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 568946
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[8]: Huh.
by Kochise on Mon 5th Aug 2013 18:17 UTC in reply to "RE[7]: Huh."
Kochise
Member since:
2006-03-03

1. Apple as a late player in the field had to use already present technologies. Don't forget that the iPhone 1 had to MMS (but SMS I think), no copy/paste (what Apple is expert in though) and no multitasking. All what it really had was a good shape (but prior art proved that Samsung had the same beforehand) and a pretty nice a stylish GUI. Kudo Apple.

2. Obama haven't issued "a hit" on Samsung, just a "cease and desist" by ruling against the ITC. Sure you like Apple and dislike Samsung. But if the ITC, that might favor their home country just like Obama, comes to the conclusion that something smells really rotten in this affair, that Apple is playing the dumb game by refusing the deal they crying fools, I'd like a President of Obama's range to remain "fair and balanced" (c) Fox News

3. Against the USA ? Nope, against their repetitive abuses, and just like Apple, play the fool game when we point at them for their faulty practices, and they remind everybody that without them, the World wouldn't have the same face that today. Sure is. A different face for sure, but what's the point ? Perhaps other countries should have more developed/shared their culture and/or technology.

4. After all, even "retarded" countries have now sent rockets into space, have well developed technology (computers, lcd screens, etc) What it will moves ? I cannot really say what are the consequences, ever heard about the butterfly effect ?

Kochise

Reply Parent Score: 3