Angry of Tunbridge Wells
Guest
|
Authored by Angry of Tunbridge Wells on Oct 9, 2013 8:58:57 GMT
Can we now expect a President Obama veto of this ban, or is that only reserved for American companies that steal other's IP? (Link to BBC story)
|
|
|
Authored by opensourceftw on Oct 9, 2013 22:22:27 GMT
Correct answer -> yes.
Answer that is coming -> probably not.
|
|
|
Authored by wayneborean on Oct 11, 2013 19:11:35 GMT
Can we now expect a President Obama veto of this ban, or is that only reserved for American companies that steal other's IP? (Link to BBC story)
That's a really good question. I don't know what will happen. If Obama doesn't veto the ban, it will look really bad. If he does veto the ban, it will look really bad. He shouldn't have gotten involved, and just let things play out in the courts. Wayne madhatter.ca
|
|
Cm
Guest
|
Authored by Cm on Oct 11, 2013 19:29:57 GMT
With the current US "shut-down", it's not going to be easy to get an answer...
|
|
Bubba
Guest
|
Authored by Bubba on Oct 14, 2013 12:00:53 GMT
|
|
Disgusted of Tunbridge Wells
Guest
|
Authored by Disgusted of Tunbridge Wells on Oct 14, 2013 17:28:37 GMT
Clearly the USA is into local protectionism then.
Obviopusly where Samsung went wrong is that they didn't ask a judge to set the rate and say that they would only accept the rate and pay it if it was at most x%, otherwise they would just ignore it and carry on using the IP for free - JUST LIKE APPLE DID.
Then the President would veto the ban...
|
|
|
Authored by wayneborean on Oct 16, 2013 15:14:24 GMT
Let's follow the money. Here's Apple's donations: www.opensecrets.org/orgs/summary.php?id=D000021754Note that all the donations were from "individuals" as compared to corporate. Then there's the Samsung Group and Samsung Electronics www.opensecrets.org/orgs/summary.php?cycle=2012&id=D000042406www.opensecrets.org/orgs/summary.php?cycle=2012&id=D000042764You'll note that Samsung donated far less than Apple, and also lobbied far less. I'm not saying that the President was "bought" because I don't believe he was. He was probably looking at Apple's $453.79 Billion market cap and wondering how badly an import ban would impact American stockholders. ca.finance.yahoo.com/q?s=AAPLAnd an import ban would have had a huge impact on Apple's stock price, depressing retirement portfolios, etc. Remember when they used to say "What's good for General Motors is good for America" back I'm the Sixties? You could use the same line about Apple. Samsung is a Korean company, and I don't know how to check things like market cap, so I can't make a direct comparison (if anyone does know how, please explain it here, and we can all learn). A drop in Samsung share price is far less likely to have a major impact on American shareholders. Also to Samsung, the United States is a small market, whereas for Apple the United States brings in over 60% of total earnings (I estimated that number partly based on Apple Store locations). From the above you can see there are logical reasons for Obama to back Apple against Samsung. That the reasons happen to parallel the levels of political donations is probably accidental. That it looks like Obama was bought and paid for, well, as I said earlier, no matter what he did the optics would be terrible. What is even worse, is the impact that the move could have on trade treaties. Obama has been pushing for a wide range of trade treaties, and here he's just gone and proven that his government doesn't care abut law, it will protect its own. Sure, they made all the right noises with the United States-Korea Free Trade Agreement, and now the Executive Branch has ignored the spirit of the agreement by protecting Apple from competition by Samsung. www.ustr.gov/trade-agreements/free-trade-agreements/korus-ftaWayne madhatter.ca
|
|
GLaw
Guest
|
Authored by GLaw on Oct 16, 2013 16:41:37 GMT
|
|