Linked by Thom Holwerda on Sat 3rd Aug 2013 20:34 UTC
Legal The Obama administration:

After extensive consultations with the agencies of the Trade Policy Staff Committee and the Trade Policy Review Group, as well as other interested agencies and persons, I have decided to disapprove the USITC's determination to issue an exclusion order and cease and desist order in this investigation.

Lots of talk about SEPs and FRAND in Obama's decree, which means that the Obama administration contradicts everything the ITC has said. To freshen your memory, the ITC ruled that not only was the patent in question not a standard essential patent, but Samsung's offer was actually proper FRAND:

Additionally, the Commission found that there were still disputed issues concerning the patent at issue was even actually essential to the standard (and therefore whether a FRAND or disclosure obligation applied at all).


The Commission analyzed the history of negotiations between Apple and Samsung (this portion is heavily redacted) to see if Apple showed that Samsung failed to negotiate “in good faith,” and found that Apple failed to do so. Notably, the Commission dismissed Apple’s arguments that (1) Samsung’s initial offer was so high as to show bad faith, and (2) Samsung’s attempts to get a cross-license to Apple’s non-SEPs violated its FRAND commitments.

In other words, the Obama administration threw out virtually everything the ITC has said in order to protect Apple. This effectively means that American companies can infringe on non-American companies' (standard essential) patents all they want, because the president will simply step in if they try to fight back.

So, I was wrong. I expected the Obama administration to be impartial and not give such a huge slap in the face of the ITC - as cynical as I usually am, I can still be naive. Protectionism is more important to the POTUS.

Permalink for comment 568896
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[5]: Huh.
by Tony Swash on Mon 5th Aug 2013 00:12 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Huh."
Tony Swash
Member since:

Ah, so you admit the merits of this specific case are irrelevant, and that it's strictly a political decision.

Of course it is - are you twelve years old or do just not just get out all that often. That's what politicians do - make political decisions what other decisions do you think they would make? And you can be absolutely sure that Samsung's track record in relation to the respecting of IP played a big part in this, as it should.

By the way Thom why not take this opportunity of explaining succinctly what principles you believe in, in relation to all this, you know the sort of things you think are right and wrong no matter what party or company is on either side of any particular dispute?

And while you are at it do you have any examples of how IP restrictions have impinged in major way on your use of technology?

Reply Parent Score: 0