Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

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

ustr.gov

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 119 posts

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

#21

Post by bradleyjg »

el_chapitan wrote: post #3

Point of order. This isn't a veto. A veto is for legislation, this is fully contained within the executive branch.

Veto just means "I forbid". It is perfectly fine to use it outside the context of the President denying his consent to legislation.

For example I could, and have, vetoed a resturant in a discussion of where to go for dinner.

In this case a decision of the International Trade Commission is presumptively valid unless the President, or his designee, forbids the ruling from going into effect -- or in other words, unless he vetoes it.

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

#22

Post by hga »

droithomme wrote: post #17
yanofsky wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Another Point of Order. Obama didn't do this, the USTR did, on the authority of the President. Edit: It would be fair to say: "The Obama Administration did this"

The President is the only one authorized by Section 337 to take this action. Although the President assigned his authority to the trade representative on his behalf, this action is only permitted under the law to the extent it is done by the President.

Here's the law, 19 U.S.C. § 1337 (http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/19/1337):

"(j) Referral to President

(1) If the Commission determines that there is a violation of this section, or that, for purposes of subsection (e) of this section, there is reason to believe that there is such a violation, it shall—

[...]

(B) transmit to the President a copy of such determination and the action taken.... If, before the close of the 60-day period beginning on the day after the day on which he receives a copy of such determination, the President, for policy reasons, disapproves such determination and notifies the Commission of his disapproval, then, effective on the date of such notice, such determination and the action taken under subsection (d), (e), (f), (g), or (i) of this section with respect thereto shall have no force or effect."

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

#23

Post by hga »

guelo wrote: post #7

It's signed by the US trade representative, not Obama. I don't know if this kind of thing is approved all the way at the top, but the letter uses "I" a lot suggesting it was his decision. I think the headline should at least be changed to "The Obama Administration". Also, it's not a "veto".

The law puts it in the hands of the President, see this subthead: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6153056 ; he may of course delegate his authority, but the buck stops on the desk in the Oval Office.

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

#24

Post by kunai »

I'm a bit lost for words on this case. On one hand, I can't help but feel it would have been good for Apple to get a taste of their own medicine. At the same time, I think this excessive patent protection is harming the industry...

In a perfect world, Apple would have never pursued Samsung in their frivolous extortion case, and this ban would never have reached the Obama admin. But this is a world motivated by cutthroat competition.

I'm tired of it.

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

#25

Post by jivatmanx »

mtgx wrote: post #15
revelation wrote: post #6

What a joke. So good to see the president is finally tackling the patent abuses, by protecting local trolls from a taste of their very own medicine. (The justification here being that this ban is not "in the interest of the public". If this was considered in ay other cases, we'd all be paying cents for generics from India instead of thousands of millions for the brand version)

This is what increasingly bothers me lately about the decisions they make. They're sacrificing a lot of stuff "in the interest of public good". It seems like a lot of collectivism. "We can't put bankers in prison because this way it's better for the public/the economy" "We can't punish any corporation with more than a relatively minor fine, because that would hurt the public" "We can't let a judge's decision about ba…

Actually, the justification for not going after banking or corporate malfeasance, according to Eric Holder, is that they're "Too Big to Jail".

I have to say, as a committed small r republican wary of executive power, this kind of crap makes me crave Teddy Roosevelt.

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

#27

Post by jivatmanx »

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...

The problem I have with this argument, is, isn't the point of every technological advance to become widespread and Standards-Essential? If we're going to disallow them, why have patents at all? For "Look-And-Feel" patents?

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

#28

Post by vijucat »

There are at least 2 forms of hypocrisy here:

a) Big > Small : smaller companies are subject to market forces and are expected to sink or swim as deemed by their own competitive merit, but Apple gets a hand when times are tough!

This is essentially a State-assisted protection of private wealth owned by the few; Tim Cook and all the mutual funds and hedge funds that invested in AAPL can now sleep well at night knowing that the American government has a Protectionism Put Option on AAPL.

b) Free trade, patents, et al are "the American way" as long as they benefit America, but the moment a foreign competitor uses the same tools and wins, oh no no no, we can't have that.

I believe that protectionism and jingoism ("Buy American") is how the American car industry, amongst others, survived for many decades despite being uncompetitive? At least, this is the gist of what I got from reading articles here and there. Ironically, such protectionism is not (always) in Americans' interest; I believe the car industry has successfully stymied the development of metro trains and other public transport options that would have made cars supremely unnecessary? Just take the MTR in Hong Kong or the MRT in Singapore to realize what you are missing.

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

#30

Post by asveikau »

hga wrote: post #16
asveikau wrote: post #4

I know political discussion on HN is frowned upon by some, but I get amused thinking of hypothetical reaction from the president's opponents. This seems to be an action against regulation of business, but it's the Obama administration, therefore... Communism! Apple is in the tank for Obamacare!

If you had any familiarly with "the president's opponents", you would know we label this as "crony capitalism" (much more akin to original formula Italian fascist corporatism), and have so since at least the 2009 cram-down of Chrysler's secured bond holders. While of course partisan, this OPED by the Republican governor of Indiana lays out the issues and some of the longer term consequences and outcomes: http://onlin…

Thanks, good sir, for confirming everything I was saying.

(It's funny that you begin by assuming I am unfamiliar with such positions. Thinking they are goofy, humorous and exaggerated is very different from never having been exposed to them. It was exactly this exposure that compelled me to write this, even knowing that it would be a target of downvotes and flames.)

Post reply on HN