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 569317
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE: Comment by Stephen!
by Thom_Holwerda on Sat 10th Aug 2013 11:17 UTC in reply to "Comment by Stephen!"
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[3]: Comment by Stephen!
by novad on Sat 10th Aug 2013 13:46 in reply to "RE[2]: Comment by Stephen!"
novad Member since:

Scaring off other companies != scaring off Samsung.

Don't think the rest of the world is blind. Do you really think that Huawei for example expect another treatment if the brand became successful in the US?

It's more and more obvious that the US market is a mine field for other companies. Not because of fair competition but simply because every (not so) legal loophole is used to favor US companies. I'm really not sure that this will be of any benefit even for the US in the mid/long term.

This little example example is interesting (even if not directly related).

It's (well... It was) a crypted mail service used by Snowden for his mails.

Fair rules you said?

Reply Parent Score: 7