backtop


Print 79 comment(s) - last by talonvor.. on Oct 16 at 12:22 PM

Obama administration had denied a similar ban on Apple products for Samsung

According to the U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC), the highest trade-specific court in the U.S., both Apple, Inc. (AAPL) and Samsung Electronics Comp., Ltd. (KSC:005930) are guilty of violating patent law with their smartphones.  

I. Apple Scores with the International Trade Commission

Apple was found to have refused to pay even a small fee to license Samsung standards patents, which Samsung openly offered.  Samsung was found to have violated non-standards patents that Apple had no obligation to license.  To the ITC, both Samsung and Apple appeared to be guilty, and hence it ordered preliminary injunctions banning some products from both companies.


After Steven P. Jobs, late Apple cofounder and CEO, served personally as the digital campaign manager for Obama in early 2011, the Obama administration had no trouble giving Apple its blessing to ban multiple products from Samsung, just weeks after it committed to the rare decision to overturn a similar ban on older Apple devices.

Obama pointin
Obama's trade appointee shot down a ban on iPhones and iPads, despite a preliminary finding of patent infringement by the ITC. [Image Source: Sodahead]

In September Samsung wrote to the President asking him to treat it like he treated Apple, writing [PDF]:

The world is watching how Samsung is treated by the United States in this ‘smartphone war’ and the administration has a significant interest in avoiding the perception of favoritism and protectionism toward U.S. companies.

But the plea for equal treatment fell on deaf ears.  Late Tuesday, U.S. Trade Ambassador/Representative Michael B. G. Froman, appointed by President Barack Obama to monitor trade court decisions and other matters, announced the decision to allow Apple's ban of Samsung.  He wrote:

The nationality of the companies involved played no role in the review process.
...
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 Commission's determination in Certain Electronic Digital Media Devices and Components Thereof, Investigation No. 337-TA-796, to become final.

II. What's Banned?

And with that, the following devices are now banned from shipment into the U.S., enforced by the U.S. Customs and Border Patrol (CBP):
  • Samsung smartphones (6)
    • Galaxy S 4G
      Galaxy S II, Galaxy Tab 10.1
    • Fascinate
    • Transform
    • Captivate
    • Intercept
    • Infuse 4G
  • Samsung tablets (2)
    • the original Galaxy Tab
Nexus 7
  • the new Galaxy Tab 10.1

This is the second major ban of Android devices by Apple to be ordered by the ITC and enforced by the CBP; the first was of HTC Corp.'s (TPE:2498) smartphones in 2012.  That ban helped to cripple HTC, sending it into a sales and financial free-fall.

The ITC ban on Samsung devices comes based on the violation of two patents -- one of which covers a headphone jack, and another which details capacitive multi-touch.  The latter patent is U.S. Patent No. 7,912,501 "Audio I/O headset plug and plug detection circuitry" (often referred to as the '501 patent in shorthand), while the second is the "Steve Jobs' multi-touch" patent -- U.S. Patent No. 7,479,949 "Touch screen device, method, and graphical user interface for determining commands by applying heuristics" (the '949 patent) -- which has some claims which are currently in the process of being invalidated.

The final ruling comes from a three judge ITC panel that reviewed a previous decision from Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) Thomas Pender.

III. Is Apple Above the Law?

In many ways the Obama administration's decision not to overrule the legal experts at the ITC in the case of the ban on Samsung devices is not at all atypical.  Rather it is the decision to overrule the ban on Apple devices that is extraordinarily atypical.

The pro-Apple decision marked the first time since 1987 that a U.S. trade representative had overruled an ITC preliminary injunction.  And many argue that the decision sets a dangerous precedent as the ITC had found that Apple engaged in a rare and rather audacious kind of corporate misbehavior.

In the technology industry companies cooperate to develop standards, which are then patented by those who worked on them.  Those patents are governed under so called fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory (FRAND) terms, which require companies to offer licensing at a low rate to anyone who wants them, a policy that is supposed to prevent a barrier to market entry.

In practice FRAND licensing rates in today's hyper-litigious atmosphere are exceptionally low -- as little as 1/10,000th of a non-FRAND patent.  The overarching message set by today's intellectual property system is that it's better not to cooperate, as you're wasting your time on essentially worthless intellectual property.

Apple money
Apple could have paid fractions of a penny per device to license Samsung's patents, but it chose to instead give itself a five fingered discount.  [Image Source: SomanyMP3s]

What is quite extraordinary is that Apple had a virtually sure-fire ban on Samsung's devices as its patents were vague, broad, and most importantly had no FRAND commitments.  It could have made the win entirely one-sided if it simply offered to license Samsung's FRAND patents, which Samsung willingly offered to spur licensing talks.

But rather than pay fractions of a penny per iPhone and iPad to avoid a potential ban like virtually every other company has, Apple refused to license Samsung's IP.  Hence the ITC ruled that Apple had committed the very unusual offense of reverse holdup, allowing Samsung to ban older iPhones and iPads with FRAND IP.

Computer 1987
The last time the President's appointees overturned an ITC ban (1987) computers looked like this. [Image Source: Bowie Songs]

The Obama administration's ruling seemingly greenlights the abuse of FRAND IP via refusal to pay licensing fees, as it willfully ignored the ITC's findings of reverse holdup.  

Samsung is now left to shuffle its product lineup.  A representative said that her company was "disappointed", adding, "It will serve only to reduce competition and limit choice for the American consumer."

That may be true, but it is reasonably clear that Samsung violated the law, as arbitrary and unfair as that law may be.  What is much more troubling and extraordinary is that the Obama administration committed to a "veto" of a court decision the likes of which had not been done in over 25 years, and in doing so effectively ruled that Apple was above the law.

Sources: Fly on the Wall, Samsung [PDF]



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

Another nail
By DT_Reader on 10/9/2013 2:30:02 PM , Rating: 2
In Obama's opinion coffin. I keep reminding myself that McCain and Romney would have been much worse, but I'm still sorry that I voted for him.




RE: Another nail
By superstition on 10/9/2013 2:54:27 PM , Rating: 5
Voting for president is a futile theatrical exercise.

Matt Taibbi documented that the same elite donors fund both parties and thus both parties' candidates.

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/blogs/taibblo...


RE: Another nail
By superstition on 10/9/2013 2:59:55 PM , Rating: 4
Obama’s top 20 list included:

Goldman Sachs
JPMorgan Chase & Co
Citigroup Inc
WilmerHale LLP
Skadden, Arps et al
UBS AG, and...
Morgan Stanley

McCain’s list, meanwhile, included (drum roll please):

JPMorgan Chase & Co
Citigroup Inc
Morgan Stanley
Goldman Sachs
UBS AG
Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher
Greenberg Traurig LLP, and...
Lehman Brothers.

quote:
The 1% donors are remarkably tolerant. They’ll give to just about anyone who polls well, provided they fall within certain parameters. What they won’t do is give to anyone who is even a remote threat to make significant structural changes.

If the voters insist on supporting such a person in defiance of these donors – this might even happen tonight, with a Paul win in Iowa – what you inevitably end up seeing is a monstrous amount of money quickly dumped into the cause of derailing that candidate. This takes overt forms, like giving heavily to his primary opponents, and more covert forms, like manufacturing opinions through donor-subsidized think tanks and the heavy use of lapdog media figures to push establishment complaints.

And what ends up happening there is that the candidate with the big stack of donor money always somehow manages to survive the inevitable scandals and tawdry revelations, while the one who’s depending on checks from grandma and $25 internet donations from college students always winds up mysteriously wiped out.

Thus the guy like George W. Bush, who dodged the draft and lied about his National Guard Service, steams to re-election, while a guy like Howard Dean – really not any kind of real threat to the status quo, whose major crimes were being insufficiently pro-war and finding an alternative source of campaign funding on the net – magically falls off the map and is made a caricature after one loony scream before Iowa.


RE: Another nail
By BRB29 on 10/12/2013 10:03:05 AM , Rating: 2
I'm pretty sure the Lehman Brothers have been off everyone's list for a long time.


RE: Another nail
By inighthawki on 10/9/2013 3:01:25 PM , Rating: 5
The solution is for people to realize that there are actually more than two parties to vote for. They need to stop voting for their "black or white" candidate (rep vs dem) and vote for the candidate who actually best represents their values. As a country founded on the idea of capitalism and competition being key for the success of business, there is very little "competition" for presidential candidates. It's a monopoly that enabled by the fact that people find too much comfort in trying to identify with one of the two parties that are considered a "norm."


RE: Another nail
By superstition on 10/9/13, Rating: -1
RE: Another nail
By nafhan on 10/9/2013 3:50:47 PM , Rating: 2
Well, someone has a relevant username!

There are important negative aspects of American history that should be remembered, but I'm pretty sure that there was more going on than genocide and slavery during the 1700's on the eastern coast of North America.


RE: Another nail
By FaaR on 10/9/13, Rating: 0
RE: Another nail
By superstition on 10/13/2013 6:06:13 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
I'm pretty sure that there was more going on than genocide and slavery during the 1700's on the eastern coast of North America.
wishful thinking


RE: Another nail
By superstition on 10/14/2013 3:43:40 PM , Rating: 2
RE: Another nail
By superstition on 10/14/2013 3:46:40 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Contrary to popular mythology the Pilgrims were no friends to the local Indians. They were engaged in a ruthless war of extermination against their hosts, even as they falsely posed as friends.

Just days before the alleged Thanksgiving love-fest, a company of Pilgrims led by Myles Standish actively sought to chop off the head of a local chief. They deliberately caused a rivalry between two friendly Indians, pitting one against the other in an attempt to obtain "better intelligence and make them both more diligent." An 11-foot-high wall was erected around the entire settlement for the purpose of keeping the Indians out.

Any Indian who came within the vicinity of the Pilgrim settlement was subject to robbery, enslavement, or even murder. The Pilgrims further advertised their evil intentions and white racial hostility, when they mounted five cannons on a hill around their settlement, constructed a platform for artillery, and then organized their soldiers into four companies-all in preparation for the military destruction of their friends the Indians.

Pilgrim Myles Standish eventually got his bloody prize. He went to the Indians, pretended to be a trader, then beheaded an Indian man named Wituwamat. He brought the head to Plymouth, where it was displayed on a wooden spike for many years, according to Gary B. Nash, "as a symbol of white power." Standish had the Indian man's young brother hanged from the rafters for good measure. From that time on, the whites were known to the Indians of Massachusetts by the name "Wotowquenange," which in their tongue meant cutthroats and stabbers.

Sounds lovely, as does the brandishing of arms at "Thanksgiving."


RE: Another nail
By talonvor on 10/16/2013 12:22:59 PM , Rating: 2
And yet it has no bearing on today or the way we do things. The past is the past, no matter how much you want to drag around every little thing that people did to each other back then.

I see people all up in arms about slavery as well, talking about the wrongs and injustices that were committed, but the thing is, not one person alive in the US has been or ever will be a slave in the USA today or in the future. Yes, many people have ancestors that were slaves, but none of them were slaves and I simply do not understand why they think that something that happened over 100+ years ago entitles them to special consideration.


RE: Another nail
By FaaR on 10/9/2013 4:01:50 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
and vote for the candidate who actually best represents their values.

You should NEVER EVER vote for a politician based on his (or her) "values", because THEY HAVE NONE.

Every single value of a high-ranking politician is essentially replaceable, depending on what he or she thinks you as a voter wants to hear. Voting in politicians based on "values" will only ever ensure that you get sh!t candidates "serving" you, whom will opportunisticly adjust themselves according to whichever demographic they happen to be addressing at the moment. Mittens excelled at that during his second run last year, I've never heard anyone who changed his tune as many times as that guy.

By the way, why would you necessarily need, or even want a politician to reflect your personal "values" anyway, are you that narrowminded that you need to personally approve each and every aspect of another person's life in order to vote for them?


RE: Another nail
By retrospooty on 10/9/2013 4:05:35 PM , Rating: 2
"You should NEVER EVER vote for a politician based on his (or her) "values", because THEY HAVE NONE."

Sad but true, in the US anyhow. If some politician did have values and truly wanted to do the right thing on a national level, they would have been setup, framed or somehow removed from office through any # of unethical means.


RE: Another nail
By Gondor on 10/9/2013 4:36:09 PM , Rating: 2
Do you really believe politicians are any different elsewhere around the world ? They are all cut from the same cloth.


RE: Another nail
By inighthawki on 10/9/2013 4:29:12 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
By the way, why would you necessarily need, or even want a politician to reflect your personal "values" anyway, are you that narrowminded that you need to personally approve each and every aspect of another person's life in order to vote for them?

I'm not sure what you're getting at here. People are supposed to vote for the person they feel would be the best candidate to run the country, which is the person who best represents your own value system. If you believe that X, Y, and Z are things that you believe are good for the country, why would you vote for someone who believes that A, B, and C are good? It completely undermines the concept.


RE: Another nail
By FaaR on 10/9/2013 5:06:27 PM , Rating: 2
You are completely misinformed, or possibly, indoctrinated. The best person to run the country of course is NOT (necessarily) the person who 'best represents your value system' (whatever that might be). What the hell kind of nonsense is that?!

Vote for a politician based on their policies. Not their "values". Values is not things they want to do; values is WHY they want to do things. You seem to be of the mistaken impression that only likes can function together. Like, if I'm a male, heterosexual, married WASP, I couldn't ever vote for a black, muslim, gay, single-parent woman? That's essentially what you're saying.

But like I already said, values aren't policies, and values isn't what is running a country. Policies are.


RE: Another nail
By inighthawki on 10/9/2013 5:16:00 PM , Rating: 2
I believe there is simply a miscommunication then, I apologize for my wording if it confused you. Policies is really what I meant. But let's be realistic. A politician's policies are based on their values. A politician isn't going to create a policy to do something they don't value. Therefore my statement is pretty much synonymous with what I meant. It's highly unlikely that their policies will differ from their values.


RE: Another nail
By Piiman on 10/12/2013 8:23:54 AM , Rating: 2
" A politician isn't going to create a policy to do something they don't value."
Sure they will if they think it will get them the votes needed.


RE: Another nail
By amanojaku on 10/9/2013 5:01:43 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
You should NEVER EVER vote for a politician based on his (or her) "values", because THEY HAVE NONE.
If you don't vote for a candidate based on his/her values, then what ARE you basing your vote on? A candidate's values are what determines his/her policies. If a candidate values fiscal conservatism, that candidate will propose to cut taxes and reduce spending.

Obama is a target because HE is currently the President, not Romney, and his stated value, change, is in opposition to his actions, e.g. increased domestic spying, support of corporations at the expense of the populace, and a failure to trim government spending. His ridiculous, and unfair, support of Apple's illegal activities is just another example of things that HAVEN'T changed.


RE: Another nail
By FaaR on 10/9/2013 5:10:25 PM , Rating: 2
You're putting the horse before the carriage. Like I said, a politician's values are flexible, they're not the source of their policies, but the excuse for them.


RE: Another nail
By inighthawki on 10/9/2013 5:19:19 PM , Rating: 2
I would have to disagree. A politician's values are what would influence them to actually create the policy in the first place. Sure values can change over time, so obviously policies is the more accurate word I should've used. But a politician who values a the green initiative is probably also going to have an equivalent policy about lowering emissions. The two typically line up one for one. But as I mentioned above in my other post, policies is more accurately what I *meant*. It was simply my mistake using a slightly inaccurate word. You're really just arguing semantics.


RE: Another nail
By Piiman on 10/12/2013 8:27:30 AM , Rating: 2
"A politician's values are what would influence them to actually create the policy in the first place"

If "values" = Big Campaign donors and lobbyist then you may be right. If you ask me they simple say what they think will get them elected and keep their Big Campaign donors and lobbyist happy.


RE: Another nail
By web2dot0 on 10/9/2013 3:24:27 PM , Rating: 2
So what's your point? That's voting is meaningless?

If you are going to complain, at least provide a meaningful alternative. Keep telling yourself that government is corrupt and evil is not gonna change a damn thing.


RE: Another nail
By superstition on 10/9/2013 3:39:05 PM , Rating: 2
The alternative is to get boots on the ground. Unfortunately, the people of the USA have a tremendous impediment to that: geography.

The US is such a vast nation that it's very difficult to mobilize people in a way that really will have an impact. It's expensive and time-consuming for someone in Oregon to come to DC to protest, for instance.

People like to complain about voter apathy, but there are some very good reasons for it. Politicians and the people who own them (the elite) have been very skillful at getting people indebted and worried about job security so they won't protest in the first place.


RE: Another nail
By superstition on 10/9/2013 3:46:27 PM , Rating: 4
Also, if you want to protest, consider

*the NSA's aim of total domestic surveillance

*the war on whistleblowing, which has thrown people into prisons for exposing wrongdoing while the perps remain free

*the corporate media which has anchors like David Gregory that want journalists to be arrested for doing actual journalism

*the fact that it is now an open secret that members of the political elite will not be subjected to our "rule of law" (see James Clapper's felony for lying to Congress that hasn't even gotten him fired, which is just an extension of the Ford Pardon's precedent)

*prison labor is becoming the new outsourcing, which is particularly interesting given the previous point

*student loan debt, which, along with longer and longer schooling and a military comprised of the poor, keeps young people out of the streets (preventing protest)


RE: Another nail
By Monkey's Uncle on 10/9/2013 4:39:17 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
So what's your point? That's voting is meaningless?


Pretty much. You will get clusterhumped by the top dog regardless of what party and principles he says he represents. More often than not you will see that position change the longer they stay in power.

The problem is that the U.S. system is a majority political system where there can be no 'voice of the people' opposition to stop the leading political party from doing anything they want (or more like what their financial supporters want).


RE: Another nail
By random2 on 10/11/2013 5:39:31 AM , Rating: 2
I can say this is one of the common comments found in regards to Obama. I feel exactly the same way.


Thankfully
By techxx on 10/9/2013 2:25:30 PM , Rating: 2
Does anybody even care about these old products? Thankfully the S4 and new devices are safe.




RE: Thankfully
By amanojaku on 10/9/2013 2:36:22 PM , Rating: 5
It says the new Galaxy Tab 10.1 is banned, which I assume means the Intel Atom version released in July. Either way, it sets a very bad precedent that two companies can break the law in the same manner, but one is punished more severely without any plausible explanation. Additionally, Samsung's ban is based of a patent that is currently being reviewed for dismissal. Smells like favoritism.


RE: Thankfully
By Monkey's Uncle on 10/9/2013 2:43:26 PM , Rating: 5
quote:
Smells like favoritism

It sure does, and not really all that surprising considering Obama's financial history with Apple.


RE: Thankfully
By amanojaku on 10/9/2013 2:52:48 PM , Rating: 5
I wonder if it has anything to do with Obama only getting $250 from Samsung in campaign contributions last year. Apple, in comparison, paid over $300,000 to Obama. Naw, that can't be it.


RE: Thankfully
By Motoman on 10/9/2013 2:56:13 PM , Rating: 3
...which is why all lobbying should be illegal, and why companies aren't people and since they're not people they shouldn't be able to contribute to campaigns.


RE: Thankfully
By superstition on 10/9/2013 3:03:01 PM , Rating: 2
The so-called race for the presidency is an auction where the 1% gets its choice.

The candidate who is given the most money by the 1% is anointed 95% of the time.


RE: Thankfully
By FaaR on 10/9/13, Rating: -1
RE: Thankfully
By superstition on 10/9/2013 3:17:29 PM , Rating: 1
When does government action not involve corruption?

Government is corrupted by the same thing that corrupts humanity in general: greed.

Our society is one that is founded on the concept of net worth, a very amoral concept that says that a person's value is literally determined by how many resources they've managed to hoard. The same Social Darwinists, who feign piety, go on to complain about the government acting the way they do.


RE: Thankfully
By nafhan on 10/9/2013 3:40:45 PM , Rating: 2
I don't think he's saying that there's no corruption, just that it's unlikely to be the specific corruption responsible for these actions.


RE: Thankfully
By FaaR on 10/9/13, Rating: -1
RE: Thankfully
By superstition on 10/9/2013 3:59:26 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
That assertion, as worded, is of course both erroneous and fallacial at the same time.

Undoubtedly the US gov't is rife with corruption at various levels (no-brainer

Thanks for the lol.


RE: Thankfully
By FaaR on 10/9/13, Rating: -1
RE: Thankfully
By Monkey's Uncle on 10/9/2013 4:40:50 PM , Rating: 2
I found it pretty lol-worthy as well. Keep 'em coming.


RE: Thankfully
By Manch on 10/9/2013 5:30:42 PM , Rating: 5
No what they did was dangerous and stupid. By giving Apple a free pass making them above the law and banning Samsung products based on questionable patents that are under review to be dismissed, he just told the world that protectionism trumps all. Why should foreign companies obey the law when and give two craps about our patents if the administration allows the IP theft by American companies of their IPs? It's now open season on our IPs. How can we go to China and other countries to complain that their companies are not abiding by the law when we allow the theft of theirs?


RE: Thankfully
By Dr3amCast on 10/10/2013 8:30:07 AM , Rating: 2
Easy: "This is 'Murica."


RE: Thankfully
By Piiman on 10/12/2013 8:39:40 AM , Rating: 1
Its not just 300k. Its a message. That says "give to me and I'll give back" and they are saying it to all his big donors. This goes for both parties not just the current one in power.


RE: Thankfully
By inighthawki on 10/9/2013 2:55:30 PM , Rating: 3
Not caring about the products [because they're old] is not justification for this kind of behavior.

"phew, didn't affect newer products" is not the proper response here.


RE: Thankfully
By Mint on 10/9/13, Rating: 0
RE: Thankfully
By jimbojimbo on 10/9/2013 5:32:24 PM , Rating: 2
Read the article, dummy. The new Tab 10.1 which was released just a few months ago is also on the list.


RE: Thankfully
By Mint on 10/9/13, Rating: -1
Government shutdown as a BST?
By SublimeSimplicity on 10/9/2013 2:47:56 PM , Rating: 2
I believe we're in a binary search tree to determine how much government we need. If $#!@ like this is still happening, we haven't shut down enough.

Please furlough 1/2 of the remaining government and we'll re-evaluate.




RE: Government shutdown as a BST?
By Ammohunt on 10/9/2013 2:54:03 PM , Rating: 2
I know! all the money they are saving by furloughing the non-essential government employees can be used to pay the interest on our nations debt.


RE: Government shutdown as a BST?
By Kiffberet on 10/10/2013 7:31:51 AM , Rating: 1
All the people who get furloughed, don't get any money. That's a shit load of money no longer making it into the economy.

Less money, means less spending, means less jobs.

The borrowing will have to stop one day, but stopping it so suddenly is a recipe for disaster.


RE: Government shutdown as a BST?
By Ammohunt on 10/10/2013 9:01:20 AM , Rating: 2
How do ya figure? government workers are paid with taxpayers money. Fire the non essentials then cut taxes to the same amount so that we can keep and its win win for everyone


By inighthawki on 10/9/2013 2:57:36 PM , Rating: 2
The problem with this approach is that the people who are making all the awful decisions are not the ones who are being cut first. The primary problem is all the people in higher office (congress, senate, Obama, etc). All your solution does is make a lot of regular and useful people jobless.


RE: Government shutdown as a BST?
By web2dot0 on 10/9/13, Rating: -1
RE: Government shutdown as a BST?
By Ammohunt on 10/9/2013 3:47:40 PM , Rating: 1
You must be a useless Government worker that can't be fired.


RE: Government shutdown as a BST?
By Rukkian on 10/9/2013 4:32:43 PM , Rating: 2
While firing 800,000+ workers all at once would be bad, I don't think it is the governments job to employ people. That should be left to private industry.

I actually feel that we should have alot of what is considered non-essential, but using employment as the reason to keep them is idiotic at best imo.


By StevoLincolnite on 10/10/2013 3:02:26 AM , Rating: 2
Well. A government does need to employ people.

The Military is a job, the police is a job, fire fighting is a job.

In some countries health employs allot of people, I'm a Carer for example who looks after the frail and disabled, peoples lives are literally at stake in my line of work, sure my pay is nothing startling, but I never did do it for the money.
The Private industry conversely didn't want anything to do with these people as they're only pensioners for various reasons. (Disability, Veteran etc'.)

Should all these people be left out in the cold?

I'm all for cutting down on government waste and bureaucracy, but when you have a government making a scheme like building a road and workers literally try to extend how long it takes to do the project to earn as much cash as they can... Well. You get the idea.


RE: Government shutdown as a BST?
By Kiffberet on 10/10/2013 7:52:52 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
I don't think it is the governments job to employ people.


Yeah, try going it alone, with 'private industry'.

Unless you can afford a private army, you're f@cked!


RE: Government shutdown as a BST?
By Rukkian on 10/10/2013 10:34:57 AM , Rating: 2
Did you actually read what you replied to? I said there needs to be some jobs, but the reason against shutting down the government should not be to worry about the workers.

While there are services that could be argued are neccessary for the government to provide, imo, those services should be what is used as the reasoning to end the silly furloughs, not the jobs. Governement created jobs are paid for by industry in the end since that is where taxes come from. If everybody worked for the governement, there would not be enough taxes.

I was directly responding to the person that said we need to think about all the people that are out of jobs right now.


RE: Government shutdown as a BST?
By Manch on 10/9/2013 5:35:52 PM , Rating: 2
80/20 rule buddy. Just sayin.


RE: Government shutdown as a BST?
By Reclaimer77 on 10/9/2013 10:56:28 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
Go ahead stop paying 800,000+ workers .... see how that helps the economy.


The fact that the Federal Government is responsible for 800k+ employees (a conservative estimate to be sure) IS part of the problem. It illustrates how large and centralized it's become.

The economy? The economy would boom without the burden of carrying so much bureaucracy and waste. That's more money in the pocket of productive American businesses and the middle class. Government workers largely don't produce anything because the taxpayers of this country are on the hook for their salaries and expenses, yet you seem to be struggling with this simple fact.

And while we're at it, we absolutely deserve to default on this debt-limit fiasco. Just two years ago we were at this same juncture, the President promised cuts that never happened, and went on spending like a drunken sailor. The Democrats and the President have had 5 years to pass a budget and get this under control. But the only rational explanation is that they have no intention of adhering to a budget or limiting spending whatsoever, the only reason American has a forced spending limit in the first place!

It's a shame that the entire country has to suffer because a slight majority of it's voters are uninformed idiots, but one way or another things will get worse before they get better.


RE: Government shutdown as a BST?
By SDBud on 10/10/2013 12:43:41 AM , Rating: 1

Without government, such as it is now in the U.S., the economy WOULD boom, FOR the thieves and scammers. WORSE than it does now.

800,000 workers is about 1 person out of 400 in the population. NOT all that big when you actually THINK about it, instead of spouting the Tea Party line.


By Reclaimer77 on 10/10/2013 1:05:05 AM , Rating: 2
Nobody is talking about going to some form of Anarchy where a Government doesn't exist. Why the F is it that every time someone talks about a responsibly sized Government, in keeping with the Constitution, does someone ALWAYS go there!?

Secondly 800k? We wish! We currently have 2.75+ million Federal employees. I guess you don't think that's all that big either probably, but it's frankly alarming.

And that's just direct Executive Branch employees. There are far far more Americans than that owing their lifestyle to Federal dollars.

And you know what? I don't appreciate you saying I'm spouting some Tea Party line. If you want to make attacks and get personal, buddy let me tell ya, I'm willing to oblige you. But don't hand me that Tea Party Fox News nonsense you cowards throw out every time inconvenient viewpoints get in the way of your Liberal dream world fantasies.


RE: Government shutdown as a BST?
By Kiffberet on 10/10/2013 7:46:03 AM , Rating: 2
A policeman doesn't 'produce' anything. Nor does the guy collecting your taxes to pay the guy police the streets, 'produce' anything.

Not everybody needs to produce anything in a modern economy.

I don't produce a damn thing. I work on the IT systems at an insurance company, where we collect premiums from 100 people, so we can give it to one of them when they crash their car. The other 99 get nothing.

Bit like government workers. You don't need them, but they make your life better, and that's what you pay for.


By Reclaimer77 on 10/10/2013 9:03:13 AM , Rating: 2
Government employment is fine, as long as its kept to the bare minimum required to run a minimalist Republic as-per the Constitution.

Oh and you confused producing things with being productive. You might not produce a product, but you're productive, you get things done, leaches like Government workers aren't.


RE: Government shutdown as a BST?
By Rukkian on 10/10/2013 10:40:40 AM , Rating: 2
While Obama and the dems aren't doing anything, blaming it on one side or the other is a big part of our problem in this country. Neither side really wants smaller government, they both just want to help out whoever pays them the most.

I don't feel anybody in Washington trying has the best interest of the country in mind.


RE: Government shutdown as a BST?
By Reclaimer77 on 10/10/2013 11:54:26 AM , Rating: 2
The mainstream Republican leadership doesn't want a truly small Government, agree. However they certainly want a much smaller one than the President and the Dems.


RE: Government shutdown as a BST?
By KCjoker on 10/10/2013 6:38:46 PM , Rating: 2
Exactly, we could at the very very least stop growing the Gov't for the next 5 years.


Vote with your wallet
By EasyC on 10/10/2013 8:23:58 AM , Rating: 5
Let's face it, our election system, like much of our government is corrupt. The best thing we can do, is not support (read: buy from) the companies that pull this type of crap. Sounds great in theory, but the American people are too stupid to make this determination. People waiting in line for days to buy the newest iTurd make me sick, and only enable this type of favoritism. If supporting Apple would start costing the politicians votes, you'd see a different outcome. Instead, they see people on the news in tents dying to support this company and figure that all Americans must be that iDiotic.




These are distinct types of Patents
By ptmmac on 10/10/2013 5:13:12 PM , Rating: 2
The argument that Apple got it's way and Samsung didn't is silly. Samsung only offered their Frand or standards based patents that were encumbered by the restriction to be offered in a fair and non-discriminatory manner. Apple's patents were not encumbered by the same restrictions. Using a Patent that was offered only because it would be made a part of a standard used to make radio's interoperate as a club to stop further competition is wrong. Many of these patents were only filed just after the meeting between the standards based committee had made a critical decision about how the radio's on the network should function. There are literally thousands of patents necessary to make a cell phone work. Samsung has been holding out for 2.4% of the sale price of the product to use one standards based patent. The going rate is only a few cents per set of patents. Samsung has already been under investigation in Europe for abuse of FRand Patents. The over turn of Samsung's use of Frand patents to stop a competitor from selling similar products was supported by the majority of companies working in this area. Intel, Microsoft, Nokia, and several others all license their patents according to FRAND rules. Samsung is trying to use FRAND as a big stick to get Apple to license all the patents they received for the iPhone. NO one else in the industry besides Google wants to do things this way.




RE: These are distinct types of Patents
By Wazza1234 on 10/11/2013 9:55:05 AM , Rating: 1
The only post on this article which has any kind of grasp on reality.

It's really indicative of the level of posters on here that almost nobody understands the distinction you point out.

The saddest thing is that Jason is perfectly aware of the distinction yet marked this date on his calendar to post an anti-Apple and anti-Obama combined troll article. And the readers of DailyTech (yourself excluded) aren't intelligent enough to see past that.


By ptmmac on 10/11/2013 6:37:54 PM , Rating: 2
The commenters on here are not stupid. They just mistake their own ideas and interpretations for reality. This is actually a funny human foible that generally is related to egoism. People want to live their lives with simple ideas rather than complex ones. Even if they know what they are saying is just balderdash, they enjoy spouting it anyway. Jason makes a living doing it.


Not all patents are equal.
By drycrust3 on 10/9/2013 4:07:59 PM , Rating: 2
I know this isn't a popular thought, but my recollection is the Apple patents here are design patents, not "real" patents (or whatever they are called). This is the same as if someone copies a Fender guitar or a Coca Cola bottle or an HP calculator, the look of that product is distinctive and has been protected.
In that sense, I agree with Apple ... and no, I'm not an Apple fan, I just think they do have some justification in their complaint.
All that said, I do think Apple should pay Samsung the FRAND royalties simply because one day the boot could be on the other foot, and it may end up hurting Apple more than they've gained.




RE: Not all patents are equal.
By milktea on 10/9/2013 4:26:00 PM , Rating: 2
Too many loopholes in our existing Patent system. It would seem that only the rich and powerful companies would come out ahead in this patent system.

And when two powerful companies collide, the big brother steps in. It's almost like what you see in those triad movies.


Such FELDERCARP!
By SDBud on 10/10/2013 12:38:49 AM , Rating: 3

Can't believe that Apple can get away with this kind of garbage.

Guess I need to re-register (AGAIN), but as an Independent.

<sigh>




By Monkey's Uncle on 10/9/2013 2:41:18 PM , Rating: 2
C'mon, Obama looking after his cronies? Big surprise right there.

It's a good thing that the next election will see him out of office and Apple snuggling up to the incumbent as their next new presidential power puppet.




SEP and non-SEP fight
By milktea on 10/9/2013 4:17:45 PM , Rating: 2
The lawyers must be drooling over these patent litigations.

Anyway, if the Korean gov can get the Chinese to import ban Apple's iphone, then let's see what the Obama Admin would have to say. Let's see if there would be any favoritism.




Galaxy SII
By Shadowmaster625 on 10/10/2013 9:53:44 AM , Rating: 2
So what does this mean for the galaxy SII? Can they ban the sale of used or "refurbished" phones? Can they ban companies like Sprint from offering service to such phones? Why doesnt this stupid article actually address these most basic of questions?




Jason Mick is blatently lying
By Reflex on 10/9/13, Rating: 0
"We can't expect users to use common sense. That would eliminate the need for all sorts of legislation, committees, oversight and lawyers." -- Christopher Jennings














botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki