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 568843
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE: Huh.
by shotsman on Sun 4th Aug 2013 10:00 UTC in reply to "Huh."
Member since:

That was 2009. does he have the same portfolio now in 2013? That is a more important question.

If he did then I'd fully expect a number of billion dollar lawsuits to be heading his way tomorrow.

Edited 2013-08-04 10:01 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[2]: Huh.
by MOS6510 on Sun 4th Aug 2013 11:53 in reply to "RE: Huh."
MOS6510 Member since:

Not likely.

Besides, Obama didn't veto because he felt like it or owned Apple stock. It's a process involving a lot of people. He is a president, not an emperor.

The reasoning behind it may have been fair or it may have been "dirty", but it's not a decision by one person. Obama probably didn't even have a say in it.

There are a lot op people with knowledge and skill related to the subject. They investigate, think and come up with scenarios and recommendations from which other people pick one and Obama signs it.

Reply Parent Score: 5

RE[3]: Huh.
by Nelson on Sun 4th Aug 2013 13:05 in reply to "RE[2]: Huh."
Nelson Member since:

Right. Obama likely did not have any personal role in this decision whatsoever. He delegated responsibility to the USTR for precisely this reason, so he doesn't have to concern himself with them.

This isn't a "Presidential Pardon", its the USTR overruling the actions of the ITC. To highlight the significance of the matter, and why SEPs are dangerous, this is the first such veto in 15 years.

Reply Parent Score: 4