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 568880
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[2]: Huh.
by Kochise on Sun 4th Aug 2013 19:59 UTC in reply to "RE: Huh."
Kochise
Member since:
2006-03-03

Nope, right on the spot ! What are Obama's justifications to go against ITC's elaborated decision ? Because, yes, he can ?

Kochise

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[3]: Huh.
by cdude on Sun 4th Aug 2013 20:46 in reply to "RE[2]: Huh."
cdude Member since:
2008-09-21

Nailed. If Obama didn't do that pure out of personal interests, ie money, then he should do something to stop, halt, pause Samsung's import ban, that is starting this month, too. And then he needs to do same for all import bans.
If not then there was a certain motivation behind this special case. Money sounds plausible.

Edited 2013-08-04 20:49 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[4]: Huh.
by Nelson on Sun 4th Aug 2013 22:35 in reply to "RE[3]: Huh."
Nelson Member since:
2005-11-29

Nailed. If Obama didn't do that pure out of personal interests, ie money, then he should do something to stop, halt, pause Samsung's import ban, that is starting this month, too. And then he needs to do same for all import bans.
If not then there was a certain motivation behind this special case. Money sounds plausible.


I cant believe such idiocy gets voted up.

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[3]: Huh.
by Tony Swash on Sun 4th Aug 2013 22:23 in reply to "RE[2]: Huh."
Tony Swash Member since:
2009-08-22

Nope, right on the spot ! What are Obama's justifications to go against ITC's elaborated decision ? Because, yes, he can ?

Kochise


I am not sure how you think the world works but it seems to be very simplistic.

I find the notion that the President of the USA would make a high profile decision like this because the decision might mean that he could make a few bucks on a possible but uncertain small change in the value of some shares that he owns pretty ludicrous.

Obama is the president of the USA not the world, his job is to look after the interests of the USA. The situation from the point of view of that job function is pretty clear cut. A foreign owned company with a track record of copying the designs and products of what is considered to be one of the most innovative of the leading American tech companies has managed to get a US supervisory body to ban the import of a flag ship product of that leading American tech company. Vetoing that is a no brainer. If Obama didn't he would be failing in his job of protecting the interests of the USA. This is not about right or wrong it's about realpolitik and realities of what national leaders do, of what their job is.

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[4]: Huh.
by Thom_Holwerda on Sun 4th Aug 2013 22:45 in reply to "RE[3]: Huh."
Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

Ah, so you admit the merits of this specific case are irrelevant, and that it's strictly a political decision.

Good to know you agree with us.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[4]: Huh.
by Soulbender on Mon 5th Aug 2013 08:51 in reply to "RE[3]: Huh."
Soulbender Member since:
2005-08-18

I find the notion that the President of the USA would make a high profile decision like this because the decision might mean that he could make a few bucks on a possible but uncertain small change in the value of some shares that he owns pretty ludicrous.


Indeed, that is rather silly. He's the president, it's not like he's going to end up in the poorhouse after his term.

This is not about right or wrong it's about realpolitik and realities of what national leaders do, of what their job is.


Dude, you just sabotaged your entire argument up until now.

Reply Parent Score: 5