Is Samsung Import Ban a Case of Nationalism?

Your next video will start in

Recommended Videos

  • Info

  • Comments


Oct. 7 (Bloomberg) – On today’s "Drill Down," Cory Johnson takes a look at the latest battle in the Apple-Samsung patent war. He speaks with Emily Chang on Bloomberg Television’s “Bloomberg West.” (Source: Bloomberg)


Whether they will treat samsung like apple.

We look at the revenue.

It is simply a enormous what they have done.

What was already a big business five or six years ago of $90 billion up to $28 billion in stock prices.

As this thing has grown so much, fundamentally, differences in the two type of phones is not terribly pronounced.

That is the whole thing.

One piece of the phone is so different and what is the same and might the government decide and treat this as two different cases differently.

The department that will make the decision, the u.s. patent office will decide when they look at this and advise the president.

He said -- a reporter has said decisions have nothing to do with nationality of the parties involved.

If president obama vacated the ruling against apple for mahogany reject a rolling punishing samsung?

That is the way you might look at it.

If these cases are the same why would they not be treated the same or is a national?

It is possible they are different.

Yet under the most basic things about patents.

There are two kinds.

Nonessential and a standard in situ.

That's standard essential.

A seat heater, a standard essential like the wheels on the car.

They have to promise to fairly and reasonably and nondiscriminatory license those patents to apple.

What the president decided it was that apple was not being fair.

It seems to make the iphone unique.

The samsung patent is being withheld and is called very essential and they were not to do a fair job of offering those of to apple.

Making a comparison of apples to oranges.

The president could decide that samsung does have products and going to pay bigger fines.

What does the court case -- what what did the court case find?

The patents were being infringed.

In both cases, that was the finding.

Whether they were doing it they are licensing.

That is the whole case of the punishment could hinge on in the white house tonight.

Does the fact we are taught by this means the patent office is open for business despite the government shut down?

That the other wrench into the work.

The patent office could not enforce anything decided by the president tonight because nobody is there.

They went home.

Cory johnson, thank you.

This text has been automatically generated. It may not be 100% accurate.


BTV Channel Finder


ZIP is required for U.S. locations

Bloomberg Television in   change