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 568850
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE: Huh.
by brichpmr on Sun 4th Aug 2013 11:51 UTC in reply to "Huh."
Member since:

Fascinating little tidbit: Obama owns a large amount of Apple stock.


A bunch of Americans directly or indirectly own Apple stock....what is your concrete source for Obama's having directed this veto??

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[2]: Huh.
by Kochise on Sun 4th Aug 2013 15:10 in reply to "RE: Huh."
Kochise Member since:

Obama can influence the Apple's stock price according to a litigation result : if Apple fails and recognized as patent infringing, stock price may drop drastically, thus Obama's shares...

Not to speak about Apple's cash reserve if they have to pay back a large sum of money to Samsung, having their products blocked, etc.


Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[3]: Huh.
by Nelson on Sun 4th Aug 2013 19:45 in reply to "RE[2]: Huh."
Nelson Member since:

I think suggesting that the US is engaging in protectionism is as primitive an idea as the notion of protectionism itself.

It can't possibly be that the ITC overstepped its bounds (and lets ignore that practically the entire industry opposed this ruling and a bipartisan group of US Senators), it can't possibly be that this would have wide impacting ramifications for SEPs, no, it must be that Obama himself, personally is in the tank for Apple.

We've seen this pattern time and time again on OSNews. The "blame everybody but Samsung" game. When Samsung lost a billion dollar trial, the JURY was blamed. When there were motions that disagreed with Samsung's positions, the (Korean) Judge was blamed.

This elementary view of the way the US Government and legal system works reeks of foreign ignorance.

There is no grand conspiracy. There is only your own denial to reality.

Reply Parent Score: 2