• South Korean Government Not Thrilled with Obama Veto

    by
    Michael Essany
    Published on 2013-08-05 07:49 PM
    12 Comments Comments


    In a move not taken by a sitting U.S. president in decades, over the weekend the Obama Administration vetoed a partial ban on the import and sale of some Apple products, which was granted back in June in a response to a ruling made by the ITC (to read MMi's coverage, click here).

    Amidst the fallout from the controversial decision, the South Korean government is said to be thoroughly displeased by the Obama Administration's action. Officials in Seoul fear the move may negatively impact Samsung Electronics Co.'s patent rights.

    The Wall Street Journal reported Monday that more than $1 billion was "wiped off Samsung's market value on Monday after the surprise veto." South Korea-based Samsung did not comment today on expectations from the International Trade Commission later this week.

    The South Korean government's statement suggests that the legal dispute between the two technology giants could escalate into a political issue depending on the outcome of the ITC's decision.
    "If the presidential veto appears to be used to give advantage to Apple over Samsung, this would be a dangerous precedent that could upset the current good trade relations between the U.S. and South Korea," Mark Newman, an analyst with Sanford C. Bernstein, tells the WSJ.

    Source: WSJ
    This article was originally published in forum thread: South Korean Government Not Thrilled with Obama Veto started by Michael Essany View original post
    1. Categories:
    2. iPhone,
    3. Apple
    Comments 12 Comments
    1. GrumpySod's Avatar
      GrumpySod - 2013-08-05, 07:54 PM
      Next the south will have a big make up with the north and both will threaten the United States as the north has done this year already!
    1. SirZyrion's Avatar
      SirZyrion - 2013-08-05, 08:47 PM
      Hmmm... South Korea gets mad at the US. The US stops protecting South Korea. North Korea crosses the DMZ and invades South Korea. One less thing we have to worry about. *shrug*

      Seriously though, if the Federal Government is going to start stepping in and protecting corporations they like (read as "who are in control") from patent infringement, that could have a seriously negative impact on small businesses here. Screw the impacts in South Korea! This seems like a REALLY bad move for OUR economic system!

      But it's funny that this is a big deal over a 2 year old phone and iPad...

      Note: links to WSJ.com can't be seen unless we're subscribers. Are any other sources available?
    1. dsg's Avatar
      dsg - 2013-08-05, 08:54 PM
      nvm
    1. SirZyrion's Avatar
      SirZyrion - 2013-08-05, 09:06 PM
      After more (a lot) of digging, I found details behind the veto:

      Obama iPhone Ban Veto: Why did Obama stop ITC ban on iPhone 4, iPad 2? | BGR

      Looks like it may have been the right call.

      'Murca!!!
    1. steve-z17's Avatar
      steve-z17 - 2013-08-05, 09:47 PM
      Obama made the right decision.
    1. REMED1AL's Avatar
      REMED1AL - 2013-08-05, 09:50 PM
      Quote Originally Posted by SirZyrion View Post
      After more (a lot) of digging, I found details behind the veto:

      Obama iPhone Ban Veto: Why did Obama stop ITC ban on iPhone 4, iPad 2? | BGR

      Looks like it may have been the right call.

      'Murca!!!
      Agreed. Reading some of the comments from you link show that, even when outlined clearly, people still don't understand. Apple refused to agree to Sansungs offer to license FRAND protected patents that required unnecessary non-FRAND patents. Since samsung placed no fair deals on the table Apple did not make a deal.

      Samsung should have places a FRAND approved agreement for the patents in this case.

      Apple should not have used those patents without a FRAND approved agreement in place.

      Both are a fault and essentially void each other as both should have worked together and both choose not to do so. It would make more sense to outline what cost a fair FRAND Approved agreement would have cost per phone and pay that amount to Samsung. No fines. No sale restrictions. Just pay what would have been paid had Samsung made a fair deal. Samsung gets their money. Apple sells their phone. WIN = WIN vs. LOSE = LOSE.
    1. shinpeer1981's Avatar
      shinpeer1981 - 2013-08-05, 10:10 PM
      Obama making a good decision? Was he using tele prompter?

      Comment about US troops protecting Korea? Koreans pay US army to protect them...US isnt there for free...more like mercenaries.. think before open your mouth.
    1. DayumQuitPlayin's Avatar
      DayumQuitPlayin - 2013-08-05, 11:23 PM
      Well I don't know why SK is upset. They seem to favor their own companies over US companies (which is natural but at times unfair). So it's only right that the US govt support Apple.
    1. mr117's Avatar
      mr117 - 2013-08-06, 12:38 AM
      The Korean War (Police Action) is still going- Congress never ratified an end to it.

      I'm not sure why Obama would step in, and I'm not sure I agree (or don't) with his actions, but it doesn't seem to be that big a deal. And, yes, it relates to Apple dumping old stock, not i5s.
    1. Jahooba's Avatar
      Jahooba - 2013-08-06, 01:18 AM
      Barry Obama is a fool, but it seems as though this veto was justified.
    1. smith01's Avatar
      smith01 - 2013-08-06, 03:51 AM
      Obama is just being RACIST!
      He's backing the Americans. If it was the other way around and the Samsung devices would get banned I bet her would've let it go ahead.
    1. Christophxr's Avatar
      Christophxr - 2013-08-06, 09:10 AM
      Hey, South Korea.

      Deal with it.

      This is America.

  • Connect With Us

  • Discord

    Join our Discord

  • Twitter Box

  • Facebook