Got a tip for us? Share it...

New in OS X: Get MacRumors Push Notifications on your Mac

Resubscribe Now Close

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

apple_samsung_logosSamsung 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.

Top Rated Comments

(View all)

13 months ago
Copy THAT bitches!
Rating: 25 Votes
13 months ago
Not surprising. Isn't the govt too busy ignoring its job to do its job?
Rating: 17 Votes
13 months ago
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.
Rating: 15 Votes
13 months ago
That about sums it up right there
Rating: 14 Votes
13 months ago

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.
Rating: 13 Votes
13 months ago

"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.
Rating: 12 Votes
13 months ago

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?
Rating: 12 Votes
13 months ago
Apple is based in the USA. Samsung is based in Korea.

President of the USA sides with USA based company.

How amazing.
Rating: 11 Votes
13 months ago

"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.
Rating: 9 Votes
13 months ago

Pot calling the kettle. Why are you here?

It is clear. It's protectionism.


Clueless, clueless, clueless. And in total disregard of reality.

Rules for standard essential patents and FRAND patents are different from rules for non-essential patents. Samsung had already agreed that anyone is allowed to use their patents. A matter of "fair and reasonable" price, but everyone is allowed to use them. Because everyone is allowed to use them, an import ban when the only open question is the cost of the patent is entirely inappropriate.

Apple's patents are not standard essential, they are not essential at all. As proven by Samsung itself. Apple hasn't agreed to let anyone use these patents. That's the difference.

You should also consider that Samsung has been threatened with a multi billion Euro fine for anti-competitive behaviour if they try to ban any phones for use of standard essential patents; the same patents that have been vetoed.
Rating: 9 Votes

[ Read All Comments ]