Linked by Thom Holwerda on Sat 10th Aug 2013 11:12 UTC, submitted by Torbjorn Vik Lunde

Some older Samsung Electronics Co. mobile devices face a sales and import ban in the United States after a U.S. trade panel ruled for Apple Inc. in a high-profile patent infringement case.

The U.S. International Trade Commission on Friday ruled that South Korea's Samsung infringes on portions of two Apple Inc patents on digital mobile devices, covering the detection of headphone jacks and operation of touchscreens.

If Obama does not step in, two tiny patents like this can get devices banned, but refusal to accept FRAND terms, refusal to negotiate, all the while using the patent in question anyway does not.

Sure, this is not about protectionism. How cute.

Thread beginning with comment 569417
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[2]: Comment by Nelson
by Nelson on Sun 11th Aug 2013 20:42 UTC in reply to "RE: Comment by Nelson"
Member since:

Thom didn't say that Obama personally vetoed the injunction. It is however now up to Obama to set things right as he is the USTR's boss and the only one who can over rule him.

Actually, no he can't in this instance. The USTR has the final say in the matter. This is a load of bull.

And this is being called "Obama's veto" or "Obama stepping in". When Obama has nothing to do with any of this. An appointed official of his does, its like the insinuation that Obama has a personal hand in all DHS or HHS matters in this country. Its ludicrous. If (as you claim) Thom isn't saying it and doesn't mean to imply it, then he should use other language.

As for your first quote, these are cell phones. The injunction of which will have ZERO impact on people's health and well being.

That is your rather skewed opinion and obviously one not shared by the USTR who is tasked with this decision and has instructed the ITC to consider it in further decisions. He has the job, not you, so your personal opinions on the matter are zero steps removed from irrelevancy.

The ITC has been working on these cases for quite some time now. To come in at the end and override their decision just stinks.

Did it "just stink" when the ITC overrode an ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE? No? Of course not, because the ITC has authority over these cases. And the USTR has authority over the ITC.

That contract does NOT remove their right to seek injunctive relief.

And who said it does? Certainly not the USTR who in the four page letter (really, read it) states as much. Just not under this circumstance.

Further, the ITC found that Samsung did not abuse its FRAND obligations, and that Apple is just flat out refusing to negotiate. How exactly do you think Apple should be dealt with?

The ITC said that during the course of FRAND negotiations, non FRAND offers could be made which is absolutely insane and devastating to the entire idea of FRAND. This was something so out of step with District Courts that the USTR had to intervene.

Samsung is basically trying to extort non essential patents out of Apple in return for licensing SEPs. In who's reality is this FRAND? They would kill SSOs over night if this was the case.

Reply Parent Score: 4

RE[3]: Comment by Nelson
by TechGeek on Mon 12th Aug 2013 04:18 in reply to "RE[2]: Comment by Nelson"
TechGeek Member since:

While I guess you are right in a way that the USTR can in fact "make his own decision", the President is under no obligation to keep him around. The President is the boss, he picks who he wants for however long it suits him. People come and go quite often in appointed positions. So, yeah, it is really Obama's ultimate decision. You don't honestly think the USTR is going to take on his boss do you?

Reply Parent Score: 4