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 569348
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[5]: Comment by Stephen!
by novad on Sat 10th Aug 2013 16:18 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Comment by Stephen!"
Member since:

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[6]: Comment by Stephen!
by cdude on Sun 11th Aug 2013 17:06 in reply to "RE[5]: Comment by Stephen!"
cdude Member since:

Even if it was used only against terrorism

Lavabit is a good example.

Is Snowden classified as terrorist and anything he uses - ie Lavabit mail, google search - supports terrorism? That may explain why the president had to act. Snowden owns a Samsung Galaxy! Sending him my iPhone 5, a Bible and a nuclear powerplant now :-) Anything else we like to see banned or unbanned by Obama himself?

Edited 2013-08-11 17:19 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 1