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 569337
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[3]: Comment by Stephen!
by novad on Sat 10th Aug 2013 13:46 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Comment by Stephen!"
novad
Member since:
2010-06-10

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).

http://lavabit.com/

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

Fair rules you said?

Reply Parent Score: 7

RE[4]: Comment by Stephen!
by Alfman on Sat 10th Aug 2013 14:16 in reply to "RE[3]: Comment by Stephen!"
Alfman Member since:
2011-01-28

novad,

Wow, I had never heard of this private crypto company.

"I have been forced to make a difficult decision: to become complicit in crimes against the American people or walk away from nearly ten years of hard work by shutting down Lavabit. After significant soul searching, I have decided to suspend operations. I wish that I could legally share with you the events that led to my decision. I cannot. I feel you deserve to know what’s going on--the first amendment is supposed to guarantee me the freedom to speak out in situations like this. Unfortunately, Congress has passed laws that say otherwise. As things currently stand, I cannot share my experiences over the last six weeks, even though I have twice made the appropriate requests."

Sounds like gag orders are making a mockery of the first amendment.

"This experience has taught me one very important lesson: without congressional action or a strong judicial precedent, I would _strongly_ recommend against anyone trusting their private data to a company with physical ties to the United States."

As a small US owner myself, these words hurt. I wonder what scale one needs to grow to before being of enough interest for the government to ask for inside access (since that seems to be what's going on without having it been made explicit).

Edited 2013-08-10 14:17 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 6

RE[5]: Comment by Stephen!
by novad on Sat 10th Aug 2013 16:18 in reply to "RE[4]: Comment by Stephen!"
novad Member since:
2010-06-10

As a small US owner myself, these words hurt.


I have friends in the US. I know that what happens actually is difficult for them and I'm really sorry for all the affected people.

I wonder what scale one needs to grow to before being of enough interest for the government to ask for inside access (since that seems to be what's going on without having it been made explicit).


This is a tricky question.

There is the official statement which says that this is used to protect the USA against terrorism. The problem is that this kind of behaviour is also used for economic reasons (trade secrets or political pressures).

Even if it was used only against terrorism you have the problem of colateral damages. Lavabit is a good example. It's a little company which has been put under tremendous pressure by the administration to obtain what they wanted.

P.S: Sorry to everybody... I know it's a bit off topic

Edited 2013-08-10 16:20 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 4

RE[4]: Comment by Stephen!
by Nelson on Sat 10th Aug 2013 16:26 in reply to "RE[3]: Comment by Stephen!"
Nelson Member since:
2005-11-29

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?


We're not talking about Edward Snowden, the NSA, or Lavabit. Nothing in my post, Thom's post, or this entire article would even seem to imply some sort of even casual connection between the ITC ruling and that.


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.


It may very well be, but this ruling has nothing to do with it. The ITC ruling vetoed by Obama has nothing to do with the legal landscape for foreign companies. In fact, Samsung is a multinational company. They have a subsidiary incorporated in the United States. To even bring something before the ITC they have to be as it is the place for importation bans.

I find it beyond interesting that a panel (the ITC), which overrode an ALJ (Judge Gildea) and then was overridden by the USTR is somehow engaging in nationalist protectionism. The rule of law was overridden by a panel of appointed officials anyway, their boss just told them they were wrong.

This is the legal process at work in the United States, not some grand conspiracy to shut Samsung out. The ITC has ruled against Apple before.

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[5]: Comment by Stephen!
by novad on Sat 10th Aug 2013 17:12 in reply to "RE[4]: Comment by Stephen!"
novad Member since:
2010-06-10


We're not talking about Edward Snowden, the NSA, or Lavabit. Nothing in my post, Thom's post, or this entire article would even seem to imply some sort of even casual connection between the ITC ruling and that.


Ok... Let's start by the beginning...
If I remember well I said:

- This little example is interesting (even if not directly related).
- P.S: Sorry to everybody... I know it's a bit off topic

Then... The link I provided was to give an example of how US administration uses illegal (or at least highly disputable) methods against corporations to obtain what they want. This was an analogy to what happened with the Veto against the ITC decision, not an identical situation

It may very well be, but this ruling has nothing to do with it.


Oh really?? Well... This is your opinion and I respect it as it. That doesn't mean I have to agree.

The ITC ruling vetoed by Obama has nothing to do with the legal landscape for foreign companies.


It has exactly to do with that legal landscape. I don't know what you know about how the US legal system is seen by the rest of the world, but there are a few things that are more or less universally accepted by everyone:

- Legal decisions involving foreign companies are almost always biased (This is the point that is of interest in our discussion)
- Since more than 10 years individual rights are more and more neglected
- US tries to impose its legal system and views to the rest of the world

There have been so many scandals:
- South American markets
- Boeing against Airbus
- Bank secrecy while protecting Delaware
- Many others

The only thing that protects the USA against international measures is its economical and military strength... Not because it "does the right thing".


This is the legal process at work in the United States, not some grand conspiracy to shut Samsung out. The ITC has ruled against Apple before.


Well... There is ITC and USITC. But let's talk about ITC. Not every ruling that the ITC makes is good (Far from it). If you asked me the ITC should work on the problem caused by the USPTO instead of making decisions based on these patents.

This is one of the few cases where there was not a lot to complain about ITCs impartiality.

Samsung accused Apple to use its IP without paying for it. ITC agreed with it and banned the infriging products

Apple accused Samsung to use its IP without paying for it. ITC agreed with it and banned the infriging products

You can argue so much you want... What the whole world sees is that the US doesn't respect international rules to protect a "local" company. Not more, not less.

Korea won't have the political or economical strength to fight back... But I'll be curious to see what will happen when a Chinese company will be involved.

BTW... To answer your initial statement. It's not a conspiracy against Samsung. It's illegal measures to protect Apple.

Edit - Typos corrected

Edited 2013-08-10 17:18 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 6