31–40 of 119 posts
And thus, too big to fail rears its head again. If we ignore laws surrounding patent restriction enforcement due to Apple's products forming the bottom line of many mobile operators offerings, then it stands to reason that the lesson learned here is it's better to become so entrenched that nobody -- not even the government -- can pull you out, rather than forming a competitive patent portfolio.
Have there been any other cases where a product ban has been enforced because of an FRAND patent dispute? Unless there have, claims of protectionism are unwarranted. But even if there have, that doesn't prove protectionism is in play, but rather possibly that a past wrong is being corrected.
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…
" The consequentialist analysis can take the form of a utility function, where the expected utility of an action is determined by the sum of the utility of each of its possible consequences, individually weighted by their respective probability of occurrence. Therefore, the correct action is always the one which maximizes o total value of positive consequences, even if it violates some established moral rule. Consequentialism is based on a cost and benefits analysis and measure goodness by calculating the total expected good." [1]
I don't presume to be able to say whether that's right or wrong, but it certainly feels like the underlying theory with which the government currently acts.
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.
Obama doesn't fully understand how commerce works.
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…
It's just worrying when proper execution of the law becomes transactional.
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…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
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.
I can't begin to imagine what the ITC will do having been completely undermined by Obama. I wouldn't be surprised if Apple suffers from some international retaliation for this. Obama doesn't fully understand how commerce works.