Funny, I thought I was reading a thread about the FRAND licensing dispute between Samsung and Apple. Do these forums not have a politics board for all this other ranting?
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Obama Administration Vetoes Partial Ban on Apple Products
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
- Status
That's a good point. While I don't agree at all that Samsung should be able to ban import of iPhones for infringing on standard essential patents (and in the EU Samsung had to abandon attempts to do this or be faced with a multi-billion Euro fine), it's quite pathetic that such a ban should only happen years later when the product is close to end of sale. That's of course a problem that Apple faces as well the other way round.
Apple has been willing the entire time to pay the same FRAND licensing fees that Samsung offered to Microsoft and Google for this same patent. I think initially there was some confusion over the part in question (a baseband chip made by Infineon) because it was thought that Infineon had already paid the license for it. You don't get to double dip on the licensing. But beyond that, Samsung was demanding several times more from Apple for the same patent than they were getting from MS and others. That's where the "discriminatory" part of FRAND kicks in. You can't do that.
Motorola discovered this when they tried to extort Apple on SEPs a few months back. Samsung will get their money, they just won't be able to turn it into a lottery ticket windfall. If they wanted to be able to charge whatever they felt the market would bear, they shouldn't have applied for this tech to be Standards Essential.
No. The government did exactly what it is supposed to do: Check decisions of the USITC and find whether they agree with the country's policies and reject them if they don't.
The usual rate is something like 2% of the chip in question, which would be 2% of a $10 or $20 chip. Samsung wanted 2% of the whole iPhone. Since an iPhone like any other smartphone is so many different things, it propably uses lots of standard essential patents - phone patents, music player patents, video player patents, email patents, and so on and so on. If Samsung paid 2% of the S4 sales price for every standard essential patent that phone uses, they would have to pay out more than 100% for every phone sold.
There WAS NO veto. And Obama didn't do anything. I don't understand why so many people fail to see through MacRumors sensational headline and article. Did you read the letter??
"This authority has been assigned to the United States Trade Representative"
That means the President didn't do it (of course he knew about it)
And the options availabe were to "approve", "disapprove" or "take no action". Notice that "veto" is not an option.
Don't call other people "dumb" if you aren't fully reading and comprehending the article and letter yourself.
If it were only that easy. There are too many lobbyists and powerful special interest groups that pay off politicians to keep things the way they are.
I read somewhere (iSuppli I think it was) that the part in question was just under $12, so 2% would be around $2.30 per phone sold. Samsung was demanding $18 per phone, or 3% of the $600 retail price of the phone. The former figure is more in line with what they licensed the same patent to Microsoft for.
corporations use government roads, government airports, and a government court system to enforce contracts.
They hire students educated at public schools and universities.
Exactly how do corporations make any money without the infrastructure provided by government?
I see this as firstly, the US government wishing to match the Korean government etc as they have backed Samsung, so Obama is doing the same for an American company.
Secondly, it's pathetic anyway and hypocritical as until the US government takes it's corrupt and bent patent system and subsequent patent courts and scraps it all, then whatever they do will remain hypocritical.
The entire system needs scraping and starting from scratch and made to be fair and corruption free.
Then again I would also bet money that Obama is only stepping in because the government have struck a deal with Apple to start to bring manufacturing back to America, when it comes to corporations and government their is usually ALWAY'S an ulterior motive at hand, no one scratches the others back for free.
Secondly, it's pathetic anyway and hypocritical as until the US government takes it's corrupt and bent patent system and subsequent patent courts and scraps it all, then whatever they do will remain hypocritical.
The entire system needs scraping and starting from scratch and made to be fair and corruption free.
Then again I would also bet money that Obama is only stepping in because the government have struck a deal with Apple to start to bring manufacturing back to America, when it comes to corporations and government their is usually ALWAY'S an ulterior motive at hand, no one scratches the others back for free.
Actually I think you have it wrong becaus you forgot to mention:
3. Media needs to create news and phenomena for the masses. Just like the iPhone hype was a media phenomenon the same applies to terrorism. All of a sudden when some guy named Snowden appears we have fake news popping up about upcomming terror events.
Just one thing to keep in mind: All this #prism and #tempora stuff didn't stop the Boston marathon attack. Though this guy was an American student online like usual.
Actually dumbed down Joe Average is spoon-fed so called selected facts (they are the truth, yet most of the time there is a biased picture painted) to create attention, viewers, clicks and therefore money.
Once upon a time I had a lot of respect for Michael Moore because I liked his agenda. Nevertheless he also is a professional neglecter of facts he doesn't like.
On topic:
Now could the administration just please, pretty please, fix this mess of a system on patents? Things have become so ridiculous that you sometimes think you should create a "patent on biochemical energy creation using carbohydrates in conjunction with oxygene".
hahaha good shout, yeap so a Ambassador Michael B.G. Froman officially choosing to 'disapprove' the order, magically turns into the American President vetoing the order hahaha, great sensationalist journalism at it's finest
Most of those are debatable or controversial or most of the work was done by Congress and he merely signed the bills they sent him.
What you should have said was:
- Ordered SEALs into Pakistan to put a bullet in Osama bin Laden's head.
While I do not agree with PRISM or anything of the such (it disgusts me), you do realize GWB initiated "The Patriot Act" and this has been going on for decades. GWB's administration was in a similar scandal when he extended the scope of wiretapping and surveillance, using "The War on Terror" as an excuse in conjunction with AT&T (who also got caught with their pants down).
Again, I am extremely disheartened that these programs have been initiated and used against our knowledge, however you cannot blame one administration. It's been going on for a long time. It certainly doesn't help when members of Congress and others who knew feign outrage. Some political opponents are fanning the flames to point the finger at others when truly, THEY'RE ALL TO BLAME. When you point fingers, make sure you include GWB, Clinton, GB, Reagan, Carter, Nixon, etc. Technology has allowed a much broader scope.
True, although POTUS was certainly involved and absolutely initiated many of those policies. Using that excuse you could state the same for every president we have ever had.
The one thing that bothers me about bin Laden; why did we give him a "proper" burial out to sea? No disrespect to anyone who practices such, it just really surprised me.
Last edited:
I definitely don't want to argue about your list, I just meant to say that some people are going to have problems with various items you listed. Most of those are going to have some segment of people saying they're not good things, or they'd have happened regardless and he doesn't deserve the credit, or they're simply untrue.
Hard to argue with getting bin Laden, though. I was just surprised you didn't include it on your list.
The burial at sea was kind of a cop-out, really. The fact is, many actually did feel disrespected by it. We dumped the body at sea because it was easy, and would cause a minimum of political problems back home. It was not the preferred islamic tradition, and many muslim leaders objected over it. Osama's gravesite would not have become a shrine regardless. We just didn't want to deal with it, so we dumped it in the quickest way we could while maintaining the appearance that we cared about his religion.
Ironic, I know.
I know I'll get slack for this, while Obama's administration was certainly a key factor, I can't disregard the intelligence gathered from many administrations that assisted. I just find the whole "we're respecting his religious rights" burial out to sea so odd.
Ah, good points and excuse my ignorance. I'm of no particular faith, so I'm rather uninformed on the matters/practices of certain faiths.
On another note, I was logged out of MacRumors and couldn't log back in. I thought, "****, did I get banned." Kept trying, and trying, then I realized, "oh, private browsing is on." Yeah, natural blond.
Last edited:
Ironic, I know.
I know I'll get slack for this, while Obama's administration was certainly a key factor, I can't disregard the intelligence gathered from many administrations that assisted.
I think you have to look at it as the leadership it took to give the order, for that particular kind of raid. Another president might have dropped a bomb from a plane (and risked being unable to verify we got him). Another president might have worked with the Pakistanis (and risked them warning bin Laden to escape). I remember very clearly in the one debate where McCain said we shouldn't violate Pakistani airspace, and Obama said he would if it meant getting bin Laden. When it comes down to it, it wasn't Bush or Obama or any other president who was on the ground tracking couriers. But it was a commander-in-chief who sent special forces operators into harm's way, and that's the decision that counts.
There are plenty of things I disagree with Obama on, and frankly the list is growing, but I give credit where credit is due.
Excellent point, Sir.
I realize we'll never know but I'd love to have seen exactly what went down (aside from fictional movies, etc). I could not imagine being a part of the SEAL team that night, I'd be pissing myself and finding religion for the first time. lol
Two guys actually...
The problem is that these two guys did lots of things that looked highly suspicious after the attack, but lots of people did exactly the same things absolutely harmlessly. But now we have the police turning up in force when a housewife searches for pressure cookers because she wants one in the kitchen, and her husband looks into buying himself a backpack.
So should we now stop doing things because we are afraid they look suspicious? Tom Clancy did a very elaborate description in one of his books how to build a nuclear bomb (which I'm quite sure contains some fatal blunders that would stop it from working), and I found that very interesting. If you are interested in general how things work, you'd also be interested in knowing how a pressure cooker bomb works. Should I refrain from googling for it because it looks suspicious? I think plenty of muslim fundamentalists are total nutters, but I'd like to know what's really going on in their mind. Should I refrain from visiting their websites because it looks suspicious? Imagine you are a muslim housewife, and you want a pressure cooker because your neighbour told you how great their are. So your husband says "no, you can't have one. I don't want the police coming to our home. Especially since I just bought a backpack for going camping with the kids".
Your list can be broken down mostly into massive cost increases and feel-good measures whose results will be impossible to quantify for decades if ever.
Woohoo.
Then go for it.
Now, don't forget Obama was handed one of the worst economies outside of "The Great Depression," even his toughest critics recognize he has done the best as anyone could in his position. The unemployment rate is the best it has been in a long time. Additionally, when Obama took office the GWB administrations Iraq costs were not budgeted.
In fact, you'd be surprised that Obama has spent the least amount of money in his first term:
Viral Facebook post says Barack Obama has lowest spending record of any recent president
Before you disregard the above, it started with a chart that opened a dialog regarding fact checking of the Obama administrations spending. Many financial experts, et al have tackled this issue with similar conclusions. It's a misnomer to state Obama has outspent any President to date at an alarming rate.
Attachments
Last edited:
Remember, only Apple has a right to steal. Samsung never got their products near a ban, but...they're copycats, right? RIGHT?
- Status