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 568953
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[2]: yea
by bnolsen on Tue 6th Aug 2013 03:48 UTC in reply to "RE: yea"
Member since:

so where did all that money go in these huge budgets? the defecit has increased 6 trillion when it was just over 10.5 trillion when he took office. You don't rack up all that debt without the money going somewhere. It certainly didn't go towards any economic or job recovery.

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[3]: yea
by siride on Tue 6th Aug 2013 13:04 in reply to "RE[2]: yea"
siride Member since:

Well, as I said, a lot of existing spending continued to go up. At the same time, receipts from taxes decreased precipitously due to the recession. If you have less income and your electricity bill goes up, you're going to rack up debt without having to introduce new spending.

Reply Parent Score: 2