Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Obama Administration Refuses To Overturn Import Ban On Samsung Products

Soulskill posted about 10 months ago | from the i'm-sure-this-won't-be-construed-as-favoritism-by-anybody-anywhere dept.

Patents 298

Chris453 writes "In August 2013, President Obama issued a veto to an import ban of the iPhone 4S after Samsung won several court battles against Apple claiming that the iPhone 4S violated several of Samsung's patents. A few months ago, Samsung was on the receiving end of a very similar case filed by Apple. The International Trade Commission decided that several of Samsung's phones (Transform, Acclaim, Indulge, and Intercept models) violated Apple's patents, and should face import bans. Despite the similarities between the two cases, the Obama administration today announced that it would not veto the International Trade Commission import ban against Samsung products. The move that could spark a trade dispute between the U.S. and South Korea."

cancel ×

298 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

surprise (3, Insightful)

rainmouse (1784278) | about 10 months ago | (#45073115)

US politicians, bent you say? Surely not!

Re:surprise (3, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45073169)

Of course not, they're thoroughly folded in half.

Re:surprise (4, Funny)

oodaloop (1229816) | about 10 months ago | (#45073175)

Surely not one from Chicago!

Re:surprise (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45073951)

Didn't you know America is exceptional!

Obamaphone (-1, Offtopic)

horm (2802801) | about 10 months ago | (#45073125)

Just more evidence of China's influence over the American economy.

Re:Obamaphone (2)

DickBreath (207180) | about 10 months ago | (#45073285)

> Just more evidence of China's influence over the American economy.

Exactly how does China enter into this?

Isn't this a dispute between Apple (American company) and Samsung (South Korean company)?

Re:Obamaphone (0)

bhcompy (1877290) | about 10 months ago | (#45073323)

Apple has billions invested in Chinese suppliers? Just a wild guess

Re:Obamaphone (1)

horm (2802801) | about 10 months ago | (#45073335)

The reason there was an import ban on the iPhone is because it is manufactured in China. Apple may be headquartered in American but they don't make their phones there.

Re:Obamaphone (4, Funny)

Reverand Dave (1959652) | about 10 months ago | (#45073757)

The only thing Apple makes in the US are profits and vacation plans.

Re:Obamaphone (5, Informative)

DickBreath (207180) | about 10 months ago | (#45073823)

> The only thing Apple makes in the US are profits and vacation plans.

Uh, um . . . patents on bouncy scrolling and slide to unlock.

Proof that Obama is corrupt (-1, Flamebait)

Grishnakh (216268) | about 10 months ago | (#45073129)

This is yet more proof that Obama is utterly corrupt. He vetoes a ban on Apple's products but not on Samsung's. How much more blatant can you get?

Re:Proof that Obama is corrupt (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45073187)

How is this proof? Is Samsung an American company all of a sudden?

Re:Proof that Obama is corrupt (5, Insightful)

SuperDre (982372) | about 10 months ago | (#45073327)

It is precise that, Samsung ISN'T an american company, and therefore doesn't get the veto. It was very clear when Apple got the veto that something fishy was going on, normally Obamah wouldn't have anything to do with it..

Re:Proof that Obama is corrupt (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45073515)

It is precise that, Samsung ISN'T an american company, and therefore doesn't get the veto.
It was very clear when Apple got the veto that something fishy was going on, normally Obamah wouldn't have anything to do with it..

Samsung America has more employees in the USA than Apple does. However, as long as people think of Samsung as a Korean company...

Re:Proof that Obama is corrupt (5, Insightful)

ebno-10db (1459097) | about 10 months ago | (#45073987)

as long as people think of Samsung as a Korean company...

And Apple as an American company.

Re:Proof that Obama is corrupt (5, Informative)

ebno-10db (1459097) | about 10 months ago | (#45073435)

Is Samsung an American company all of a sudden?

Is Apple an American company? At least one Apple exec told US workers to stuff it, as Apple doesn't owe them anything. Apple makes almost everything overseas. Meanwhile, Samsung has US operations (for example http://www.androidcentral.com/samsung-expand-us-operations-two-new-california-facilities [androidcentral.com] ). Stop thinking of Apple as American just because their headquarters are here.

Re:Proof that Obama is corrupt (4, Insightful)

oodaloop (1229816) | about 10 months ago | (#45073569)

And they don't pay much taxes here. But how much did Apple vs Samsung contribute to campaign funds?

Re:Proof that Obama is corrupt (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45073941)

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2013-08-05/apple-vs-samsung-lobby-spending-or-spot-reason-obamas-unprecedented-veto

Re:Proof that Obama is corrupt (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45073945)

And they don't pay much taxes here.

When you say "they" do you mean Samsung or Apple because Apple pays more in corporate taxes than any other American corporation.

Re:Proof that Obama is corrupt (4, Interesting)

Mitreya (579078) | about 10 months ago | (#45073775)

Stop thinking of Apple as American just because their headquarters are here.

But, but... Apple products say "Designed in USA" Surely that's almost the same as "Made in USA"?

(I don't know of any other product that tries that trick to counter the "Made in China" note.)

Re:Proof that Obama is corrupt (1)

Richy_T (111409) | about 10 months ago | (#45073875)

Never seen "Assembled in the USA"?

Re:Proof that Obama is corrupt (2)

Krojack (575051) | about 10 months ago | (#45073999)

I'm guessing Apple donated more money to the Obama campaign(s) than Samsung (if any) did.

Re:Proof that Obama is corrupt (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45073201)

No, the whole economic system in the US is corrupt and coercive towards foreign companies.

Re:Proof that Obama is corrupt (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45073211)

You could spy on every citizen in your country. That's pretty blatant.

Re:Proof that Obama is corrupt (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45073239)

And this is why I've mostly given up on Slashdot. You didn't even read the linked article that indicated why he held the ban. //Samsung just needed to make small adjustments and has updated their models to provide models that don't violate the patents, the ban is on slightly older models that did violate the patents. Apple's ban was much wider and didn't have any small workaround and would have destroyed their market.

Re:Proof that Obama is corrupt (3, Insightful)

jedidiah (1196) | about 10 months ago | (#45073311)

He bailed out Apple in order to "preserve the market" or some such claptrap. How is treating Samsung differently remotely consistent here?

The subtleties of the two bans don't really matter since that wasn't the stated reason for giving Apple a free ride last time around.

Flaming hypocrisy.

Of course getting near the presidency will ensure that your candidate is just like any other corrupt white guy regardless of whether your candidate is black or a woman. No one should ever had any delusions in that regard.

Re:Proof that Obama is corrupt (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45073973)

Did you even read what you're responding to? He explained exactly how it's consistent: there's a legitimate argument that the Samsung ban would not have substantially impacted the market because it had a reasonable workaround. That was *exactly* the stated reason for giving Apple a free ride last time around.

If you're going to call hypocrisy, explain why that argument is wrong, don't just ignore it.

Subleties matter (4, Informative)

Theaetetus (590071) | about 10 months ago | (#45073991)

He bailed out Apple in order to "preserve the market" or some such claptrap. How is treating Samsung differently remotely consistent here?

Because one is a patent on a non-standard user interface, and the other is a patent on a standard radio technology. Because the owner of former did not agree to let others use the technology, while the owner of the latter voluntarily said "yes, everyone can use this technology and I will not exert undue pressure or attempt to get injunctions against you, and will instead accept a reasonable monetary royalty."

The subtleties of the two bans don't really matter since that wasn't the stated reason for giving Apple a free ride last time around.

You're wrong, it was explicitly the reason [iclarified.com] :

"The Policy Statement expresses substantial concerns, which I strongly share, about the potential harms that can result from owners of standards-essential patents ("SEPs") who have made a voluntary commitment to offer to license SEPs on terms that are fair, reasonable, and non-discriminatory ("FRAND"), gaining undue leverage and engaging in "patent hold-up", i.e., asserting the patent to exclude an implementer of the standard from a market to obtain a higher price for use of the patent than would have been possible before the standard was set, when alternative technologies could have been chosen."

Flaming hypocrisy.

Of course getting near the presidency will ensure that your candidate is just like any other corrupt white guy regardless of whether your candidate is black or a woman. No one should ever had any delusions in that regard.

Re:Proof that Obama is corrupt (5, Insightful)

horm (2802801) | about 10 months ago | (#45073445)

Samsung just needed to make small adjustments and has updated their models to provide models that don't violate the patents, the ban is on slightly older models that did violate the patents. Apple's ban was much wider and didn't have any small workaround and would have destroyed their market.

But that doesn't make sense. Samsung commits relatively minor patent infringements, and the import ban stands. Apple commits major patent infringements that result in a much more severe ban and the ban is vetoed.

Re:Proof that Obama is corrupt (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45073937)

Just become Too Big To Fail, and the laws and rules don't apply to you. Have you been living under a rock the past few years?

Re:Proof that Obama is corrupt (1)

AlphaWoIf_HK (3042365) | about 10 months ago | (#45073479)

Patents are disgusting to begin with, so this entire situation is yet another example of government corruption (and nothing to do with one specific party, as even the party that claims to want small government largely loves government-enforced monopolies over ideas and procedures).

Re:Proof that Obama is corrupt (1)

jacknifetoaswan (2618987) | about 10 months ago | (#45074021)

So? Apple should diversify their mobile products, if they want to insulate against this possibility. Samsung, on the other hand, creates a multitude of products, and SOME of them were banned. Besides, if I recall correctly, the Apple devices banned were the iPhone 4, which is a three year old design, anyway. Banning that product, specifically, doesn't "destroy" their market, as they probably sell very, very few, if at all.

Re:Proof that Obama is corrupt (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45073261)

This is yet more proof that Obama is utterly corrupt. He vetoes a ban on Apple's products but not on Samsung's. How much more blatant can you get?

Congress: Well, you heard it. The public wants us to actually get more blatant than that. Son of a bitch, this must be like when they started running out of ideas on Fear Factor.

Re:Proof that Obama is corrupt (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45073291)

More like proof that Samsung deliberately copied (along with Google) Apple's iPhone in many ways.

The first time I have been proud of a decision from this administration.

By the way Samsung sells military hardware. Would you rather purchase from a Korean death dealer?

Re:Proof that Obama is corrupt (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45073575)

Would you rather purchase from a Korean death dealer?

As opposed to the ones made by Chinese, Communist, Sweat Shop, Death Dealer, for a United States headquartered company you mean?

Did I missunderstand your question there, or was I also unaware that the US and China had gotten out of the Military Hardware marketplace?

Re:Proof that Obama is corrupt (4, Informative)

samkass (174571) | about 10 months ago | (#45073401)

Samsung's case hinged on a standards-essential patent they had agreed to license on fair and nondiscriminatory terms and was decided by the ITC. Apple's patent was not part of a standard and was decided by a US court of law. The cases aren't even remotely similar, no there's nothing "blatant" here.

Re:Proof that Obama is corrupt (2)

i kan reed (749298) | about 10 months ago | (#45073597)

Well, in my own view, the problem is the "blatantness". The obvious, easily-seen facets of what happened appear prejudicial. The nuance of the situation basically gets no discussion.

Re:Proof that Obama is corrupt (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45073925)

Your own "view"?? How does your "view" remotely relate to reality??

This is the reality... Samsung abused FRAND patents towards Apple. The Whitehouse said "No Way".

Apple has non-FRAND patents that Samsung is abusing. Completely different scenario.

But hey, but your view is what matters in commerce right?

Re:Proof that Obama is corrupt (3, Funny)

intermodal (534361) | about 10 months ago | (#45073449)

As if we needed more proof. I can think of some WWII vets who have even better proof.

Re:Proof that Obama is corrupt (0, Flamebait)

Jeff Flanagan (2981883) | about 10 months ago | (#45073971)

Try not to fall for Republican stunts. Republican extremists shut down the government, then pulled a stunt with veterans as a show for the goobers. Apparently this works on you.

Keep in mind that Fox News, hate-radio, and wingnut blogs only exists to make money off of rubes by painting an alternate reality that's attractive to bigots, morons, and Christian supremacists.

Re:Proof that Obama is corrupt (2)

clarkkent09 (1104833) | about 10 months ago | (#45073501)

I'm a free trade guy but in fairness if you are going to start blaming countries for unfairly imposing barriers to foreign products, the US would be near the bottom of the list.

Re:Proof that Obama is corrupt (1)

AlphaWoIf_HK (3042365) | about 10 months ago | (#45073531)

That''s not relevant. The fact that other countries are worse does not make the US any better.

Re:Proof that Obama is corrupt (1)

hhw (683423) | about 10 months ago | (#45073679)

False. The US would be near the top of the list. http://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/dispu_e/dispu_status_e.htm [wto.org] Most other countries don't have the political might to get away with what the US is able to.

Re:Proof that Obama is corrupt (0)

Anonymous Coward5226 (2724309) | about 10 months ago | (#45073519)

Yet another ingnorant poster. The admninistration's action is to protect an American company, yet you allow your hatred for this president to ovecome your intelligence, what is wrong with this administration protecting an American company? DBAA.

Re:Proof that Obama is corrupt (1)

interkin3tic (1469267) | about 10 months ago | (#45073651)

Well, he could ignore something that's explicitly in the constitution. That's more blatant.

Re:Proof that Obama is corrupt (1)

AK Marc (707885) | about 10 months ago | (#45073817)

Blatant what?

Pelosi twisting arms again... (0)

mschaffer (97223) | about 10 months ago | (#45073929)

Don't forget that Pelosi can make Obama jump and ask "how high".

Re:Proof that Obama is corrupt (1)

Applekid (993327) | about 10 months ago | (#45073933)

This is yet more proof that Obama is utterly corrupt. He vetoes a ban on Apple's products but not on Samsung's. How much more blatant can you get?

Does anyone have an armchair-legal analysis of these bans? Off the cuff, I would have questioned being able to veto a court judgment as being a huge stretch of Presidential Pardon privileges. But I don't really know where the bans originate.

Re:Proof that Obama is corrupt (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45073967)

This is yet more proof that Obama is utterly corrupt. He vetoes a ban on Apple's products but not on Samsung's. How much more blatant can you get?

Ummmm you can't - blatant is just that?

This is Apple and Oranges (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45073135)

One was a US court ruling, the other a ruling by the International Trade Commission. Presumably, the ITC ruling affects imports to other countries as well.

Re:This is Apple and Oranges (1)

Impy the Impiuos Imp (442658) | about 10 months ago | (#45073297)

The ITC can authorize nations to fight back economically to recalcitrant countries. The US has given up in the past on some disputes it disagrees with.

You pick your battles, as big as the US is, and Obama has decided this ain't one. The internal veto of the reverse, as enforcer of the laws, he can reject any regulation as he is the top regulator. The correct solution to that is, if you disagree with him, to deal with it at the next election.

Politics, but good luck getting Apple's tens of millions of buyers to kick themselves in the balls.

Probably a good idea (-1, Troll)

rjmx (233228) | about 10 months ago | (#45073139)

Samsungs's products are crap, anyway (IMHO).

Re:Probably a good idea (1, Informative)

DickBreath (207180) | about 10 months ago | (#45073309)

> Samsungs's products are crap, anyway (IMHO).

Then Apple should have nothing at all to worry about.

It's ok (-1, Flamebait)

spacefight (577141) | about 10 months ago | (#45073145)

Both companies suck ball, especially Samsung with their newly introduced regional SIM-locking crap...

Re:It's ok (1)

J Story (30227) | about 10 months ago | (#45073265)

As I recall, Samsung said that the "lock" existed only until it was activated.

Re:It's ok (1)

lesincompetent (2836253) | about 10 months ago | (#45073365)

Which will be very soon.
Nevermind the gun i'm carefully aiming at your head, i won't shoot it.

Re:It's ok (1)

spacefight (577141) | about 10 months ago | (#45073537)

And as I recall, there are press coverages around in Germany, stating that the region lock comes to the S3 via update. Go figure. Someone is lying - but who?

Re:It's ok (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45073881)

Agreed. I won't touch either company's products, phone or otherwise.

Obama seems to prefer Apple products? (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45073151)

One more reason for me to dislike him ;)

Uh.. (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45073171)

Apple is an American company. Obama is the American president. We are in America. Don't feign surprise. It just makes you look stupid.

Samsung can take their complaints to the SK govt. Actually, they don't need to because they're a Chaebol - (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chaebol) A supermassive mega-corp that literally alone controls 20% of the SK economy. They OWN the SK govt (along with about 4 other companies they control 90%)

No tears for poor Samsung. Sorry.

Re:Uh.. (1, Troll)

horm (2802801) | about 10 months ago | (#45073185)

Apple is an American company, but the iPhone is manufactured in China. Hence the import ban.

Re:Uh.. (1, Offtopic)

bhcompy (1877290) | about 10 months ago | (#45073387)

You know what's more American than an iPhone? Toyota Camry. Built in the US by Americans

Re:Uh.. (2, Insightful)

ebno-10db (1459097) | about 10 months ago | (#45073549)

Apple is an American company.

How do you figure? At least one Apple exec told US workers to stuff it, as Apple doesn't owe them anything. Apple makes almost everything overseas. Meanwhile, Samsung has US operations (for example http://www.androidcentral.com/samsung-expand-us-operations-two-new-california-facilities [androidcentral.com] [androidcentral.com] ). Stop thinking of Apple as American just because their headquarters are here.

I have no, none, zero, zip, nada loyalty or favor towards "American" companies. They have no loyalty towards this country, so why should they get special favor from the US government? There is no quid pro quo, so tell 'em to stuff it.

Meanwhile my wife and I drive Toyota's. They're 80% and 85% value added in the USA, which makes them more American than most so-called American cars.

P.S. Part of the 1st paragraph is a cut and paste from my post above, but it seemed even more appropriate here.

I wish that we had in the UK.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45073177)

...some politicians who would fight FOR the UK and give US the benefit of some bent decisions.

Our lot seem to prefer to shaft us at all times...

Serious question for the UK (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45073317)

Does your parliament still wear powdered wigs? I'm sincerely curious.

Re:Serious question for the UK (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45073611)

Does your parliament still wear powdered wigs? I'm sincerely curious.

They wish the parliamentarians still wore the wigs. The wig wearing ones were even more blatant than that. They would also send ship or two just ensure it got enforced. (See: British Empire)

Re:Serious question for the UK (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45073681)

Some do, on special occasions. The Lord Chancellor, for instance. It is related that one day he was walking through the Strangers gallery in full regalia, where the public are admitted, and saw a friend who he wanted to talk to - Neil Kinnock, the then Labour leader.

"Neil!" he shouted - since Mr Kinnock was about 20 yards away with his back to him.

And a group of visiting American tourists obediently went down on one knee...

Re:Serious question for the UK (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45073921)

Ah, the legendary British sense of humor. Too bad you guys didn't channel your energies into learning how to fight instead of comedy. Perhaps your Army could have defeated a bunch of farmers with muskets during the American Revolution.

Of Course (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45073209)

I read the summary and now know all of the details of the two cases and will now give you my strong, educated opinion of the matter.

Rightly So (0, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45073227)

Samsung's patents were standards essential patents which they promised to license under FRAND terms.

Apple's patents are not standards essential as proven by the fact that Samsung has designed around them in their newer products. Further, Apple made no promise to license their non-essentail patents under any terms, let alone FRAND terms.

I know many people are going to rage and rail over this claiming favouritism or whatever injustice but the truth of the matter is this is as it should be.

Re:Rightly So (5, Insightful)

DickBreath (207180) | about 10 months ago | (#45073383)

> Samsung's patents were standards essential patents which they promised to license under FRAND terms. >

> Apple's patents are not standards essential as proven by the fact that Samsung has designed around them in their newer products.

The end result of this is predictable.

Samsung's patents are FRAND because they are over actual technology, you know, stuff like radios, modulation techniques, and other things actually developed in a lab.

Apples patents are for things like bouncy scrolling, and slide to unlock.

If the holder of FRAND patents cannot negotiate with an infringer for a fair price, and the infringer can also sue over its own patents and demand outrageous royalties per device, then the end result is clear.

No more FRAND patents. No company making actual technology has any economic interest in putting its patents under FRAND terms. Decades of cooperation on technology standards come to an end.

Re:Rightly So (0, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45073721)

Samsung's patents are FRAND because...

Samsung's patents are FRAND because they, themselves, submitted their patents to a standards body for inclusion in an industry standard and they, themselves, agreed to license the patents under FRAND terms.

The FRAND terms were not forced upon them. They elected to participate in the standards process and they elected to abide by the FRAND licensing requirements. And then they broke their promise by selectively targeting certain competitors with unreasonable rates, breaking their FRAND obligations.

Please stop pretending that Samsung is the victim here and put a smidge of effort into understanding how the entire standards essential process works.

Re:Rightly So (4, Interesting)

DickBreath (207180) | about 10 months ago | (#45073905)

> [Samsung] elected to participate in the standards process and they elected to abide by the FRAND licensing requirements.
> And then they broke their promise by selectively targeting certain competitors with unreasonable rates, breaking their FRAND obligations.

FRAND does not mean you cannot negotiate royalty rates.

The rates only have to be fair, reasonable, and non discriminatory.

Just because the other party does not like the negotiation does not mean the FRAND promise is broken.

You completely fail to address my argument. The end result is that there are no longer going to be any FRAND patents. Obligating yourself to FRAND while a competitor plays badly is obviously not a good move. The lesson is that you should play the same way your competitors are playing and not handicap yourself with FRAND. If Samsung wanted the same royalties for its technology from Apple as Apple wants from Samsung over bouncy scrolling and other trivialities, then you would be screaming bloody murder.

FRAND is voluntary (2)

Theaetetus (590071) | about 10 months ago | (#45073861)

Samsung's patents are FRAND because they are over actual technology, you know, stuff like radios, modulation techniques, and other things actually developed in a lab.

Apples patents are for things like bouncy scrolling, and slide to unlock.

User interfaces are also "actual technology", Linux die-hards gripes notwithstanding.

No more FRAND patents. No company making actual technology has any economic interest in putting its patents under FRAND terms. Decades of cooperation on technology standards come to an end.

Samsung didn't put its patents under FRAND because of the goodness of their hearts - it's because they get guaranteed royalties at a Fair and Reasonable rate from every participant with the standard. That's a nice income stream, provided they don't start being jerks about it and demanding unreasonable rates from people they don't like.

But even more importantly, your fundamental point is wrong:

If the holder of FRAND patents cannot negotiate with an infringer for a fair price, and the infringer can also sue over its own patents and demand outrageous royalties per device, then the end result is clear.

These pair of decisions do not mean that FRAND patent owners "cannot negotiate with an infringer for a fair price". It's just that they can't hold the infringer's products hostage by preventing import. Basically:

  • If you have a non-standard patent, you can get an injunction against import, because the infringer has the option to design around the patent.
  • If you have a standard patent, you have already agreed that you will not get injunctions as part of promoting the standard, and can only get monetary damages.

Headphone jack sensor? (2)

hawguy (1600213) | about 10 months ago | (#45073281)

What is their patent on a "headphone jack sensor"? Is this anything like the sensor that portable radios have had for decades that let them switch off the speaker when the headphones are plugged in?

Re:Headphone jack sensor? (4, Funny)

VortexCortex (1117377) | about 10 months ago | (#45073321)

Yes, but "on a (mobile) computer"! It's inNOvation, you see.

Re:Headphone jack sensor? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45073469)

God I hope you can see the irony in what you did there.

Re:Headphone jack sensor? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45073341)

No, this is more like the sensor where the concept of patents is batshit insane.

Re:Headphone jack sensor? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45073713)

no it's not

didn't i already respond to you the last time this came up?

Re:Headphone jack sensor? (1)

hawguy (1600213) | about 10 months ago | (#45073787)

no it's not

didn't i already respond to you the last time this came up?

Well gee, I don't know. I can't keep track of every Anonymous Coward post on this site. But if you did reply to me before, then just post the link to that reply and not only can you save yourself from mustering up some fake indignation, but you can actually answer my question.

Obama won't do what... (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45073301)

Rabble rabble rabble!!!!!!!!!!

Patents and trade bans (2)

mcelrath (8027) | about 10 months ago | (#45073329)

Patent enforcement should be purely economic. How much money did the infringing party make off using the patent, how much did the patent holder invest to create the patent, and therefore how much do they owe to the patent holder? Restitution should consist entirely of monetary awards.

The patent holder is often not the most capable or appropriate entity to utilize the patent. Enforcing bans like this is anti-competitive and doesn't help anyone. The patent holder would be better off receiving money from a more competent implementation of its patent, than banning all competitors and forcing everyone to use their incompetent device.

What power does he have? (1)

MobyDisk (75490) | about 10 months ago | (#45073415)

I am not familiar with these import bans. Who sets them, and what power does the president hold here?

Rules for everyone but them who rule ! (1)

burni2 (1643061) | about 10 months ago | (#45073423)

Bush, Obama, Putin, Merkel, Assad, Berlusconi, Gadafi, Mubarak, ..

Obama is trying very hard... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45073527)

Dubya's dubious international policies have alienated a large part of the world.

But Obama wants everybody to have the USA.

Re:Obama is trying very hard... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45073591)

Dubya's dubious international policies have alienated a large part of the world.

But Obama wants everybody to have the USA.

Please mentally replace "have" with "hate". Even as an AC, I have some self-respect.

Models being banned? (1)

Stephen J Sweeney (3389523) | about 10 months ago | (#45073557)

Does anyone know which models are being banned? All the articles I've read say that it's "older" phones, but that's a little vague.

If it's phones released before the Galaxy S3, I'm not sure anyone should be too worried.

A complete idiot (-1)

PontifexMaximus (181529) | about 10 months ago | (#45073683)

Is Obama really THAT stupid? I mean seriously. He's continued to prove that he's clueless about virtually everything (except maybe golf). He only became president to en joy the perks of the job without the actual work involved. And you wonder why we're screwed eight ways from Sunday.

Nice work, liberals. Bloody sheep the lot of you.

Re:A complete idiot (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45073795)

Is Obama really THAT stupid? I mean seriously. He's continued to prove that he's clueless about virtually everything (except maybe golf). He only became president to en joy the perks of the job without the actual work involved. And you wonder why we're screwed eight ways from Sunday.

Nice work, liberals. Bloody sheep the lot of you.

Uh, the reigning party are not "liberals". They are fascists that very much put the interests of the state and its ruling class above that of the individual citizen. That the Republicans are fighting for some identifiable position even further right than the reigning fascists does not make the latter "liberals".

Modern corruption. (4, Insightful)

boorack (1345877) | about 10 months ago | (#45073849)

It is not about stupidity. It is about control. Obama is a sockpuppet for his corporate sponsors. He does not have his views, he just reads all this crap from his teleprompter and signs whatever his corporate sponsors want him to sign. That's all. After ending his silly presidency, he'll have his well paid, warm chair in Goldman Sachs, Apple or some other corrupt corporation. He'll have his speeches paid $500'000 a pop. Just like Bill Clinton or Tony Blair.

You see, staying in office isn't an end in itself for modern politicians. It is merely an interim position in their quest of getting insanely rich. Their carreer begins AFTER they get out of office and stays until they collect few hundred milions dollars or so. Staying in office for entire life like those pesky congressmen do is so old school.

EU agrees (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45073699)

The text for this item is misleading, failing to account for the reasons given for these decisions. And anyone still suggesting this is American bias for their own companies, please explain why the EU is leaning in the same direction? It's not like the EU is pro-US in many decisions.

Obamas decision, and the EU's charges against Samsung (not Apple), hinge around the use of standards-essential patents as a weapon to stifle innovation and competition.

I'd rather not see such obviously one-eyed political slandering pandered as a tech item on sites like Slashdot - save it for the tabloids.

Oh right. (1)

goffster (1104287) | about 10 months ago | (#45073765)

North Korea is promising death and destruction. South Korea can't afford to get
it's feathers too ruffled.

you know what needs to happen (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45073819)

somebody needs to get that stupid destructive nigger out of the whitehouse

Re:you know what needs to happen (1)

Stumbles (602007) | about 10 months ago | (#45073989)

Man you are so wrong; he's a white guy. Just like Zimmerman is a white guy.

Well... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45073847)

I guess Samsung didn't pay enough to our Politicians.

Re:Well... (1)

Stumbles (602007) | about 10 months ago | (#45073963)

It isn't politicians in general; its the Democratic party demanding homage to their savior and planned nirvana.

Hmmm. (2)

Stumbles (602007) | about 10 months ago | (#45073939)

I'm guessing Samsung did not bribe the Obama camp and are now being punished.

I'm proud of /. (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45073961)

Reading the comments I'm proud of you. It's nice to see reliable and predictable posts. As expected most of you don't RTFA (as per protocol) and don't know the difference between a SEP and a non- SEP.

Makes the ill informed comments so much more fun. I live the smell of some mindless fanboy brawl in the morning.

Please.....continue. Be my guest.

Let the hate flow free. Come to the dark side. Wanna have a cookie?

May the brainfart be with you.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>