Ed Black, President & CEO of the Computer & Communications Industry Association:
The Administration’s unprecedented decision to veto an ITC “Section 337” import ban against Apple for infringing Samsung’s intellectual property is a disruptive and potentially dangerous development that calls into question the fairness of our trading regime and could undermine the way US companies are treated globally.
[…]
Adjudication by USTR fiat, however, is unacceptable and invites other countries to do the same. While Ambassador Froman’s letter cites policy issues, it offers little helpful analysis or guidance. And it ignores the ITC’s determination that Apple failed to prove either that Samsung’s patent was a standard-essential patent or that Samsung breached its obligation to a standards-setting organization.
Well said.
This is the core of the problem with Obama’s veto. Not only did he completely and utterly contradict the findings of an expert panel of judges who investigated all the materials in great detail, he also sent out a very strong message: if you’re a foreign company doing business in the US, you will be treated as a second class citizen. Combined with the endless stream of negative press concerning surveillance and which hunts for whistleblowers, the US just got a whole lot less enticing for technology companies.
Or it could just be a one-off situation and Obama doesn’t intend to make a habit of intervening in the ITC’s decisions.
It seems rather counter-productive in a bad economy, where they want people to be spending money and buying stuff, to impose product bans.
Scaring off companies doesn’t seem like a wise tactic either in that regard, now does it?
Scaring off Samsung by telling them to go back to the courts, or by telling the ITC to try again and possibly issue a modified exclusion order?
This isn’t a categorical rejection of Samsung’s claims, just the ITCs boss telling them they need to consider more than what they did in their final determination.
If I were you, I’d be worried about ITC rulings (which are a more suitable attack vector for patent trolls than Distict Courts)
Scaring off other companies != scaring off Samsung.
Don’t think the rest of the world is blind. Do you really think that Huawei for example expect another treatment if the brand became successful in the US?
It’s more and more obvious that the US market is a mine field for other companies. Not because of fair competition but simply because every (not so) legal loophole is used to favor US companies. I’m really not sure that this will be of any benefit even for the US in the mid/long term.
This little example example is interesting (even if not directly related).
http://lavabit.com/
It’s (well… It was) a crypted mail service used by Snowden for his mails.
Fair rules you said?
novad,
Wow, I had never heard of this private crypto company.
“I have been forced to make a difficult decision: to become complicit in crimes against the American people or walk away from nearly ten years of hard work by shutting down Lavabit. After significant soul searching, I have decided to suspend operations. I wish that I could legally share with you the events that led to my decision. I cannot. I feel you deserve to know what’s going on–the first amendment is supposed to guarantee me the freedom to speak out in situations like this. Unfortunately, Congress has passed laws that say otherwise. As things currently stand, I cannot share my experiences over the last six weeks, even though I have twice made the appropriate requests.”
Sounds like gag orders are making a mockery of the first amendment.
“This experience has taught me one very important lesson: without congressional action or a strong judicial precedent, I would _strongly_ recommend against anyone trusting their private data to a company with physical ties to the United States.”
As a small US owner myself, these words hurt. I wonder what scale one needs to grow to before being of enough interest for the government to ask for inside access (since that seems to be what’s going on without having it been made explicit).
Edited 2013-08-10 14:17 UTC
I have friends in the US. I know that what happens actually is difficult for them and I’m really sorry for all the affected people.
This is a tricky question.
There is the official statement which says that this is used to protect the USA against terrorism. The problem is that this kind of behaviour is also used for economic reasons (trade secrets or political pressures).
Even if it was used only against terrorism you have the problem of colateral damages. Lavabit is a good example. It’s a little company which has been put under tremendous pressure by the administration to obtain what they wanted.
P.S: Sorry to everybody… I know it’s a bit off topic
Edited 2013-08-10 16:20 UTC
Is Snowden classified as terrorist and anything he uses – ie Lavabit mail, google search – supports terrorism? That may explain why the president had to act. Snowden owns a Samsung Galaxy! Sending him my iPhone 5, a Bible and a nuclear powerplant now 🙂 Anything else we like to see banned or unbanned by Obama himself?
Edited 2013-08-11 17:19 UTC
We’re not talking about Edward Snowden, the NSA, or Lavabit. Nothing in my post, Thom’s post, or this entire article would even seem to imply some sort of even casual connection between the ITC ruling and that.
It may very well be, but this ruling has nothing to do with it. The ITC ruling vetoed by Obama has nothing to do with the legal landscape for foreign companies. In fact, Samsung is a multinational company. They have a subsidiary incorporated in the United States. To even bring something before the ITC they have to be as it is the place for importation bans.
I find it beyond interesting that a panel (the ITC), which overrode an ALJ (Judge Gildea) and then was overridden by the USTR is somehow engaging in nationalist protectionism. The rule of law was overridden by a panel of appointed officials anyway, their boss just told them they were wrong.
This is the legal process at work in the United States, not some grand conspiracy to shut Samsung out. The ITC has ruled against Apple before.
Ok… Let’s start by the beginning…
If I remember well I said:
– This little example is interesting (even if not directly related).
– P.S: Sorry to everybody… I know it’s a bit off topic
Then… The link I provided was to give an example of how US administration uses illegal (or at least highly disputable) methods against corporations to obtain what they want. This was an analogy to what happened with the Veto against the ITC decision, not an identical situation
Oh really?? Well… This is your opinion and I respect it as it. That doesn’t mean I have to agree.
It has exactly to do with that legal landscape. I don’t know what you know about how the US legal system is seen by the rest of the world, but there are a few things that are more or less universally accepted by everyone:
– Legal decisions involving foreign companies are almost always biased (This is the point that is of interest in our discussion)
– Since more than 10 years individual rights are more and more neglected
– US tries to impose its legal system and views to the rest of the world
There have been so many scandals:
– South American markets
– Boeing against Airbus
– Bank secrecy while protecting Delaware
– Many others
The only thing that protects the USA against international measures is its economical and military strength… Not because it “does the right thing”.
Well… There is ITC and USITC. But let’s talk about ITC. Not every ruling that the ITC makes is good (Far from it). If you asked me the ITC should work on the problem caused by the USPTO instead of making decisions based on these patents.
This is one of the few cases where there was not a lot to complain about ITCs impartiality.
Samsung accused Apple to use its IP without paying for it. ITC agreed with it and banned the infriging products
Apple accused Samsung to use its IP without paying for it. ITC agreed with it and banned the infriging products
You can argue so much you want… What the whole world sees is that the US doesn’t respect international rules to protect a “local” company. Not more, not less.
Korea won’t have the political or economical strength to fight back… But I’ll be curious to see what will happen when a Chinese company will be involved.
BTW… To answer your initial statement. It’s not a conspiracy against Samsung. It’s illegal measures to protect Apple.
Edit – Typos corrected
Edited 2013-08-10 17:18 UTC
The measures are not illegal, the rationale for the USITR are codified in US law, specifically the Tariff Act. You not knowing that it exists does not make it illegal.
Foreign ignorance and perception isn’t the concern of the United States Trade Representative when he is tasked with ensuring that the public interest is respected, as he has instructed the ITC to do in this case and in future cases (in fact, in a case on this very front page, the one where Samsung products are banned, the ITC staff refused to hear this very argument from Google). So it will benefit all, not just Apple.
This isn’t again an impactful decision besides telling the ITC they got it wrong. Samsung can go back to the Courts and seek monetary remedies for their SEPs or even injunctions (the USITR doesn’t preclude injunctions on SEPs, he specifically mentions extraordinary circumstances where they are necessary). So if Samsung has as strong a case as Thom thinks, they can go back through our Court system and have their concerns heard. Not an unelected panel of officials which is already overburdened (it takes at least 18 months for ITC decisions to be handed down).
Thank you for making my point. You just didn’t say “US public interest” but it was obvious. So… We agree that this was a decision to protect US interests.
Oh wow… You don’t often check international medias. This IS a big story. It’s in every news media. And to be clear… It’s not the “standard” coverage of an Apple vs Samsung trial. It’s the veto and the international implications of this overuling that are reported.
Well no… Samsung can’t go back to court. At least not about this ruling. No juge in the US can overule a presidential Veto. Samsung can try to obtain a new ruling about a new or modified case. But that’s all.
OH MY GOD.
http://www.ustr.gov/sites/default/files/08032013%20Letter_1.PDF
DO me a favor and READ the damn letter to the ITC. This shit is not hard. Its only four pages. Take some time off of posting utter and complete nonsensical bullshit on this website and read it.
On the very last sentence:
“On the contrary, the patent owner may continue to pursue its rights through the courts.”
I’ve highlighted the important parts in case you missed it. This is insanity trying to have a rational discussion with people like you.
Thank you for your insults. There was not more to expect from brainwashed fanboys.
And you are talking about rational discussion? Funny…
I allready read that document… In what way is it in contradiction with what I said?
Oh yeah… The distortion field… Sorry.
Just one last info. After that I won’t answer anything else from you.
EVEN if a new veto would be pronounced to protect Samsung nothing would change regarding Apples “protection”
Samsungs hardware touched by this decision are old models barely sold in the US.
The Apple phone “saved” by the Veto (Last one was by Regan!!) is the 4th in the list of best selled phones in the US.
P.S: I find funny that each of your post is immediatly rated with 2 comments… Or you have a lot of followers (Who knows…) or you have created additional accounts to upvote yourself… Pathetic
I am far from an Apple fan boy. Seriously. I just come to the conversation with the reasonable expectation that you’ve done your homework and are open minded.
Samsung is still able to seek a remedy for the same exact patent, it wasn’t invalidated or deemed non infringed. This was just the end of the line for an import ban through the ITC. They can reassert the same patent in District Court.
Well, if you actually knew anything about how ITC import bans work, you’d know that the ITC issues broad orders to the US Customs and Border Patrol regarding which devices are infringing, and the decision as to which models infringe on the patents in question are done in real time as they are imported into the country, and seized if found to infringe.
And you see, this has been the trend this entire discussion. You come here with “facts lite” which are your own stupid ass interpretations on what used to be facts and post anti-American propagandist bullshit.
Samsung does benefit from the ITC ruling, as it has SEP patent trolls with cases against it in the ITC right now. The USTR instructed the ITC to exercise discretion in SEP import bans for this and all future cases. This isn’t limited to Apple in any way.
You don’t know how OSNews works. I have Trusted User status which means my comments immediately start off with a score of 2. Just add that to your list of stuff you’re wrong about.
Nelson, why do you bother? You are one of the people I enjoy seeing comments from because they are usual balanced out and logical. But it has got to be painful talking to these brick walls.
I stopped coming to OSN a long time back because of the bullshit. For some reason, this morning, I typed it in and was looking around. Nothing has changed. It’s even getting bad over at Ars
Edited 2013-08-11 15:08 UTC
Sounds like “it’s OK to break the rules if you only do it once” argument.
“Just the tip, this time only, I promise”
No, I already know I can’t trust you. Disconnect it first and then maybe I will let you use the opposite end instead of the tip. <(^8)<
presumably ‘witch hunts’