Linked by Thom Holwerda on Sat 10th Aug 2013 11:12 UTC, submitted by Torbjorn Vik Lunde
Legal

Some older Samsung Electronics Co. mobile devices face a sales and import ban in the United States after a U.S. trade panel ruled for Apple Inc. in a high-profile patent infringement case.

The U.S. International Trade Commission on Friday ruled that South Korea's Samsung infringes on portions of two Apple Inc patents on digital mobile devices, covering the detection of headphone jacks and operation of touchscreens.

If Obama does not step in, two tiny patents like this can get devices banned, but refusal to accept FRAND terms, refusal to negotiate, all the while using the patent in question anyway does not.

Sure, this is not about protectionism. How cute.

Order by: Score:
Comment by Nelson
by Nelson on Sat 10th Aug 2013 12:51 UTC
Nelson
Member since:
2005-11-29

Obama did not personally rule against the ITC, as this responsibility was delegated to the USTR by President Bush in 2005.

Everyone who sides against Thom's dog in the race is engaging in protectionism.

Quote:


Not entirely unsurprisingly, the US ITC has sided with a US company against a Taiwanese competitor - the US International Trade Commission judge has ruled that out of ten patents Apple brought into its suit against HTC, the Taiwanese smartphone pioneer is infringing upon two.

http://www.osnews.com/story/24955/ITC_Judge_Rules_HTC_Infringes_Two...

So today the ITC is the objective arbiter and the boogey man President Obama (who again, did not personally issue the letter to the ITC, the USTR did) is the one engaging in protectionism.

Back then when the ITC Judge ruled in favor of Apple, Thom wasn't as kind (or as ready to accept the ruling). They were siding with an American company.

Furthermore, the ITC acted out of concert with the Tariff Act which states:


the effect of such exclusion upon the public health and welfare, competitive conditions in the United States economy, the production of like or directly competitive articles in the United States, and United States consumers, it finds that such articles should not be excluded from entry.


This isn't limited to SEPs and may also in the future aid Samsung. Look to http://www.fosspatents.com/2013/06/itc-staff-rejects-googles-public... (Yes its FM, fuck off) where Google's public interest defense was swatted away by ITC staff, which may have in fact helped this very case. The Obama Administration acted evenhandedly, and only coincidentally aided Apple under this circumstance.

From the USTR's letter:


the Commission should be certain (1) examine thoroughly and carefully on its own initiative the public interest issues presented both at the outset of its proceeding and when determining whether a particular remedy is in the public interest and (2) seek proactively to have the parties develop a comprehensive factual record related to these issues ...

Reply Score: 2

RE: Comment by Nelson
by TechGeek on Sun 11th Aug 2013 02:53 UTC in reply to "Comment by Nelson"
TechGeek Member since:
2006-01-14

Thom didn't say that Obama personally vetoed the injunction. It is however now up to Obama to set things right as he is the USTR's boss and the only one who can over rule him. As for your first quote, these are cell phones. The injunction of which will have ZERO impact on people's health and well being.

The ITC has been working on these cases for quite some time now. To come in at the end and override their decision just stinks. Further, the SEP groups all signed a contract to create the group. That contract does NOT remove their right to seek injunctive relief. Further, the ITC found that Samsung did not abuse its FRAND obligations, and that Apple is just flat out refusing to negotiate. How exactly do you think Apple should be dealt with?

Reply Score: 4

RE[2]: Comment by Nelson
by Nelson on Sun 11th Aug 2013 20:42 UTC in reply to "RE: Comment by Nelson"
Nelson Member since:
2005-11-29

Thom didn't say that Obama personally vetoed the injunction. It is however now up to Obama to set things right as he is the USTR's boss and the only one who can over rule him.


Actually, no he can't in this instance. The USTR has the final say in the matter. This is a load of bull.

And this is being called "Obama's veto" or "Obama stepping in". When Obama has nothing to do with any of this. An appointed official of his does, its like the insinuation that Obama has a personal hand in all DHS or HHS matters in this country. Its ludicrous. If (as you claim) Thom isn't saying it and doesn't mean to imply it, then he should use other language.


As for your first quote, these are cell phones. The injunction of which will have ZERO impact on people's health and well being.


That is your rather skewed opinion and obviously one not shared by the USTR who is tasked with this decision and has instructed the ITC to consider it in further decisions. He has the job, not you, so your personal opinions on the matter are zero steps removed from irrelevancy.


The ITC has been working on these cases for quite some time now. To come in at the end and override their decision just stinks.


Did it "just stink" when the ITC overrode an ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE? No? Of course not, because the ITC has authority over these cases. And the USTR has authority over the ITC.


That contract does NOT remove their right to seek injunctive relief.


And who said it does? Certainly not the USTR who in the four page letter (really, read it) states as much. Just not under this circumstance.


Further, the ITC found that Samsung did not abuse its FRAND obligations, and that Apple is just flat out refusing to negotiate. How exactly do you think Apple should be dealt with?


The ITC said that during the course of FRAND negotiations, non FRAND offers could be made which is absolutely insane and devastating to the entire idea of FRAND. This was something so out of step with District Courts that the USTR had to intervene.

Samsung is basically trying to extort non essential patents out of Apple in return for licensing SEPs. In who's reality is this FRAND? They would kill SSOs over night if this was the case.

Reply Score: 4

RE[3]: Comment by Nelson
by TechGeek on Mon 12th Aug 2013 04:18 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Comment by Nelson"
TechGeek Member since:
2006-01-14

While I guess you are right in a way that the USTR can in fact "make his own decision", the President is under no obligation to keep him around. The President is the boss, he picks who he wants for however long it suits him. People come and go quite often in appointed positions. So, yeah, it is really Obama's ultimate decision. You don't honestly think the USTR is going to take on his boss do you?

Reply Score: 4

So when
by Soulbender on Sat 10th Aug 2013 13:06 UTC
Soulbender
Member since:
2005-08-18

is the current administration going to step in and right this wrong? ;)

Reply Score: 3

RE: So when
by l3v1 on Sun 11th Aug 2013 13:34 UTC in reply to "So when"
l3v1 Member since:
2005-07-06

Yeah ;)

I hope they ban everything and the US becomes an Apple-only country. Then you can beg all you want, we'll just sit here with popcorn and beer and enjoy the show ;)

Reply Score: 3

RE[2]: So when
by dvhh on Mon 12th Aug 2013 02:22 UTC in reply to "RE: So when"
dvhh Member since:
2006-03-20

It's not like China or Taiwan would complain about the situation

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: So when
by 0brad0 on Tue 13th Aug 2013 06:45 UTC in reply to "RE: So when"
0brad0 Member since:
2007-05-05

Yeah ;)

I hope they ban everything and the US becomes an Apple-only country. Then you can beg all you want, we'll just sit here with popcorn and beer and enjoy the show ;)


A country full of fools can have their Fisher Price toys. ;)

Edited 2013-08-13 06:54 UTC

Reply Score: 1