[QUOTE=.FLAP.JACK.DAN.;41709000]Makes me wonder why we even have second terms. I mean he isn't the first.[/QUOTE]
Forcing presidents to only stay in office for a single term could cause problems if all their competition is fucking awful and nobody votes for them. You'd need more than the two party system to actually manage single term presidencies properly.
thanks, obongo!
now I can easily make a company and break all the laws!
[QUOTE=lolz3;41708784]I was Anti-Obama before it was cool.[/QUOTE]
so you mean you didn't like Obama before you had a decent reason not to
[QUOTE=Craptasket;41708296]Be sure to vote for Mickey Mouse next time.[/QUOTE]
I am not American and I don't exactly know, but do you genuinely think that Romney/Cain would be better in his place?
It's a very painful case of lesser of two evils, but I see no way out of it unless you guys can go from the ground up and get a candidate without support of both Democrats and Republicans, and that sounds pretty much impossible right now.
I bet if it were reversed and the Obama administration overturned a ban on Samsung selling products everyone here would be throwing a party.
This whole patent bullshit needs to end, but using the economy as an excuse is just a bit silly. Solve the actual problem.
It doesn't seem right that the president has to power to veto these kind of decisions.
Wow, what a wonderful precedent to set: It's okay for Apple to steal other people's patents because they're too big and too important to the economy to have judgments against them.
Too Big to Fail is alive and well.
Example of state intervention of so called 'independent' courts.
Hey guys it's Barack's birthday so maybe you guys should just back off and give him a day to himself geeeeez.
Vetoes are executive orders? Well this is new!
[QUOTE=laserguided;41710034]Example of state intervention of so called 'independent' courts.[/QUOTE]
This has nothing to do with courts.
[QUOTE=Panda X;41709776]I bet if it were reversed and the Obama administration overturned a ban on Samsung selling products everyone here would be throwing a party.
This whole patent bullshit needs to end, but using the economy as an excuse is just a bit silly. Solve the actual problem.[/QUOTE]
But Samsung's patents were technology patents, not bullshit ~design~ patents
[QUOTE=mobrockers;41709839]It doesn't seem right that the president has to power to veto these kind of decisions.[/QUOTE]
Using executive orders to do what he damn well pleases? No, doesn't seem right at all.
symptom of the larger, cancerous, metastasized disease is software patenting
[editline]4th August 2013[/editline]
abolish patents
[QUOTE=DrasarSalman;41708371]To me, the US presidential election is just a choice between a capitalist or a completely insane moron who thinks it's still the 60's.
Worst part is that it's not even the people who choose who leads the country and the congress pretty much runs everything anyway.[/QUOTE]
I agree man.
tbh the only people who lose out with this patent import bans shite are the consumers
so good on baracka flacka flames i guess
[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zQ-hPNrKdZI[/media]
Does it have something to do with the fact that Samsung is a South Korean company and apple is an American company
I fail to see how this is a bad thing, maybe favoritism towards Apple sure. But these patent battles between Samsung and Apple need to stop and this whole thing is bullshit and just wasting peoples time and the governments money.
[QUOTE=ROFLBURGER;41712019]Does it have something to do with the fact that Samsung is a South Korean company and apple is an American company[/QUOTE]
Of course
that's it. i'm moving.
[QUOTE=stawicki;41713156]that's it. i'm moving.[/QUOTE]
why? over some electronics being [b]allowed[/b] in your country?
[QUOTE=ROFLBURGER;41712019]Does it have something to do with the fact that Samsung is a South Korean company and apple is an American company[/QUOTE]
No
It doesn't help that the thread title is shit, the source in the OP is shit, and nobody is researching what's happening here.
[url=http://www.theverge.com/2013/8/3/4585700/president-obama-vetoes-samsung-patent-ban-on-iphone-4-and-select-ipads]Better source[/url]
[quote]The veto is detailed in a letter written by Trade Representative Michael Froman from the Office of the President of the United States. At issue is how companies defend and license so-called "standards-essential patents" (SEPs). Companies must license such patents (at fair cost and terms) to rivals in order to facilitate technological advancements and healthy competition. The veto today stems from fears that firms like Samsung are "gaining undue leverage" over their competitors with such import bans, writes Froman. He adds that "licensing SEPs on FRAND [fair, reasonable, and non-discriminatory] terms is an important element of the Administration's policy of promoting innovation and economic progress." [/quote]
Apple sues based on design (not arguing the merits of it), Samsung sued because Apple made a phone that had [i]certain 2G and 3G radios in it.[/i]
[QUOTE=Rika-chan;41710721]But Samsung's patents were technology patents, not bullshit ~design~ patents[/QUOTE]
Patents for things that are industry standards and that they didn't even invent.
[editline]4th August 2013[/editline]
[QUOTE=Zeke129;41713570]No
It doesn't help that the thread title is shit, the source in the OP is shit, and nobody is researching what's happening here.
[url=http://www.theverge.com/2013/8/3/4585700/president-obama-vetoes-samsung-patent-ban-on-iphone-4-and-select-ipads]Better source[/url]
Apple sues based on design (not arguing the merits of it), Samsung sued because Apple made a phone that had [i]certain 2G and 3G radios in it.[/i][/QUOTE]
The dumb thing is, those Samsung phones actually did look like iPhones. Samsung's patent was ridiculously trivial and the infringement can't have harmed them in the slightest.
[QUOTE=Awesomecaek;41709714]I am not American and I don't exactly know, but do you genuinely think that Romney/Cain would be better in his place?
It's a very painful case of lesser of two evils, but I see no way out of it unless you guys can go from the ground up and get a candidate without support of both Democrats and Republicans, and that sounds pretty much impossible right now.[/QUOTE]
I'm not American either and I'm pretty much in the same place as you are information wise, and you are right Romney/Cain would not have been the better choice, not by a long shot.
But the way I see it and the way I feel, at least with Romney/Cain you kinda/sorta knew where you stood and where they stood. Obviously with politics there is a lot of bullshit involved, but as the republican candidates their policies and ideas were at least somewhat foreseeable. With Obama people are disappointed because he was not the president everyone voted for. There is a sense of disillusionment and anger because people were promised change yet that change never came and in most cases it is not going to come. Especially when you consider this is Obama's second term and he has no re-election worries to think about.
But again you are completely right, Romney was not the better choice.
[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;41708374]Pfft, Donald Duck 2016[/QUOTE]
Donald Trump isn't far off from that.
[QUOTE=Zeke129;41713570]No
It doesn't help that the thread title is shit, the source in the OP is shit, and nobody is researching what's happening here.
[url=http://www.theverge.com/2013/8/3/4585700/president-obama-vetoes-samsung-patent-ban-on-iphone-4-and-select-ipads]Better source[/url]
Apple sues based on design (not arguing the merits of it), Samsung sued because Apple made a phone that had [i]certain 2G and 3G radios in it.[/i][/QUOTE]
Samsung sued because apple refused to buy a license for those technologies, which Samsung has legitimate patents for. Obama veto'd it because they're FRAND patents but apple never intended to get a license, which is why there was a legitimate import ban.
[QUOTE=mobrockers;41714088]Samsung sued because apple refused to buy a license for those technologies, which Samsung has legitimate patents for. Obama veto'd it because they're FRAND patents but apple never intended to get a license, which is why there was a legitimate import ban.[/QUOTE]
[url=http://tech.fortune.cnn.com/2013/08/05/apple-samsung-itc-pinkert/]Not true.[/url]
[quote]The patent in question was part -- and only a tiny part -- of an international standard, and as such Samsung had agreed to make it available for licensing under terms that are fair, reasonable and nondiscriminatory (FRAND).
Samsung had made no effort to demonstrate that the licensing terms it offered Apple "satisfied an objective standard of reasonableness."
That the only time Samsung made such an offer -- in oral discussions in December 2012 -- it came with strings attached to which Apple could not agree.
What those strings were are blacked out in the document, but Pinkert adds in the next sentence: "it is neither fair nor non-discriminatory for the holder of the FRAND-encumbered patent to require licenses to non-FRAND-encumberd patents as a condition for licensing its patent" (emphasis his).
Reading between the lines, it sounds like Samsung had refused to license its standard-essential patents (SEPs) unless Apple offered its non-essential iPhone patents -- the company's crown jewels -- in return.[/quote]
Do you see that last part? This is the second time Samsung has had a legal failure because they don't at all understand standard essential patents and licencing under FRAND. You CAN'T do that, you can't put conditions that you'll do a cross licencing deal when you're obligated to licence without discrimination. Samsung didn't make a legitimate effort to do so, and Obama is saying if they want to fight about it they'll have to do it in court(or do proper licencing like they're supposed to and probably will have to) because there ISN'T basis for an import ban when Samsung has made no [i]legitimate[/i] attempt to resolve it on their own. It isn't at all that Apple refused to licence patents, it's that they weren't offered the ability to licence them under FRAND which Samsung is obligated to do with them being standard essential patents.
[QUOTE=Cmx;41708020]First term Obama I was pretty neutral to, second term Obama I dislike.[/QUOTE]
The sad part is that he has the most human rights violations of any president in the history of our entire country's history - worse than Bush even.
And he still gets a freaking Nobel peace prize.
Doesn't this completely invalidate any US tech patents?
Cause obama is just going to veto it anyway if you're found guilty, why bother respecting patents?
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
