Linked by Thom Holwerda on Sat 10th Aug 2013 11:00 UTC
Legal Ed Black, President & CEO of the Computer & Communications Industry Association:

The Administration’s unprecedented decision to veto an ITC "Section 337" import ban against Apple for infringing Samsung's intellectual property is a disruptive and potentially dangerous development that calls into question the fairness of our trading regime and could undermine the way US companies are treated globally.


Adjudication by USTR fiat, however, is unacceptable and invites other countries to do the same. While Ambassador Froman's letter cites policy issues, it offers little helpful analysis or guidance. And it ignores the ITC's determination that Apple failed to prove either that Samsung's patent was a standard-essential patent or that Samsung breached its obligation to a standards-setting organization.

Well said.

This is the core of the problem with Obama's veto. Not only did he completely and utterly contradict the findings of an expert panel of judges who investigated all the materials in great detail, he also sent out a very strong message: if you're a foreign company doing business in the US, you will be treated as a second class citizen. Combined with the endless stream of negative press concerning surveillance and which hunts for whistleblowers, the US just got a whole lot less enticing for technology companies.

Thread beginning with comment 569316
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Comment by Stephen!
by Stephen! on Sat 10th Aug 2013 11:15 UTC
Member since:

Or it could just be a one-off situation and Obama doesn't intend to make a habit of intervening in the ITC's decisions.

It seems rather counter-productive in a bad economy, where they want people to be spending money and buying stuff, to impose product bans.

Reply Score: 2

RE: Comment by Stephen!
by Thom_Holwerda on Sat 10th Aug 2013 11:17 in reply to "Comment by Stephen!"
Thom_Holwerda Member since:

Scaring off companies doesn't seem like a wise tactic either in that regard, now does it?

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[2]: Comment by Stephen!
by Nelson on Sat 10th Aug 2013 13:00 in reply to "RE: Comment by Stephen!"
Nelson Member since:

Scaring off Samsung by telling them to go back to the courts, or by telling the ITC to try again and possibly issue a modified exclusion order?

This isn't a categorical rejection of Samsung's claims, just the ITCs boss telling them they need to consider more than what they did in their final determination.

If I were you, I'd be worried about ITC rulings (which are a more suitable attack vector for patent trolls than Distict Courts)

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE: Comment by Stephen!
by some1 on Sat 10th Aug 2013 15:49 in reply to "Comment by Stephen!"
some1 Member since:

Sounds like "it's OK to break the rules if you only do it once" argument.

Reply Parent Score: 4

RE[2]: Comment by Stephen!
by benytocamela on Sat 10th Aug 2013 20:45 in reply to "RE: Comment by Stephen!"
benytocamela Member since:

"Just the tip, this time only, I promise"

Reply Parent Score: 2