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 569355
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 17:12 UTC 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

RE[6]: Comment by Stephen!
by Nelson on Sat 10th Aug 2013 17:56 in reply to "RE[5]: Comment by Stephen!"
Nelson Member since:
2005-11-29

The measures are not illegal, the rationale for the USITR are codified in US law, specifically the Tariff Act. You not knowing that it exists does not make it illegal.

Foreign ignorance and perception isn't the concern of the United States Trade Representative when he is tasked with ensuring that the public interest is respected, as he has instructed the ITC to do in this case and in future cases (in fact, in a case on this very front page, the one where Samsung products are banned, the ITC staff refused to hear this very argument from Google). So it will benefit all, not just Apple.

This isn't again an impactful decision besides telling the ITC they got it wrong. Samsung can go back to the Courts and seek monetary remedies for their SEPs or even injunctions (the USITR doesn't preclude injunctions on SEPs, he specifically mentions extraordinary circumstances where they are necessary). So if Samsung has as strong a case as Thom thinks, they can go back through our Court system and have their concerns heard. Not an unelected panel of officials which is already overburdened (it takes at least 18 months for ITC decisions to be handed down).

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[7]: Comment by Stephen!
by novad on Sat 10th Aug 2013 18:08 in reply to "RE[6]: Comment by Stephen!"
novad Member since:
2010-06-10

Foreign ignorance and perception isn't the concern of the United States Trade Representative when he is tasked with ensuring that the public interest is respected


Thank you for making my point. You just didn't say "US public interest" but it was obvious. So... We agree that this was a decision to protect US interests.

This isn't again an impactful decision besides telling the ITC they got it wrong.


Oh wow... You don't often check international medias. This IS a big story. It's in every news media. And to be clear... It's not the "standard" coverage of an Apple vs Samsung trial. It's the veto and the international implications of this overuling that are reported.

So if Samsung has as strong a case as Thom thinks, they can go back through our Court system and have their concerns heard. Not an unelected panel of officials which is already overburdened (it takes at least 18 months for ITC decisions to be handed down).


Well no... Samsung can't go back to court. At least not about this ruling. No juge in the US can overule a presidential Veto. Samsung can try to obtain a new ruling about a new or modified case. But that's all.

Reply Parent Score: 3