Obama administration vetos Apple iPhone 4, 3G iPad 2 product ban [pdf]

Post by josteink » Sun, Aug 04, 2013, 9:22 AM UTC

comex wrote: post #19

jivatmanx wrote: post #8

Intervening in one case for an iconic American company is protectionism, not free trade. That would have entailed reforming the patent system for everyone. This is ominous, what if this is remembered as the equivalent of Smoot-Hawley? Patents are a hell of a lot more complex than tariffs... and at least the ITC is trying to do international coordination here, and Obama has just blatantly undermined them.

Taking legal action against FRAND abuse is hardly unique to the US. http://www.fosspatents.com/2012/12/european-commission-to-is... See also Mueller on this veto; while I often disagree with him, I tend to agree on this issue: http://www.fosspatents.com/2013/08/obama-administration-veto...

Post by jdrobins2000 » Sun, Aug 04, 2013, 1:06 PM UTC

josteink wrote: post #111

jdrobins2000 wrote: post #33

Apple has argued that Samsung isn't licensing their standards essential patents on FRAND terms. If that is the case, it seems reasonable to me to prevent them from threatening product bans to extract exorbitant licensing fees. In my limited understanding, that right to discriminatory license fees is waived when patents are contributed to a standard, in exchange for acceptance for use in the standard. Otherwise it wou…

Samsung demanded a fee equal to 2.5% of the cost of the phone. From everyone, including Apple. Apple decided this was "unreasonable" for them, demanded special treatment and refused to pay. The ITC concluded Apple was not following the rules and not playing fairly and thus initiated the ban. And now the administration overturns the court's decision on a whim. Keep in mind this is the same legal playground which fined…

Post by corresation » Sun, Aug 04, 2013, 10:30 PM UTC

throwawaykf wrote: post #115

corresation wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The ITC specifically considered FRAND, so interesting that you or the perpetually wrong troll Mueller decide that it is abuse.

Well, evidently the ITC "considered" FRAND inaccurately, as their decision conflicted with both, the Obama Administration and the European Commission. (Not to mention the opinions of jurists such as Judge Posner.) You could cry "protectionism" on this veto, but what excuse could you make for the EC's actions?

Post by BrandonMarc » Mon, Aug 05, 2013, 7:35 PM UTC

_delirium wrote: post #61

jivatmanx wrote: post #8

Intervening in one case for an iconic American company is protectionism, not free trade. That would have entailed reforming the patent system for everyone. This is ominous, what if this is remembered as the equivalent of Smoot-Hawley? Patents are a hell of a lot more complex than tariffs... and at least the ITC is trying to do international coordination here, and Obama has just blatantly undermined them.

Congress seems to have explicitly preferred this approach, however. They could've set up a system with uniform rules and a mandatory process that the president can't overrule, as is commonly done with other areas like environmental rules. The president does have some power over the EPA, but can't arbitrarily instruct the EPA to drop rules simply because he disagrees with the outcome of the rulemaking process. But her…