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 568830
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE: It's not that clear, Thom
by l3v1 on Sun 4th Aug 2013 05:55 UTC in reply to "It's not that clear, Thom"
Member since:

it's not at all clear

It is clear, you are just missing the point, which is: "I have decided to disapprove the USITC's determination".

Regarding Apple, if they reuire such protection, then they'd better just simply take the loss. It's still better to lose then to be this kind of a loser.

So, let's see what will they do in the MS vs Motorola frand case, where each party is from the US.

Reply Parent Score: 4

oskeladden Member since:

So, let's see what will they do in the MS vs Motorola frand case, where each party is from the US.

They can't do anything in that case. The US Trade Representative has no jurisdiction over the main dispute there, because it's being litigated before a court (the Federal District Court at Seattle), rather than the ITC. Which is precisely what they've asked Samsung to do, as you'll see if you read the determination in this case.

Reply Parent Score: 3

Nelson Member since:

This is the equivalent of your boss telling you that you did your job wrong. The USTR has authority over the ITC.

This isn't some grand reversal or game changing move -- its simply telling Samsung that the price negotiations are to be had in the courts. Like MS/Moto.

Reply Parent Score: 4