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 568912
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[4]: Huh.
by Soulbender on Mon 5th Aug 2013 08:51 UTC 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

RE[5]: Huh.
by Tony Swash on Mon 5th Aug 2013 10:44 in reply to "RE[4]: Huh."
Tony Swash Member since:
2009-08-22



"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.
"

How? Do you think that most independent national national leaders do not put their nations interests first in trade disputes? Seems like a pretty obvious part of what being a national leader is, protecting the economic interest of your nation.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[6]: Huh.
by Soulbender on Mon 5th Aug 2013 13:13 in reply to "RE[5]: Huh."
Soulbender Member since:
2005-08-18

Do you think that most independent national national leaders do not put their nations interests first in trade disputes?


I was referring to the previous SEP/FRAND arguments. After all, Obama was looking at what was best for the country, not the actual facts of the case whatever they may be.

Reply Parent Score: 3