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.

Thread beginning with comment 568811
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
This is plain bad
by CapEnt on Sat 3rd Aug 2013 22:03 UTC
Member since:

Now the battle will evolve from a Apple vs Samsung to a enormous battle at WTO between South Korean government (and other countries who sides with Samsung's interests) and USA regarding protectionism.

And, if WTO history tells something, is that USA very frequently gets the worse in their rulings. And the whole American tech industry will need to pay Apple's bill.

Reply Score: 10

No this is good
by jphamlore on Sat 3rd Aug 2013 22:23 in reply to "This is plain bad"
jphamlore Member since:

On the other patent front, Apple's lawsuits against Samsung are going basically nowhere as far as extracting any cash from Samsung. What the US is doing is basically declaring the battle a draw and strongly hinting that both sides should settle, especially since they have already agreed to work together to pay for Samsung's state-of-the-art 14nm fabs according to the Korean press.

The only thing keeping this battle going is Apple would lose a tremendous amount of face if they would ever admit they're not getting one cent from Samsung in tribute. But if Cook had settled like he should have had when he first took over, that would have been forgotten by now instead of being a continuing festering wound.

Reply Parent Score: 2

US Protectionism and Isolation
by shotsman on Sun 4th Aug 2013 05:46 in reply to "This is plain bad"
shotsman Member since:

This is nothing new. If you study the Economic and Political History of the 20th Century you will find several previous periods where the US has turned away from the world at large and looked inward into itself.

There is (IMHO) something in the US Psyche that makes them do the following (in simple terms)
- US Is No 1. Go USA
- Oh no, we aren't so we will take our ball and play with ourselves. No you Aliens are not welcome.

NIH is a term that is ideal for Americans. When I worked for a now defunct US Computer maker we had to make sure all the product documentation was in US English even if 1) The product was not for sale in the US 2) The British words were in Websters alongside the US Spelling.

Trying to start to sell something in the USA is notoriously difficult and your path is strewn with Land Mines. If you think about Left Hand and Right Hand not knowing what each other is doing. In my experience this is 10 times worse in the US simply because of the different government departments are virtual fiefdoms and often their regulations are directly contradictory to each other.

Then there are the fun and games getting type approval for your product in EVERY state. What might work for CA won't work for OH and vice versa.

When I was in business and trying to do this, I often wondered it the world would be a better place if the US simple ceased to exist such were the endless frustrations. It is ok for large companies who can put enough manpower and importantly LAWYERS on the case but for small businesses, just forget it. In the end, my company just gave up with the US market. Selling into China was far easier.

Reply Parent Score: 5