
Obama Administration Vetoes Apple Product Ban - ZirconCode
http://allthingsd.com/20130803/obama-vetoes-apple-product-ban/
======
Negitivefrags
Apple threw the first punch in this patent war. I don't blame Samsung at all
for fighting back. Now Apple has the nerve to make statements like this:

“We applaud the administration for standing up for innovation in this landmark
case. Samsung was wrong to abuse the patent system in this way”

Talk about the pot calling the kettle black.

~~~
threeseed
There is nothing hypocritical about what Apple said.

It is absolutely disgraceful for Samsung and Google (Motorola) to use FRAND
patents as weapons. It undermines the entire standards process by encouraging
companies not to put aside competitive agendas and work together for the
benefit of all.

~~~
markdown
Except that the ITC ruled that Samsung in fact did NOT fail its FRAND
obligations

~~~
josephlord
From what I read they basically said that they didn't care about FRAND
commitments.

------
ekianjo
How practical. Patents always seem to work one way. US companies first,
everyone else will not be treated with the same rules.

~~~
josho
This is larger than simply patents. The US despite its rhetoric about free
trade, democracy, freedom, etc. will, and always has, ensured that its own
interests (often in the form of corporations) is given an unfair advantage
over other nations.

If you doubt this, here is a recent example in an accessible format about the
US loosing a WTC dispute with Brazil, then proceeding to ignore the verdict
and continue its unfair trade practices. NPR Planet Money Podcast is here
[http://www.npr.org/blogs/money/2013/05/03/180912847/episode-...](http://www.npr.org/blogs/money/2013/05/03/180912847/episode-224-the-
cotton-wars)

~~~
AutoCorrect
ALL countries do this to protect internal businesses. That's the nature of the
game.

------
norswap
It is the right call. Still, I have the nagging feeling that the reverse
situation (import ban on old samsung phones) wouldn't have warranted a veto..

~~~
Metrop0218
Yup. That's protectionism for you.

------
Expeck
“We applaud the administration for standing up for innovation in this landmark
case. Samsung was wrong to abuse the patent system in this way” - says Apple
who made HTC one X banned from being imported in USA, because of patent
infrigement.

------
nicholassmith
IIRC in the EU Samsung was warned that if they tried to push for an import ban
(like this one) with a FRAND patent they would be severely punished. America
was the only place that allowed it.

Of course patent law over an international level is tricky with many things to
consider, but it was a horrible decision to make.

------
jacquesm
[http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2011/TECH/innovation/02/18/stev...](http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2011/TECH/innovation/02/18/steve.jobs.obama/t1larg.steve.jobs.obama.jpg)

~~~
threeseed
Eric Schmidt was also at that dinner and was in favour of Samsung's import
ban.

~~~
unfamiliar
But Schmidt isn't sitting next to the president.

~~~
sbuk
And...

~~~
rpgmaker
Denotes level of influence.

~~~
sjwright
Maybe it just denotes that Jobs was a bigger celebrity.

Maybe it was a sign of respect given Jobs' failing health.

Are you seriously suggesting that the corpse of Steve Jobs has more influence
than Eric Schmidt?

Or are you seriously suggesting that a company that imports a few electronic
gizmos has more influence than a company that has the single greatest
practical influence over the internet?

------
josho
As startups we seek to find unfair competitive advantages to get, and stay,
ahead of our competition. Apple is incredible at building competitive
advantages (e.g. their mag power adapter, iTunes/App Stores, etc). But having
the President of the US veto an independent court's ruling tops my list of
possible unfair competitive advantages..

------
ksec
I copy this comment from AllthingsD,

90% of these hated comments are by either Obama haters or Apple haters.

The patent is around basic CDMA functionality.

If the ruling was enforced, basically only Samsung could import CDMA phones.

This is fair. Just like it was fair when they overruled Apple' gesture patents
(pinch and squeeze, etc.)

The whole thing isn't about protectionism or FRAND. It is the existence of
these relatively stupid patents.

~~~
Expeck
Not really. Other companies are importing CDMA phones and are not banned by
Samsung, because they paid licence for using patent. Apple and Samsung did a
short negotiation about fees. Samsung asked 2.5% of cost of phone, Apple came
back with 1$ or less. For time after that Samsung tried to talk with Apple
about a fair deal,but Apple would always go back to 1$ or less price tag.

~~~
josho
You seem to have researched this, do you have a sense of what is the industry
norm for licensing costs for these, or similar, CDMA patents?

~~~
belorn
I can only repeat what others has said here on HN. The industry norm is for
bilateral patent agreements, which both parties share their FRAND patents and
only pay the difference in licensing fees. Apple do not have FRAND patents to
trade with, nor do they want to use substitute any other patents in a trade.

Thus in a rather exceptional case, Samsung/Google is asking the full price,
and Apple is refusing it.

~~~
hga
Hmmm, Apple may not have hard FRAND patents, but they _did_ have patents
Samsung was interested in cross licensing in return for FRAND patent licenses.
Seeing as how Apple is using various of those to club Samsung with (perhaps
after Samsung first approached them), I can see why they didn't want to do
such a deal, but....

I suppose we'll see how this all plays out in court, with this ITC fast track
import ban nixed.

------
northwest
Off topic, but this post (and discussion) illustrates very well why technology
and politics can never be separated.

You would need a very strong and valid argument to separate these two topics.

~~~
hga
In more honest times "economics" was more accurately called "political
economy":
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_economy](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_economy)

~~~
rpgmaker
I didn't know that, thanks.

------
beaker52
Patents are an obvious enabler of monopolies. Supported by the Obama
administration.

This story is screwed up for the fact that a patent-backed ban was enforced
AND for the fact the Obama administration stepped in to help Apple out. If
it'd been Joe Bloggs, I doubt they'd have cared.

------
sjwright
Whether or not you own a Galaxy or an iPhone, this decision is the right one.
The ITC failed to take into consideration Samsung's FRAND obligations that
encumber the patents in question, which made their decision just plain wrong.

~~~
jacquesm
I own neither, ask yourself this: even given that, do you think that the
intervention would have been the same had the situation been reversed?

~~~
threeseed
I wouldn't see why not. There was widespread support from Intel, ATT, BSA,
Oracle etc against import bans for FRAND patents. Had Obama not intervened it
would have sent a devastating precedent that is in nobody's interest.

~~~
fnordfnordfnord
>it would have sent a devastating precedent that is in nobody's interest.

It would have made immediately obvious to everyone the need for patent system
reform.

------
northwest
One reason to protect Apple may be the fact that the NSA has access to Apple
and their users' data, which is certainly very valuable to them.

~~~
Noughmad
And you don't think they have access to Google and Microsoft, the two
companies making software for Samsung phones?

~~~
northwest
We know that they do.

I'd add to that that control over hardware (such as chips, etc.) seems a tad
more powerful.

And then, it could also be about _preventing_ Samsung from gaining market
share in the "spying market".

------
shousper
Definitely not a dictatorship. Definitely not.

