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 568831
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[2]: It's not that clear, Thom
by MOS6510 on Sun 4th Aug 2013 07:08 UTC in reply to "RE: It's not that clear, Thom"
Member since:

For the newer models Apple bought the chips from a company that did pay a license.

Reply Parent Score: 3

oskeladden Member since:

For the newer models Apple bought the chips from a company that did pay a license.

Intel, from whom Apple bought some of the chips for the older version, also had a license. The ITC said that that didn't matter, because Apple didn't buy the chips in the US, and because Apple couldn't prove that Samsung had specifically authorised those sales to Apple. See p. 67 of the ITC's ruling.

Once again, a giant company like Apple can structure its global supply chain to make the US the legal site of the transfer of property in the chips even if they don't come within a thousand miles of the US (as it now has done). A smaller company will struggle to do this. They're the ones who the ITC's approach will ultimately hurt.

Reply Parent Score: 5