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 568905
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[7]: Huh.
by MOS6510 on Mon 5th Aug 2013 06:42 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: Huh."
Member since:

Aren't you overreacting? It's just a bunch of older generation Apple devices that avoided an US import ban. Apple hasn't been cleared of any patent infringement in this case.

The real winner are the consumers.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[8]: Huh.
by Kochise on Mon 5th Aug 2013 08:47 in reply to "RE[7]: Huh."
Kochise Member since:

Indeed. But the general hypocrisy level is too damn high ! Over 9000 !

Seriously, sure it's just "toys" but obviously there is a large and profitable market for these toys that obviously put people against each others.

Remember Jacobo Arbenz Guzmán and the United Fruit Company case ? It was just about bananas, that US citizens don't wanted a $0.10 raise, right ? And Salvador Allende ?

If they can do it for bananas, oil, they can do it for high tech.


Reply Parent Score: 4

RE[9]: Huh.
by MOS6510 on Mon 5th Aug 2013 09:02 in reply to "RE[8]: Huh."
MOS6510 Member since:

I think the long lines at Apple stores when a new iPhone is released are the most violent thing we will observe when it comes to technology.

Most people don't care about patents and aren't aware of what's going on in courts. They just want a phone. If they can't get an iPhone 4 they'd buy a 4S. If they can't get any iPhones they'll just buy something else.

I'm even willing to bet most people don't even know the brand of their phone. Let alone type or OS level.

Regarding the ITC, apparently their masters thought they made the wrong judgment. It's all within the laws and rules the US set for themselves. Not liking something doesn't make it illegal.

Samsung won't go broke over this, Apple isn't cleared of patent infringement, most people don't care. It seems only the Apple haters care and they just care about bad things happening to Apple never mind what it is.

If "we" want a global economy things like this just show there's still a lot of work to be done.

Personally I don't think products should be easily banned, certainly not over SEPs, because that harms consumer choice. If Apple and Samsung can't agree a price let some organization or judge set one.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[9]: Huh.
by Soulbender on Mon 5th Aug 2013 09:15 in reply to "RE[8]: Huh."
Soulbender Member since:

intervening on foreign soil is quite different from intervening in your own country.

Reply Parent Score: 3