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
This thread is ostensibly about a decision that has wide bipartisan support. The ITC made a very draconian decision that was overturned. Republicans, Democrats, independents and others were in general agreement over it. We respect IP rights here but we don't want companies abusing IP rights to block competition when better remedies are available, such as royalties. FRAND patents are such because they aren't that special. Multiple technologies can do the same thing. Standards setters need to settle on one, so the bargain is that they'll accept a patented standard provided that the patent holder agrees to fair, reasonable, and non-discriminatory terms. If there is a dispute the courts are the proper venue as they can award damages.
Last edited by a moderator:
You're smart. It's amazing how people knee-jerk so readily with an opinion about something they haven't bothered to understand entirely. I wouldn't be surprised if the ITC advised Obama to veto the decision. The comments on the CNET article are amazing.
Last edited by a moderator:
The court was going off a general notion that Samsung had a patent, Apple hadn't agreed to license it, therefore they were using it illegally.
Catch is that the patent in question is SEP and Apple hasn't paid because they feel that even now Samsung isn't acting in good faith to follow FRAND.
Most of the time with SEP there is no other choice which is why they are ESSENTIAL. To ban, especially when the owners might be be acting in good faith, is rather excessive according to Apple. And the Pres or at least his people agree.
If this had been Samsung blocking Apple they wouldn't be so disappointed
Last edited by a moderator:
Isn't the ITC a part of government, though? I think you could argue that this latest move was just a governmental self-correction that rolled back an overreach.
Just trying to do my bit to keep the world safe for libertarian thinking.
Last edited by a moderator:
Isn't the ITC a part of government, though? I think you could argue that this latest move was just a governmental self-correction that rolled back an overreach.
Just trying to do my bit to keep the world safe for libertarian thinking.
Correct, the USITC is synonymous with big government. I was merely stating that, while I don't necessarily agree with the way it happened, the end result is to the benefit of the free market, aka, you and I as consumers.
This is indeed interesting. Especially since there was a ban imposed on Samsung products for other patents such as changing a photo on the screen. Could it be because apple is an American company, and they perhaps deliver more tax$ to the government? I don't know.
As to everyone saying that this was right due to FRAND. Please note that apple did not license this patent. They straight out used it without paying. Some people say that Samsungs demands were unreasonable. Perhaps they were, but apples offer was unreasonable. Both of these options are not covered under the "F" and "R" parts of FRAND.
Not only that, but apple did not attempt to negotiate for this patent after their first offer (at least not seriously). They simply went ahead and used the patent without paying. Now that is infringement. If you don't pay, EVEN IF IT'S A FRAND PATENT, it's still infringement.
The correct course of action would be to negotiate a fair price and failing that Apple should have approached the ITC or Patent office or whoever and say that Samsung is not playing nice.
But apple didn't do any of that, they just used the patent without paying. I hope that Samsung are compensated for this. Perhaps I ban was too far, I don't know. I personally think it's justified, but at the very least apple should not be allowed to continue to profit from patent infringement.
As to everyone saying that this was right due to FRAND. Please note that apple did not license this patent. They straight out used it without paying. Some people say that Samsungs demands were unreasonable. Perhaps they were, but apples offer was unreasonable. Both of these options are not covered under the "F" and "R" parts of FRAND.
Not only that, but apple did not attempt to negotiate for this patent after their first offer (at least not seriously). They simply went ahead and used the patent without paying. Now that is infringement. If you don't pay, EVEN IF IT'S A FRAND PATENT, it's still infringement.
The correct course of action would be to negotiate a fair price and failing that Apple should have approached the ITC or Patent office or whoever and say that Samsung is not playing nice.
But apple didn't do any of that, they just used the patent without paying. I hope that Samsung are compensated for this. Perhaps I ban was too far, I don't know. I personally think it's justified, but at the very least apple should not be allowed to continue to profit from patent infringement.
The DOJ suit against Apple for ebooks was absurd. It was the first time a new player without any market power enters a market against an established monopoly player and gets accused of anti-trust. Further, look at the draconian proposed punishment that far exceeds the scope of any actual claimed harm.
Obama did not make this decision. His trade representative did, perhaps under pressure from the White House. However, the White House is aware of the bigger issues at stake here allowing the ban to stand. FRAND patent holders would use the ITC and the threat of injunctions to extract more than fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory licensing fees that in turn would drive the cost of consumer electronics up.
The worse the government can do to its market is to suggest there are double standards which favor domestic companies unfairly. Many wonder why he did not veto previous bans of other companies' products involved in patent infringements or what would have he done were the company involved not american... Basically the decision is right but the same should apply to all other companies involved in these ridiculous sales bans.
That patent litigation is out of control I agree, but then Obama should veto these kinds of patent bans overall and reform how patents work.
Why does this really matter so much? Apple will likely discontinue the iPhone 4 and 3GS with the release of the iPhone 5C. iPad 1st gen is already discontinued, so really iPad 2 would be the only product effected (which could be on its way out as well come September).
I disagree with much of President Obama's platform (partially on principle and partially on how he chooses to execute on good principles), however, I fully back President Obama on this decision. Let Samsung seek monetary compensation in the courts -- my guess is that the monetary compensation won't be worth the lawyer's fees for such a trivial patent.
Good to see someone protect the consumers.
Samsung should never have used the SEPs to attack its competitors.
It is wrong.
Edit:
Didn't Samsung already got fined by EU for attempting to sue Apple over the SEPs ?
Do they really think they can get away in US ?
Samsung should never have used the SEPs to attack its competitors.
It is wrong.
Edit:
Didn't Samsung already got fined by EU for attempting to sue Apple over the SEPs ?
Do they really think they can get away in US ?
Don't know if this is ultimately good or bad.
You could certainly argue that it's good, but it's merely putting a band-aid on a hemorrhaging wound. The patent system as a whole needs some scrutiny, especially in terms of what is and isn't patentable.
Make no mistake though -- patents are good and drive innovation -- there's just a lot of rough edges and abuse that needs to be smoothed over, primarily in the tech sector.
I'm also not a fan of first-to-file.
I don't think the personal insult was particularly warranted. He may not be politically associated at all, much like me.
With regards to your economy statement -- there's a lot of suppositions in the whole premise of stimulus packages. Personally, I don't think it really helped at all. Most of that money wasn't disbursed (and still is being rolled out). A lot of it was misspent, and didn't foster long term growth (ex: stimulus checks). All in all, it likely had little to no effect. The policy was really just a continuation of Bush's to comfort the market (and that's not a Bush compliment either).
It still remains to be seen how bad inflation will be, which in part will be predicated by our fiscal responsibility. The fact that congress can't even agree on such a basic tenant in the name of politics is wholly embarrassing. Far too much of our GDP goes towards tendering the interest, not the principle. I would hate to see what would happen if interest rates returned to previous averages.
You could certainly argue that it's good, but it's merely putting a band-aid on a hemorrhaging wound. The patent system as a whole needs some scrutiny, especially in terms of what is and isn't patentable.
Make no mistake though -- patents are good and drive innovation -- there's just a lot of rough edges and abuse that needs to be smoothed over, primarily in the tech sector.
I'm also not a fan of first-to-file.
I don't think the personal insult was particularly warranted. He may not be politically associated at all, much like me.
With regards to your economy statement -- there's a lot of suppositions in the whole premise of stimulus packages. Personally, I don't think it really helped at all. Most of that money wasn't disbursed (and still is being rolled out). A lot of it was misspent, and didn't foster long term growth (ex: stimulus checks). All in all, it likely had little to no effect. The policy was really just a continuation of Bush's to comfort the market (and that's not a Bush compliment either).
It still remains to be seen how bad inflation will be, which in part will be predicated by our fiscal responsibility. The fact that congress can't even agree on such a basic tenant in the name of politics is wholly embarrassing. Far too much of our GDP goes towards tendering the interest, not the principle. I would hate to see what would happen if interest rates returned to previous averages.
Last edited:
Indeed, however good politics create a good framework. The current laws are written by lobbyists and corporation. Interfering here creates another ripple where an American company is protected. I think it's a good move.
And Obamacare isn't about socialist anything, either? It's about health?
I have nothing against Obama. Heck, I live in a country that's as socialist as it comes (by US standards, that is, of course - in reality, Switzerland's about as socialist as a super-sized McRib menu), but not even here would the government so blatantly overturn the law to favor a domestic company over a foreign one. My dad's originally from a (former) socialist country (Hungary) and that's exactly the kind of thing socialism stands for.
If the administration doesn't like the law, they can attempt to change it through democratic means. But making exceptions to the law is outrageous.
Last edited:
The Obama Administration is not socialist it's corporatist. And this is another example. Hitting a double for team US Chamber. I want to see something much more substantive than this to be satisfied that the administration is also interested in seriously solving the FRAND patent problem as opposed to simply scoring another notch in our ongoing trade wars. Until then, I'm going to have to believe that this happened to be the right decision for the wrong reasons.
Actually, nobody has overturned any law. What happened is exactly what is supposed to happen: The USITC makes decisions, and the administration can and is supposed to decide whether these decisions are in line with the country's policies and beneficial to the country, and cancel decisions that are not beneficial. There is no "overturning the law", just like a higher court rejecting a decision of a lower court isn't "overturning the law".
A while ago the policy has been set that having the USIPC ban products from importing because the infringe on FRAND patents is contrary to policy. An FRAND patent means that the patent holder agreed to let anyone use the patent at the right price. Therefore, any conflict can be adequately resolve by letting a court decide what payment should be made, and banning a product from import would just interfere with competition. That policy had been set _before_ the USIPC decision. So this has nothing to do with US vs. non-US, it is just adhering to a policy that was set before.
Now what would you call it a government pardoned the former CEO of a company who was convicted in court for tax evasion? Exactly that happened in South Korea, and the convicted former CEO is Samsung's former CEO Lee Kun-hee.
They haven't been fined, but they have been threatened with fines (up to 10% of global revenues) if they continued to try to sue Apple over standard essential patents in the EU. In other words: If Samsung _tried_ to get the same USITC decision in the EU that they got in the USA and that has just been overruled, they could be fined billions of Euros just for trying.
- Status