South Korean government expresses concern over Obama's veto in Apple-Samsung patent dispute

1235

Comments

  • Reply 81 of 102
    gatorguygatorguy Posts: 23,300member
    daredevil wrote: »
    It's more like somewhere between 1999-2001, to help Samsung increase their LCD production capacit<span style="font-size:12px;line-height:18px;">y also helping to bring cheaper prices to market.</span>
    So 14 years ago, almost 15. :-)
  • Reply 82 of 102
    gtr wrote: »
    South Korean government expresses concern?

    It would be funnier if South Korean government expressed "concern" about "Apple's competitiveness since Steve died," because they've been "Apple fans since 1961."
  • Reply 83 of 102
    ybfmiami wrote: »
    Samsung owns the South Korean Govt & media. 

    You don't know the half of it. Samsung alone is 20% of the country's GDP.
  • Reply 84 of 102
    jungmarkjungmark Posts: 6,882member
    You don't know the half of it. Samsung alone is 20% of the country's GDP.

    And that's just the bribes.
  • Reply 85 of 102
    Aren't you guys being a little hard on Sammy?
  • Reply 86 of 102
    gtrgtr Posts: 3,231member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Potsie Webber View Post



    Aren't you guys being a little hard on Sammy?


     


    Go do a little research on 'Sammy'.


     


    If there ever was a better example of corporate greed and corruption (outside of international finance industries) then I haven't come across it.


     


    Buy a Samsung: You're supporting corporate greed at it's most excessive.


     


    Corruption:


     


    http://www.koreatimes.co.kr/www/news/nation/2013/07/117_19177.html


     


    Bribery:


     


    http://www.fastcompany.com/1627411/bribery-massive-corruption-samsung-says-exposé-former-s-korean-prosecutor


     


    Tax Evasion:


     


    http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/17/business/worldbusiness/17iht-17samsung.12083418.html?_r=0


     


    Copyright Infringement:


     


    http://techcrunch.com/2012/08/24/apple-wins-patent-ruling-as-jury-finds-samsung-infringes/


     


    Falsifying Reviews:


     


    http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-04-17/samsung-ends-anonymous-web-reviews-amid-taiwan-probe.html


     


    Falsifying Benchmarks:


     


    http://www.anandtech.com/show/7187/looking-at-cpugpu-benchmark-optimizations-galaxy-s-4


     


    Buy an Apple: Support a company that wishes to improve society by 'making a dent in the universe'.

  • Reply 87 of 102
    andreidandreid Posts: 96member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by jkichline View Post



    Now if we can only get Samsung's hands out it's government's pants...



    The Obama Administration has done what is right. Take a look at the article published here yesterday to see who the bad guy is. Samsung has revoked it's licenses and betrayed the trust in manufacturers and standards bodies so they could double dip with exorbitant rates. Apple already paid for the chip that had the licensed patents. Samsung must not be allowed to ask 2.4-2.7% of an entire finished device. It makes absolutely NO sense.



    I hope other manufacturers and customers see this unethical behavior and isolate Samsung like Apple is doing.


    I did read the article in question but i can't follow up, maybe because i'm not native in English. Can you clear it up or explain your summary?

  • Reply 88 of 102
    tallest skiltallest skil Posts: 43,399member
    applezilla wrote: »
    T.S.

    Elliot.
    hjb wrote: »
    Without Samsung, Apple would not have been this successful and never likely be.

    Talk about idiotic FUD. :rolleyes: This level of dumb needs infractions.

    Without the United States, South Korea would never have existed. See, I can say completely irrelevant and possibly wrong things, too.
    So in effect Apple would be stealing someone else's patents?

    Shut up and go away. Apple stole nothing.
  • Reply 89 of 102


    You guys really don't understand the case... Keep falling back on ONE analysis by Dean Pinkert. That's an opinion filed by Dean Pinkert, one of the ITC's SIX commissioners. Which might even have been interesting, were it not for the fact that the five other commissioners thought his reasoning was total BS, and even gave a substantial explanation of just why it was bollocks in the final judgement.


     


    There was no reason that Samsung should have made any 'effort to demonstrate that the licensing terms it offered Apple "satisfied an objective standard of reasonableness."' Apple infringed, and the onus was upon them to demonstrate that Samsung refused to negotiate a FRAND licensing settlement, and the ITC concluded that:


     


    The Administrative Law Judge concludes that the evidence does not support Apple's allegation that Samsung failed to offer Apple licenses to Samsung's declared-essential patents on FRAND terms with a side-order of irritation at Apple's arrogance: it is not enough for Apple to say that Samsung's license offer was unreasonable based on Apple's rationale. Furthermore, Samsung didn't require licenses in return: it may, allegedly, have proposed negotiating a cross-licensing deal, but so what? As the ITC points out, " negotiations often involve a process of offer and counteroffer before the parties arrive at an agreed price."


     


    In fact, the ITC concludes that Apple made no effort to negotiate: Apple's evidence does not demonstrate that Apple put forth a sincere, bona fide effort to bargain with Samsung. Remarkably, even though Apple complains that Samsung's license offer was not FRAND, Apple has not shown that, as a member to ETSI, it ever availed itself of the process and procedures of the ETSI under Clause 4.3 of the ETSI Guide on IPRs, which provides for mediation by ETSI Members or the Secretariat.


     


    'm no fan of SEPs myself, but just striking down judgements because they might hit your rich donors and lobbyists is crony favouritism at best, and in many countries would be called as the blatant corruption that it is. The ITC is the only venue in the US system that can offer time-sensistive investigation of infringement of FRAND patents, and also the only venue where the public interest is as important as the private agendas of litigants: these are the reasons it exists at all. If Obama thinks that these functions are unnecessary then he could propose to lawmakers that they modify its authorising statues (effectively abolishing it) ... but he seems to prefer to act autocratically to protect his donors rather than offering any legal argument (as usual, one might even say).

  • Reply 90 of 102
    iaeeniaeen Posts: 588member
    You guys really don't understand the case... Keep falling back on ONE analysis by Dean Pinkert. That's an opinion filed by Dean Pinkert, one of the ITC's SIX commissioners. [...]

    Well yes, there's him. There's also the office of the U.S. Trade Representative (you know, the higher authority that decided the ITC was wrong). There's Judge Koh who threw out the claims in the Appke/Samsung case. There's the senators as well as other members of the tech industry who also voiced their support for a veto of the ITC decision. Lets see: OH! There's also the European courts who are investigating Samsung for FRAND patent abuse.

    Yes, clearly it's us who don't understand the situation¡
  • Reply 91 of 102

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by knightryda12 View Post


    You guys really don't understand the case... blah...blah



    We heard you twice the first time you posted this, Mr. Cut-and-Paste.

  • Reply 92 of 102
    tooltalktooltalk Posts: 766member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post





    Ummm. . . apparently those nice high-end French door GE refrigerators are actually built by Samsung and just re-badged as GE (at a slightly higher price). Look at 'em side-by-side and it will be evident. Or you could just do a web search.


     


    excellent point.  I'm pretty sure that all SONY LCD TVs were in fact manufactured by Samsung until very recently. 

  • Reply 93 of 102
    tooltalktooltalk Posts: 766member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by GTR View Post





    Well, of course, genius, unless you've worked out a way to get incomplete devices to function.



    Refusing to buy individual devices produced by Samsung is totally different from not buying devices that contain components.



    And isn't that just fortunate for Samsung, eh?



    image


     


    Sure, you do realize that the component division is Samsung their bread and butter -- though Samsung now makes more revenue/profit from mobile.


     


    sounds like Samsung wins either way. 

  • Reply 94 of 102

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by tooltalk View Post


     


    excellent point.  I'm pretty sure that all SONY LCD TVs were in fact manufactured by Samsung until very recently. 



    I was trying to explain this to another user earlier in the thread.


     


    In 2004, S-LCD was a 50:50 joint venture by Sony and Samsung to manufacture LCD displays. In 2009, Sony made a deal with Sharp to manufacture a number of displays. At the start of 2012, Sony sold their share of S-LCD to Samsung.

  • Reply 95 of 102
    gtrgtr Posts: 3,231member
    tooltalk wrote: »
    excellent point.  I'm pretty sure that all SONY LCD TVs were in fact manufactured by Samsung until very recently. 

    Sony?

    Ah, that would be the Sony that Samsung f*cked over in TV manufacturing just they did with Apple in the mobile industry.

    Thank you for bringing up that point.
  • Reply 96 of 102
    gtrgtr Posts: 3,231member
    tooltalk wrote: »
    Sure, you do realize that the component division is Samsung their bread and butter -- though Samsung now makes more revenue/profit from mobile.

    sounds like Samsung wins either way. 

    Not only do I realise but I don't give a damn.

    And Samsung wins?

    Only a fool would be proud of the fact that Samsung cares nothing for customers, clients, morals, or principles.
  • Reply 97 of 102


    Lol, are we talking about corporations?  Didn't know they were known for caring about you, morals, etc.  All they want is your $$$, get real...

  • Reply 98 of 102
    tallest skiltallest skil Posts: 43,399member
    Lol, are we talking about corporations?  Didn't know they were known for caring about you, morals, etc.  All they want is your $$$, get real...

    Except that's not the case with Apple.
  • Reply 99 of 102
    gtrgtr Posts: 3,231member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by knightryda12 View Post


    Lol, are we talking about corporations?  Didn't know they were known for caring about you, morals, etc.  All they want is your $$$, get real...



     


    Tallest Skil is correct.


     


    Perception is not your strong point, is it?

  • Reply 100 of 102


    You are delusional to think a big corporation, especially the biggest in the world gives a care about you.  Sorry to burst your bubble...

Sign In or Register to comment.