Samsung loses $1 billion in market value following Obama


Recommended Posts

samsung-1.jpg?w=618

 

President Obama on Saturday reversed a sales ban on Apple?s iPhone 4 and iPad 2 that was set to go into effect on Monday. The ban had previously been ordered by the U.S. International Trade Commission, which had determined that Apple?s previous-generation mobile devices infringed a Samsung-owned patent and could therefore not be sold in the United States. Following the President?s veto, Samsung shares slid on Monday on the Korean exchange as investors grew concerned that the decision might have implications for Samsung?s patent rights. Samsung?s stock closed down just one point at 1,274,000 won but as The Wall Street Journal noted, that slight dip cost Samsung more than $1 billion in market value. ?We are disappointed that the U.S. Trade Representative has decided to set aside the exclusion order issued by the U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC),? Samsung said in a statement on Saturday in response to the veto. ?The ITC?s decision correctly recognized that Samsung has been negotiating in good faith and that Apple remains unwilling to take a license.?

 

 

http://bgr.com/2013/08/05/samsung-apple-ban-veto-market-value/

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Umm, don't think Obama vetoed this.  A member of his administration did tho.

 

Anyway, seems that Apple has their claws deep in Washington's pockets.

It's Obama's Administration, so his responsibility. This is so unfair for everyone else, that the big boys can get a pass in America because they are deemed to big to fail.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Umm, don't think Obama vetoed this.  A member of his administration did tho.

 

Anyway, seems that Apple has their claws deep in Washington's pockets.

 

Apple has paid the least in lobbying. So i wouldn't say they have claws deep within Washington. ( If they had they wouldn't lose the Amazon case )

 

It's Obama's Administration, so his responsibility. This is so unfair for everyone else, that the big boys can get a pass in America because they are deemed to big to fail.

 

To me, the patents is either invalid, or it is FRAND. But Again, most of the important details in the case were missing . So it is hard to judge.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Apple has paid the least in lobbying. So i wouldn't say they have claws deep within Washington. ( If they had they wouldn't lose the Amazon case )

 

And Google has lost their fair share of cases as well..but yet, many like to spout out they have their hooks in the government.  Just pointing out that not only Google or Apple has their claws in the government.  I am sure MS has their hooks in deep as well.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And Google has lost their fair share of cases as well..but yet, many like to spout out they have their hooks in the government.  Just pointing out that not only Google or Apple has their claws in the government.  I am sure MS has their hooks in deep as well.

I'm sure they all do. I'd be surprised if they didn't.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I wonder if the decision would have been vetoed if the ban affected Samsung's Galaxy S2 and Galaxy Tab 7.0.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Samsung really should not have sued using standard essential patents... Samsung is also under investigation in the EU as well.  This has nothing to do with Obama. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I wonder if the decision would have been vetoed if the ban affected Samsung's Galaxy S2 and Galaxy Tab 7.0.

 

probably, it's not about the company as much as what the government makes in taxes on them and the devices. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Samsung had the older iPhone models banned for infringing on FRAND patents -- something against the nature of FRAND patents themselves.

Samsung was fined in Europe for this same practice.  Verizon actually submitted an appeal on AT&Ts behalf as allowing FRAND patents to be used in any patent lawsuit would be destructive to the industry whole.

This has nothing to do with Obama or Apple lobbyists; allowing the ban to stand would be a terrible precedent to set which is why it was ultimately overturned.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Apple makes up somewhere around .33% of the GDP. Obama's administration may just be protecting it because at the moment they could use all the help they can get keeping the numbers up. Just a theory though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.