Samsung Loses Bid for Obama U.S. Product Ban Veto

Your next video will start in

Recommended Videos

  • Info

  • Comments


Oct. 8 (Bloomberg) -- Bloomberg West Editor-At-Large Cory Johnson examines the decision by President Barack Obama to not lift a ban of certain older Samsung phones in its patent war with Apple. He speaks on Bloomberg Television’s “Bloomberg West.”

To the apple situation is like comparing apples to oranges.

In some ways.

It is important to look at what samsung has done with their smart phone business and how they have grown to be one of the largest businesses in the history of mankind.

This is not hyperbole.

It is an enormous business.

They have seen tremendous gains built into these devices that they invented.

What apple says, wait, you didn't just invent these devices.

You stole some stuff here in so did they build this business and sells or was it built over time -- business themselves or was it built over time?

What president obama had to do in making this decision was look at the history of this patent battle and made -- and look at what made this case different.

He didn't say anything last night after midnight.

His traitor presented it did.

"-- but his trade representative did.

That was their decision in the statement about this.

But the context is what everyone is talking about, the similarity of the sounds and the service- level similarity in the cases.

That was president obama's tough patent call.

Yes, he vetoed an apple product dan very much in support of some older products and wanted to be carefully watching this upcoming case against samsung.

So last night, defining to be towed the samsung product van looks like he is playing hometown favorites.

That is what i was then asked him why not cut samsung the same break?

Is it simply because they are not an american company?

They are a very different cases.

Fundamentally, the apple versus samsung cases very different from the samsung versus apple case.

The apple versus samsung case, these are the patents that apple wanted to use and lost the case over.

These are standard and central patents of which there are thousands.

It is akin to breathing oxygen.

And it requires the law that there is a fair and reasonable and nondiscriminatory way of licensing.

These are standard 3-d technology wireless technologies of which there are thousands in every patent.

The apple patent were very different.

They are nonessential patents.

There is no requirement for apple to license them under the law unlike samsung.

There are very specific things that apple invented.

The headphone jack that can tell when you unplug it and turns off your music, that is something that apple engineers came up with.

They are nonessential to the usage of cell phones and they don't have to license those if they don't want.

They can determine whatever rights they want for that.

And future samsung devices were designed around those patents.

What happens now?

There are several of these cases open run the world.

Again, this is a really big is this for samsung.

They took and probably $20 billion last year alone.

When you look at the size of that business, samsung will fight tooth and nail to protect that on the low-end as well as the high end.

So it will try to go back to the itc and say that the president was wrong and the case itself was wrong and try to appeal that.

They are running out of chances.

The patent also has some serious american locations,

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