud of tho ...
30. Ravail (Posts: 182; Member since: 14 Oct 2011)
Lol Android rules this side of town... Get your facts straight.
Android runs on 52% of smartphones in the US as of June 2013.
21. ardent1 (Posts: 2000; Member since: 16 Apr 2011)
This is a HUGE decision because Samsung forced the issue at ITC. However, in the case of Samsung they were caught trying to extort Apple based on a FRAND-related 3G patent. Thus was Samsung's flawed strategy from the getco.
When ITC banned Apple products, it only made sense the President veto the ban. Now when it's Samsung's turn, ITC was consistent except Samsung's flawed strategy came back to bite them in the butt. The President is not going to save Samsung that has been adjudicated in a court of law to steal IP. What the hell was Samsung smoking?
Extorting companies using FRAND-related patents is just dumb -- just ask Google and Moto; it doesn't work. Samsung will learn the hard way in Europe and in the US. Just you wait.
25. VZWuser76 (Posts: 2914; Member since: 04 Mar 2010)
So your argument is because a court of law found them guilty of stealing ip previously, they should be found guilty of it anytime it comes about in the future?
As I have said more times than I can count, this patent BS is being allowed to happen because we are leaving it in the companies' hands to resolve. That's like asking 5 year olds to play nice. The decision to resolve these matters needs to be taken out of their hands. And before anyone says anything about that being unfair, by going to the courts, they are already leaving the decision to someone else. Make this entity separate from the courts and have it ONLY deal with patent disputes. And as I have said before, set up a tiered system of patent value. Less important patents garner the least amount, essential patents get the highest amount.
60. ardent1 (Posts: 2000; Member since: 16 Apr 2011)
As we speak, Samsung continues to challenge that judgement. Talk about being a sore loser.
65. joey_sfb (Posts: 4602; Member since: 29 Mar 2012)
ardent1, ask yourself is having 3G standard, Bluetooth standard, usb standard and other standards. Good for consumer? If so, how would you encourage companies to contribute technology to standard.
you are a brain washed individual with little thought for any things other than the few beloved brands.
Apple and Microsoft action are in fact tearing down the building block that advance our modern days technology.
71. RebelwithoutaClue (Posts: 2112; Member since: 05 Apr 2013)
Like Apple doesnt continue to challenge judgement after judgement? They are challenging the judgement on the trial about conspiring with five major publishers. Talk about sore losers.
79. ardent1 (Posts: 2000; Member since: 16 Apr 2011)
You are just being unctuous.
You mean like how Samsung blatantly copied, was adjudicated as a copyist, AND then went after the head juror.
That is the type of sore loser I am talking about.
92. joey_sfb (Posts: 4602; Member since: 29 Mar 2012)
Samsung did not went after the head juror.
The head juror couldn't keep his mouth shut, he is having too much enjoyment goating on how he single handed influnce the other juror into punishing Samsung. For old time sake.
Yeah! that the truth and the head juror will repeat it again and again...if he has to.
2. vikingsfootball09 (Posts: 70; Member since: 02 Oct 2013)
more important is that the president showed the world that the u.s. government plays unfair. the u.s. justice system is so wrong and corrupt.
58. joey_sfb (Posts: 4602; Member since: 29 Mar 2012)
Do you know that Apple main office is registered in Ireland to avoid American corporate tax and their manufacturing partner is Foxconn, a Chinese sweatshop. So there nothing American about them except their claims and hype. I think Obama should not get involve for both companies except to return the favor for Apple campaign donation to Obama.
3. Googler (Posts: 813; Member since: 10 Jun 2013)
Of course, Apple is an American company so they got their veto. Samsung is Korean, no veto. Lame bias from a guy who says he wants to promote technology.
10. Dorothy69 (banned) (Posts: 498; Member since: 21 May 2013)
The only thing he wants to promote is JayZ and basketball.
18. Googler (Posts: 813; Member since: 10 Jun 2013)
He does promote one kind of technology, drones. They are now being used inside the US for surveillance of its citizens. Unfortunately they carry more than just cameras.
35. Whateverman (Posts: 3237; Member since: 17 May 2009)
You always have some underhanded racist comment to say. And let's not play innocent, you're always saying very offensive things about African-American people and this just ain't the place for it.
38. wrm2013 (Posts: 196; Member since: 28 Mar 2013)
What did he say that was racist? You idiots cry racism every chance you get. He likes jay-z and he likes basketball Wtf is racist? Ooooooo it's because hes black and you can't say anything about him. White America gets it, he's the first black half black president. It would be an accomplishment if he wasn't so blatantly destroying this country. We now live in a country where it's illegal not to have health care.
40. MikeG77 (Posts: 397; Member since: 24 Nov 2008)
BINGO someone finally gets it. When it comes to the current administration the motto is "do as i say not as i do". Personally I dont think his statement was racist but more sarcastic than anything else. People need to stop being so thin skinned about disagreeing with the president. Just because someone does not like his policies or what he says does not make one a racist.
42. Whateverman (Posts: 3237; Member since: 17 May 2009)
It's like I told the person above you, it's not really about the President. More about the many things this person has said to many people on this site, who would like to keep it about tech. I don't like this move either, so I agree with what many people here are saying. But if you don't see it, it's okay to NOT understand. Maybe you don't know what racism REALLY feels like. But that doesn't take away from the fact that this person is alway saying something offensive. And this just isn't the place for that.
47. Dorothy69 (banned) (Posts: 498; Member since: 21 May 2013)
Thank you, thin-skinned and cry racism for every little thing - you can't even breathe a certain way anymore without someone who obviously has unresolved issues from their parents' childhood crying damn racism. I'm not even going to address those two - cuz' they ain't worth da' time a' DAY!!
48. darkkjedii (Posts: 17026; Member since: 05 Feb 2011)
It's cool dude, you'll have yourself limited soon enough. In the meantime we'll deal with your useless racist banter "sir".
51. Whateverman (Posts: 3237; Member since: 17 May 2009)
"da' time a' Day" What is that? If you were a real man, you would find a way to get your point across without trying to be insulting (which by the way, is only making you look more like the clown you are).
You can tell yourself I'm thin-skinned if that's what you have to tell yourself, but it doesn't change what you have been doing here. Just to clarify, this is me calling you on your bull. We're here to talk about phones and yes, it gets political sometimes, but it should never get racial. This ain't the place for it, so
41. Whateverman (Posts: 3237; Member since: 17 May 2009)
You're new here, so I'll try my best to overlook the blantant disrespect you've just shown. But know this dude... I'm not the one.
As for your comment, you don't know the history behind some of the things this person says not just about the President, but about other African-AMERICANS on this site as well. The President hasn't "promoted" Jay Z or basketball, but he has promoted a health care plan that covers millions of people who could get it, or couldn't afford it before. But all this person can remember is Jay Z and basketball. You're intitled to feel however you want as am I, which for the record I think he will he's doing a fantastic job! But again this isn't about the President, this is about the racist attitude this individual shows often. So stop getting all upset, because you're barking up the wrong tree. Have yourself a great day.
45. darkkjedii (Posts: 17026; Member since: 05 Feb 2011)
WhateverMan, you and I are not asleep, we know the motive behind what that Dorothy guy is saying. He's blatantly racist with me several time, and been limited for it. Wrm2013 is new, and probably feels how ol boy Dorothy feels. 5 10 and 85 is all I got to say.
50. wrm2013 (Posts: 196; Member since: 28 Mar 2013)
It's also illegal now if you don't have health insurance. It's also a robin hood way of doing things. Aside from that it isn't sustainable. U can act educated and say a bunch of things and that's fine but it's just that saying a bunch of things.
44. darkkjedii (Posts: 17026; Member since: 05 Feb 2011)
It should've always been illegal, and Dorothy is a huge racist. He says that in a way that goes under the radar, but PA has limited him a few times for it. Whateverman is not stupid, an idiot or a crybaby. He's awake, not part of the 85%
46. MartyK (Posts: 732; Member since: 11 Apr 2012)
What ever you know exactly what his sublime message mean, The president of the USA also like education, and the Constitution of the USA because he study and teach that subject.. Can't tell trailers this cause it don't understand/comprehend intelligent people
49. MartyK (Posts: 732; Member since: 11 Apr 2012)
Why are you arguing about a law that was passed?.
You and the conservative, brought your lack of knowledge of the Constitution against a person who know more about the document. Let go of it, you will NOT get a free ride on our tax dollars, pay your Own medical bill!
52. Dorothy69 (banned) (Posts: 498; Member since: 21 May 2013)
Thank you - we can't even turn a profit anymore on the farm because of all the taxes we has to pay for all these social programs for the disenfranchised - anyway, I think it was hypocritical of this prez not to veto the Samsung ban like he did the Apple ban.
78. Dorothy69 (banned) (Posts: 498; Member since: 21 May 2013)
lol .... how can you be first black half black??
43. darkkjedii (Posts: 17026; Member since: 05 Feb 2011)
I'm glad someone notices that, other than me +1
53. Whateverman (Posts: 3237; Member since: 17 May 2009)
Oh yeah, I noticed it a long time ago and my I say you handled him/her like a true gentleman! So I never said anything, just tried to ignore it. But I'm tired of it will end, now!
55. MikeG77 (Posts: 397; Member since: 24 Nov 2008)
I never said his comment was appropriate and I can see where you see it as inappropriate and that's fine. At the end of the we shouldn't be making any racist comments at all regardless of the article or who/what its about. I would like to think that we could all agree that this was not a good move on President Obama's part and leave it at that.
In regards to racism and to not know what it feels like you have no clue. I have a better understanding than you think seeing as I'm mixed just like the president and experienced racism from both sides. I grew up in a small community where I was 1 of only 3 non whites in my graduating class and did @#$% happen? Yes it did but my Mother and Father told me to just be me to be proud of who I am, my accomplishments and it doesn't matter what someone else thinks.
56. Dorothy69 (banned) (Posts: 498; Member since: 21 May 2013)
Thank you - and your parents did an excellent job of teaching you not to allow yourself to be paranoiacally defined by your grandparents' past. These two just wanna cry "victim" and victims of "racism" because it's easier, instead of as you say 'being proud of who they are and their accomplishments' which for one we know involves a daily route. Unfortunately, I can't go around the interweb enabling anyone's inferiority complex. Bottom line, decision by BamBam not to veto is reprehensible!!
59. Whateverman (Posts: 3237; Member since: 17 May 2009)
Ooooh, big words! Someone had to pull out their thesaurus, huh? But you still sound like a clown. Mark that comment as a "fail" because you're fooling no one. You keep making racist comment and you just can't stand the fact that I'm calling you on it. Well, if you're gonna keep making them, then get use to it.
I also notice you never have the courage to reply back to the people you insult. Maybe you should be the Cowardly Lion instead.
57. Whateverman (Posts: 3237; Member since: 17 May 2009)
I didn't mean to offend or sound as though I know what your experience has been, my beef is with Dorothy.
72. darkkjedii (Posts: 17026; Member since: 05 Feb 2011)
Dorothy will continue to run off at the mouth, like he always does. PA will tire of him, and limit him as usual. This is his routine bro, how he gets his attention I guess. Oh well, just like Troll went too far, and got a permanent ban, so will he. It's just a matter of time WM. +1
23. ardent1 (Posts: 2000; Member since: 16 Apr 2011)
More like Samsung steals IP and wants to extort using FRAND-related patent to hurt an American company. Thus, Samsung doesn't get the veto.
27. VZWuser76 (Posts: 2914; Member since: 04 Mar 2010)
I'm really getting sick of this argument. So Samsung is extorting FRAND related patents, but it's okay for Apple and MS to do the same for non FRAND? As I recall, in one negotiation didn't Apple refuse to license one of their patents because they didn't need the money? How is that not using the patent system to set the playing field?
Standard essential patents are just that, essential. They are made a standard otherwise the mobile industry would be a total mess with each manufacturer using different technologies. But after seeing how those with FRAND are treated, there's no way I'd want any patents to be so.
Say company A has a patent that makes it possible for 2 devices to communicate, and company B has a patent relating to the shape of a device. Company A's patent becomes a FRAND patent, company B's does not. When the two companies go to license them to each other, company A must be fair and reasonable for a patent that everyone needs for their device, while company B charges an exhorbitant amount for what is basically a design and not necessary but is the most intuitive & sensible design. Now tell me, does that seem fair to you? Because I guarantee you a lot more time, money and effort went into the 3G patents than for a rectangle with rounded corners.
61. ardent1 (Posts: 2000; Member since: 16 Apr 2011)
VZWuser76: you need to discern design patents from FRAND-related patents.
If you have a design patent, I can out-invent you. Samsung chose to steal IP rather than out-invent Apple. They got caught. They jury sent a strong signal.
As for FRAND-related, the regulators understand you can out-invent these patents thus the FRAND standard.
The short answer to your question: If you ARE LAZY and don't want to invent something new, then pay the price. America is built on people, companies, et al that invent things.