Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Obama Administration Vetoes Partial Ban on Apple Products
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
- Status
I'll add one key word to your statement ...
We need more effective bureaucracy and regulation, not less.
What's with all this talk of the president? Did I miss something or does this have nothing to do with the president.
Obama's Administration != Obama
Obama's Administration != Obama
This smacks of political bias and interference in the workings of the USITC. Presumably they are only applying the law as it currently stands. Don't veto, change the law if necessary so it applies to everyone.
I can think of 16 trillion other things Obama should be focussed on right now.
I can think of 16 trillion other things Obama should be focussed on right now.
I'm not a lawyer, and I don't know all the details of the case. I assume the ban was there for a reason that a competent court found legally valid. And if the laws are wrong, specially on trade issues, then the laws must be adapted to provide justice to a new set of circumstances. That's how the rule of law gives the much needed certainty to the economy.
But.... when the executive branch goes in and busts a case like this, it hurts everybody. On one hand, it's violating the rule of law and the power of the courts, which sets a shaky precedent. And on the other hand, most importantly, it encourages other countries to do exactly the same. Let's see how does Apple - or any other american company - likes it when the Chinese, Indian or any other country's executive branch goes in to meddle in a court's decision, against US interests.
Think about it. BOTH Apple and Samsung have been behaving like spoiled brats. Why would the POTUS get involved in lifting a ban for really old phones, and risk all that is beyond me.
Unless he wanted a cheap applause from the MR Apple fan base....
But.... when the executive branch goes in and busts a case like this, it hurts everybody. On one hand, it's violating the rule of law and the power of the courts, which sets a shaky precedent. And on the other hand, most importantly, it encourages other countries to do exactly the same. Let's see how does Apple - or any other american company - likes it when the Chinese, Indian or any other country's executive branch goes in to meddle in a court's decision, against US interests.
Think about it. BOTH Apple and Samsung have been behaving like spoiled brats. Why would the POTUS get involved in lifting a ban for really old phones, and risk all that is beyond me.
Unless he wanted a cheap applause from the MR Apple fan base....
I'm far from a fan of Obama but this was the right decision. I'd expect that he'd veto sales similar sales bans if it were Apple suing based on a FRAND patent. Monetary compensation is the right remedy, and not a sales ban. The ITC has only a single "nuclear" option and it should be used carefully.
----------
The ITC is a creation of the legislative and executive branches. It has quasi-judicial authority but is not a federal court per se. The sales ban was a controversial decision since it is rarely used in disputes over FRAND patents. If there was ever a decision that was worthy of a veto this was it.
The iPhone 4 is still being sold, as is the iPad 2. On top of it, there is a larger principle that FRAND patents shouldn't be used to limit competition.
Monetary compensation is of course the right remedy, but in this case Apple refused to pay anything (or at least anything that could have been considered as an fair deal). They could have kept negotiating with Samsung to actually reach an FAIR deal for both of them, but apparently Apple didn't want that and they preferred to have this case go through the courts.
If the USITC resolutions are binding, it's basically the same thing. Why have a specialized regulatory body if a political actor is going to sanction or veto their decisions? The fact that the president had to throw his full weight on vetoing it, instead of just calling the ITC and have them reverse their decision, shows there was some merit to the ban.
The point is not about the decision's popularity or controversy, or even it's fairness (fair for whom)... but about the damage to the system's credibility and the precedence it establishes worldwide, where Apple and other companies have much more to loose if the rule of law is relative.
Government generates wealth?
On what planet?Governments certainly redistribute wealth but they don't create it.
He runs the country, and told the USITC not to interfere with businesses. That's exactly what he is supposed to do, stop that kind of interference.
----------
You mean they would have called their own trade commission directly and told them what to do, instead of having to go through whoever is the Korean equivalent of the US president?
What proof do you have that Samsung wanted a fair deal?
Thanks for the insight. It's good to know there's an insider involved in Apple/Samsung negotiations roaming these boards to reveal actual facts for once. /s
I second that. Finally, something to be proud of the president's action on the definition of FRAND.
Great President, great decision made. It's about time someone important in the US actually stepped in and defended American innovation. It's sad that it had to go all the way to the POTUS though.
Government generates wealth?
Governments certainly redistribute wealth but they don't create it.
No, government actually creates wealth, from scratch if needed. This is basic economics.
Additionally, socialist countries are always richer than libertarian countries.
Last edited by a moderator:
I don't have any proof of that at all, maybe they didn't want a fair deal. However, at least according to this Groklaw's article Apple has publicly stated that they really shouldn't have to pay anything at all. So refusing to paying anything at all while every other manufacturer has paid at least the FRAND rates doesn't seem fair to me either.
----------
I agree, that's the only proper way to resolve this.
Wealth is created by products and services, not a printing press. Governments absorb wealth which dampens the creation of wealth by businesses and individuals.
Last edited by a moderator:
He's in it for fun. Lots of golf, a couple of jets, late night TV appearances, signing off on this to look cool. This dudes got the power, the money, the ability to make the rules and laugh off the rest.
- Status