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

71–80 of 119 posts

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

#71

Post by distant-uncle »

ianlevesque wrote: post #5

So they intend to veto any product bans related to FRAND patents from this point going forward. That makes a lot of sense to me. Using standards-essential patents as legal weapons is completely unethical. However, I can't help but wonder if the public good would've been greater served by letting a few multinational corporations like Apple feel some real patent pain. It's the only way the system will ever be overhaule…

> Using standards-essential patents as legal weapons is completely unethical.

I would argue, it's more like: "using patents as weapons is completely unethical."

And yes, it's a shame to see any patent aggressor get away with it. There is no fundamental difference between FRAND and any other patent. In all cases, independent invention is prohibited, denying inventors their natural right to gather the fruits of their labor.

Secondly, the "can't work around argument" is equally applicable to any patent discussion: unlike copyright, patent regime does not recognize the merger doctrine, placing some foundational methods at risk of being completely locked up by greedy entities.

Third, patent aggressors benefit tremendously from the work of third parties on whose shoulders they stand; patent aggression is an ugly contrast to this.

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

#74

Post by danmaz74 »

falk wrote: post #11

I'm so happy the President can take the time to address the patent system when it's in regards to giving protectionism to multi-national corporations while small businesses are drowning in frivolous patent lawsuits.

Especially when it's multi-national corporations that use patents in the worst possible way, and use any possible scheme to withhold money from taxation.

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

#75

Post by rustynails »

Terretta wrote: post #48
ruswick wrote: post #37

Although there is clear legal justification for this veto, I still fear that it was issued for perverse reasons. Apple is a lobbying juggernaut and is a favorite among the Government. Undoubtedly, Apple exerted extreme pressure on this decision, and I have severe doubts that this same conclusion would have been reached had Apple sought an embargo on Samsung products. Absurd cases and wholesale perversion of intellect…

> Apple is a lobbying juggernaut Wrong. Apple's not even in the top ten tech companies. In 2012, Google spent $18M while Apple spent $1.9M, less than Google, Microsoft, Hp, Oracle, IBM, Facebook, Intel, Cisco, Amazon, and Dell. Handy chart: http://appleinsider.com/articles/13/02/18/apple-reduced-fede... Key quotes: "Apple has historically spent less than its rivals on government lobbying" and "Apple's lobbying effort…

Slightly off topic, but lobbying includes companies lobbying against NSA privacy contentions, so lobbying by the $ is not a good measure of wanting a "self licking icecream".

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

#76

Post by mitchty »

Terretta wrote: post #53
kunai wrote: post #24

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 cutthr…

I've traced the history several times over the past few years here, but suffice to say, Apple wasn't suing anyone until the mobile phone industry realized Apple's little toy was gobbling all the profits. See this comment from 1,250 days ago, recapping early timeline: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1166321 And a comment from a year ago: Over two [now three] years ago, I argued that patent suits were how the licen…

Curious if you could link to the latter comment a year ago as well?

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

#77

Post by distant-uncle »

cromwellian wrote: post #10

Seems to me that in the future, companies are going to withhold some of their patents from FRAND even if they would be potentially more useful as FRAND to continue to use them as a weapon. The potential royalties of many of these FRAND patents seem small compared to the damages from infringement. In fact, it seems the value of a patent is inversely proportional to it's usefulness. A patent which covers a critical wir…

I've been mulling over the most common argument predictably wheeled out by the patent aggressors and their supporters:

"Theft! We don't want them to steal our stuff!!"

Never mind that even if one allows that the whole concept of patents is a legitimate, and an ethical legal framework, patent infringement is never theft.

Theft would involve actual trespass of someone's physical property, that involves removing and/or otherwise exploiting said property without the owner's permission -- in effect depriving them of it.

So for an obvious example, if Corp A. breaks into Corp B's engineering offices, and literally steals their code and/or design documents.

That would be theft.

Of course, computer break in is not technically a physical trespass, but the distinction still stands: an actual trespass must occur.

We already have time-tested criminal laws for this, and justly so. Patents are completely redundant for this case.

But if you think about, there is actual, honest to goodness theft that goes on in patent cases... and the thief, it's the aggressor! Albeit for a "limited time" (that's of course subject to interpretation, in 20 years many things happen, to someone who dies, that limitation is permanent), someone is given the government-sanctioned go-ahead to literally deprive another of their own discoveries and hard work.

Independently discovered, independently arrived at and hammered out.

No matter.

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

#78

Post by jolohaga »

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.

Regardless. Apple's genius isn't patentable anyway.

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

#79

Post by jolohaga »

kunai wrote: post #24

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 cutthr…

What medicine is that pray tell?

I mean, if you're comparing bans in Europe with bans in the U.S., they're not comparable. I don't think Korea is going to ban Samsung phones in its own country either.

Post reply on HN