
Obama administration vetos Apple iPhone 4, 3G iPad 2 product ban [pdf] - ssclafani
http://www.ustr.gov/sites/default/files/08032013%20Letter_1.PDF
======
jivatmanx
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.

~~~
comex
Taking legal action against FRAND abuse is hardly unique to the US.

[http://www.fosspatents.com/2012/12/european-commission-to-
is...](http://www.fosspatents.com/2012/12/european-commission-to-issue-
statement.html)

See also Mueller on this veto; while I often disagree with him, I tend to
agree on this issue:

[http://www.fosspatents.com/2013/08/obama-administration-
veto...](http://www.fosspatents.com/2013/08/obama-administration-vetoes-itc-
import.html)

~~~
jivatmanx
The problem I have with this argument, is, isn't the point of every
technological advance to become widespread and Standards-Essential? If we're
going to disallow them, why have patents at all? For "Look-And-Feel" patents?

~~~
comex
Because even strong software patents often have alternatives, and weak ones
are easy to find an alternative to, decreasing their value, but once a
standard protocol requires their use, the patent holder can jack up the price.
As an extreme example, consider the exFAT patents: there are many file systems
superior to exFAT that have no need for whatever bits of functionality
Microsoft patented, but because Windows speaks exFAT as one of few
alternatives, some companies have licensed them. Not exactly a standard, but
the same idea.

------
revelation
What a joke. So good to see the president is finally tackling the patent
abuses, by protecting local trolls from a taste of their very own medicine.

(The justification here being that this ban is not "in the interest of the
public". If this was considered in ay other cases, we'd all be paying cents
for generics from India instead of thousands of millions for the brand
version)

~~~
mtgx
This is what increasingly bothers me lately about the decisions they make.
They're sacrificing a lot of stuff "in the interest of public good". It seems
like a lot of collectivism.

"We can't put bankers in prison because this way it's better for the
public/the economy"

"We can't punish any corporation with more than a relatively minor fine,
because that would hurt the public"

"We can't let a judge's decision about banning Apple's product for losing a
patent battle in war _they_ started, be implemented, because that would hurt
the public".

The worst part is that they must be thinking these are really good decisions.
It's probably why Obama convinced himself and did a 180 on the mass spying,
too "because it's in the interest of the public".

~~~
jivatmanx
Actually, the justification for not going after banking or corporate
malfeasance, according to Eric Holder, is that they're "Too Big to Jail".

I have to say, as a committed small r republican wary of executive power, this
kind of crap makes me crave Teddy Roosevelt.

~~~
falk
Eric Holder admitted that he can't do his job. He needs to be fired.

~~~
jivatmanx
To be fair, he's been busy leading brave soldiers against Washington's pot
dispensaries, and running guns for Mexican gangs.

------
vijucat
There are at least 2 forms of hypocrisy here:

a) Big > Small : smaller companies are subject to market forces and are
expected to sink or swim as deemed by their own competitive merit, but Apple
gets a hand when times are tough!

This is essentially a State-assisted protection of private wealth owned by the
few; Tim Cook and all the mutual funds and hedge funds that invested in AAPL
can now sleep well at night knowing that the American government has a
Protectionism Put Option on AAPL.

b) Free trade, patents, et al are "the American way" as long as they benefit
America, but the moment a foreign competitor uses the same tools and wins, oh
no no no, we can't have that.

I believe that protectionism and jingoism ("Buy American") is how the American
car industry, amongst others, survived for many decades despite being
uncompetitive? At least, this is the gist of what I got from reading articles
here and there. Ironically, such protectionism is not (always) in Americans'
interest; I believe the car industry has successfully stymied the development
of metro trains and other public transport options that would have made cars
supremely unnecessary? Just take the MTR in Hong Kong or the MRT in Singapore
to realize what you are missing.

~~~
mknappen
see also: Noam Chomsky

~~~
NoPiece
or Milton Friedman..

[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0GEiRroLaHc](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0GEiRroLaHc)

------
cromwellian
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 wireless protocol component is
worth a few pennies and can't be used to get injunctions, but a patent for
some rounded corner button can be used to sue for billions.

If you look at the patent trolling going on, a lot of the cases are for
really, obvious, trivialities.

While I don't think one should be able to get bans like this, sooner or later,
Apple or Microsoft has to lose a patent case in a painful way so they stop
trying to shake down competitors. Mutually assured destruction doesn't work if
it's not mutual. This ITC case was the closest they've come to experiencing a
real threat of pain.

~~~
distant-uncle
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.

~~~
saraid216
I'm not a fan of the concept of intellectual property, but...

...you apparently don't understand the concept of an analogy. The whole reason
that IP is called intellectual _property_ is precisely to draw an analogy.
Thus, the violation of that property is called theft.

And besides, you don't understand theft of physical property either. It does
not require physical trespass: taking someone's wallet when they put it down
on a table for a moment is theft. Theft is a transfer of possession without an
accompanying transfer of ownership.

In intellectual property, theft is a duplication of possession without an
accompanying duplication of ownership. The result is nevertheless that someone
comes into possession of property without the right to own it. Distilled, this
is an entirely fair conceptualization of theft.

~~~
distant-uncle
Infringement is not theft, it is an entirely separate legal concept.

Dowling v. United States

[http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100913/22513210998.shtml](http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100913/22513210998.shtml)

The above deals specifically with copyright, but the concept is the same.

Secondly, in the post you replied to, I'm not talking about "intellectual
property", I'm talking specifically about patents. I think that the copyright
laws for instance, are far more balanced, and fair... lengthy time scales
notwithstanding.

> It does not require physical trespass: taking someone's wallet

> when they put it down on a table for a moment is theft.

Indeed, it is also trespass on someone's physical property. This is obvious,
and brings into question your own understanding.

Back to patents.

Suppose I discover, and implement a product, doing so entirely independently.
I'm then summarily denied the right to practice it via a patent shakedown. Am
I still in possession of it? Is one still in possession of one's freedom, if
all one has remaining is a tiny cell to walk around in?

Let's now break it down in your terms. If Alice infringes on Bob's patent,
both have possession, but only Bob, under the law has ownership. However, in
the case of patents, Alice can come into possession of "Bob's property"
without even knowing of Bob's existence, much less of the existence of "Bob's
property".

This is _not_ theft.

Now let's turn it around. Assuming Alice came into possession of "Bob's
property" without being aware of Bob, or "his property", i.e., Alice
discovered and implemented it entirely independently.

It is now _Bob_ , who can _deprive_ Alice of her own property, in effect
taking the ownership of it, as well as having it in his possession.

If this is not theft, then I do not know what is.

One more time... in the event of infringement, Bob can still practice his art
and make use of his property. Alice then merely engages in competition with
Bob.

In the event of patent enforcement action via the iron hand of the government,
Alice can neither exercise, nor even _posses_ "Bob's property".

~~~
saraid216
> Indeed, it is also trespass on someone's physical property. This is obvious,
> and brings into question your own understanding.

It really isn't. Trespass is about _land_ , though in our modern day world of
two-story buildings, it is more exactingly about _space_. See:
[http://thelawdictionary.org/trespass/](http://thelawdictionary.org/trespass/)

In order to work trespass into your convoluted example, you had to call upon
several other ancillary crimes, like breaking and entering and the oddity
about exploiting someone else's property, which I don't think is even
codified.

Personally? If you want to figure out how to fix patents, I'd suggest dropping
software as an example and going over to food recipes.

> Back to patents.

I don't particularly care about your clever table-turning unless you actually
get the argument to hold up in a court of law. Patents are problematic: this
is obvious to virtually everyone working in the tech industry and many more
besides. Philosophical tricks are useless until legally recognized. It's nice
to be able to play semantic word games, but it's an entirely different league
to be using legal language.

Also, you seem to be under the misapprehension that I was defending patents. I
am not. I'm objecting to your criticism of the word "theft".

~~~
distant-uncle
> Trespass is about land

Well, to borrow a phrase, it really isn't. Or more precisely, _land_ is one
subject area. Take a few moments to research if you're curious, but do go
beyond a law dictionary.

> that I was defending patents. I am not.

It seems we agree... then?

> I'm objecting to your criticism

Ok, fair objection. I also noticed your objection was less than friendly, so
perhaps your predisposition to the abuse of certain words is so strong, that
you will recognize that indeed, using the word theft when one intends to
convey the concept of infringement, is invalid.

This _is_ precise legal language and meaning.

As to changes to the patent laws, I can only hope. I do also hope, that as you
say, it is obvious. The more blindingly obvious this becomes to people, the
better. So hopefully, we can close on the positive note of both hoping for the
same thing?

------
guelo
It's signed by the US trade representative, not Obama. I don't know if this
kind of thing is approved all the way at the top, but the letter uses "I" a
lot suggesting it was his decision. I think the headline should at least be
changed to "The Obama Administration". Also, it's not a "veto".

~~~
hga
The law puts it in the hands of the President, see this subthead:
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6153056](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6153056)
; he may of course delegate his authority, but the buck stops on the desk in
the Oval Office.

------
falk
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.

~~~
danmaz74
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.

------
tmister
And Gruber yesterday posted a link indicating that Apple's punishment of
recent e-book trial was result of Amazon's good relation with Obama
administration
[http://daringfireball.net/linked/2013/08/02/amazon](http://daringfireball.net/linked/2013/08/02/amazon).
I wonder what will he say now.

~~~
Samuel_Michon
I think few people, including Gruber, expected the Obama administration would
step in. It was a possibility, but it wasn’t at all likely.

As for the ebook farce: Apple was told by Capitol Hill insiders that it should
increase its lobbying efforts (like Amazon and Google), otherwise bad things
might happen.

[http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0512/76073.html](http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0512/76073.html)

------
znowi
And people say what incentives do companies have to cooperate with the
government. This is one of them. All PRISM participants do. It's a mutually
beneficial relationship.

------
kunai
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 cutthroat competition.

I'm tired of it.

~~~
Terretta
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](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
licensing game was played among the existing players. It was considered an
everyday cost of doing business by the incumbents, but Apple wasn 't well
prepared for this. (They've learned fast.)_

 _This wasn 't on consumers' radar because none of the fights were as
interesting as the juggernauts of Apple v. Android which get framed in almost
religious terms and taken personally by users who have chosen a camp._

 _The argument then was that Apple had not been actively litgating patents,
but when Nokia (faced with dwindling profits, most of which appeared to be
landing in Apple 's pockets) started the fight, and Kodak piled on, Apple had
to demonstrate that the patents it was using to counter these suits were
patents that it was actively defending. This pushed Apple to file against HTC,
and eventually against others who, again, had all been actively (but boringly)
suing one another before Apple got to the table._

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

~~~
Terretta
[http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4191403](http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4191403)

------
ianlevesque
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 overhauled.

~~~
distant-uncle
> 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.

------
el_chapitan
Point of order. This isn't a veto. A veto is for legislation, this is fully
contained within the executive branch.

~~~
bradleyjg
Veto just means "I forbid". It is perfectly fine to use it outside the context
of the President denying his consent to legislation.

For example I could, and have, vetoed a resturant in a discussion of where to
go for dinner.

In this case a decision of the International Trade Commission is presumptively
valid unless the President, or his designee, forbids the ruling from going
into effect -- or in other words, unless he vetoes it.

~~~
el_chapitan
These are all fine uses of the word.

However, when you use the word "veto" in the context of the President, it
implies a certain set of actions that have taken place. It actually encourages
people to think those events took place, when reading the letter makes it
obvious that they didn't.

This is all moot now, since they changed the headline from "Obama vetoes..."
to "Obama Administration vetoes...".

------
chris-martin
So... we've determined that you violated the law, but we're choosing not to
enforce the law.

This what the kids call a bad code smell, right?

------
LoganCale
I guess joining PRISM has its advantages.

------
ruswick
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 intellectual property law are nothing new in this
country. Why has the administration only intervened for Apple?

It's just worrying when proper execution of the law becomes transactional.

~~~
Terretta
> _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...](http://appleinsider.com/articles/13/02/18/apple-reduced-federal-
lobbying-to-2m-in-2012)

Key quotes: "Apple has historically spent less than its rivals on government
lobbying" and "Apple's lobbying efforts were spread out pretty thinly over a
wide range of issues".

So, pretty much the opposite of "juggernaut".

~~~
rustynails
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".

~~~
voodoo123
In that case Apple has still 'lobbied' far less than its US competitors by
holding out against prism.

------
ihsw
My comment from earlier this week[1] seems extremely relevant:

And thus, too big to fail rears its head again. If we ignore laws surrounding
patent restriction enforcement due to Apple's products forming the bottom line
of many mobile operators offerings, then it stands to reason that the lesson
learned here is it's better to become so entrenched that nobody -- not even
the government -- can pull you out, rather than forming a competitive patent
portfolio.

[1]
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6121974](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6121974)

------
czhiddy
Where was all this outrage when South Korea banned the iPhone until 2009 to
protect the local cell phone makers?

[http://www.crn.com/news/networking/220100939/south-korea-
lif...](http://www.crn.com/news/networking/220100939/south-korea-lifts-apple-
iphone-ban.htm)

~~~
moapi
Believe it or not, a whole lot of South Koreans were complaining about it, you
just don't hear about it over here in America.

Source: I'm Korean

~~~
hga
I wasn't "outraged" because it didn't affect me or mine, but I do find
incidents like that distressing. Especially because, at least in Korea's case,
it _can_ compete.

One example, granted, with Google's help, is my father, who tried both an
iPhone and a Galaxy, and decided the latter was better.

------
tmister
Also the violated patents are owned by Samsung. So this is the result of going
"thermonuclear" against android. Irony hurts.

------
jdrobins2000
Apple has argued that Samsung isn't licensing their standards essential
patents on FRAND terms. If that is the case, it seems reasonable to me to
prevent them from threatening product bans to extract exorbitant licensing
fees. In my limited understanding, that right to discriminatory license fees
is waived when patents are contributed to a standard, in exchange for
acceptance for use in the standard. Otherwise it would be a de facto monopoly
for the patent holders, with all of the negative consequences for competition.

Have there been any other cases where a product ban has been enforced because
of an FRAND patent dispute? Unless there have, claims of protectionism are
unwarranted. But even if there have, that doesn't prove protectionism is in
play, but rather possibly that a past wrong is being corrected.

~~~
josteink
Samsung demanded a fee equal to 2.5% of the cost of the phone. From everyone,
including Apple. Apple decided this was "unreasonable" for them, demanded
special treatment and refused to pay.

The ITC concluded Apple was not following the rules and not playing fairly and
thus initiated the ban.

And now the administration overturns the court's decision on a whim. Keep in
mind this is the same legal playground which fined Samsung 1 billion dollars
for having pinch to zoom on a phone.

It's very hard to see this is anything but unfair market manipulation.

~~~
jdrobins2000
2.4%. And please cite your source that says it applied to every other
licensee. My reading of the commission document indicates that all other
license agreements Samsung made for this patent involved multiple SEPs from
each party in cross-licensing agreements. Samsung was also trying to use its
SEPs as leverage to get Apple to cross-license its non-SEPs to them at a
discount to Apple's proposal. Were both parties being reasonable in their
demands? Honestly, I couldn't tell from the redacted document.

Samsung blatantly copied the iPhone in many many ways. Using the pinch to zoom
patent is likely similar to prosecuting the mafia for tax evasion - it wasn't
their most egregious offense, but it was the only one the feds could make
stick.

------
josteink
One simple way to let Apple know you don't think their abuse of the legal
system is cool is to simply not buy their products. No iPhone, no iPad, no
MacBook, no iStore products. simply stop feeding them money to fuel their
lawyer-machine.

It's easy. Apple is by far one if the least competitive players out there one
you take a look at value for money and let go of the need for a hipster-
approved badge.

------
autodidakto
Veto? Pff. The best part of being prez is pardoning your friends! (And in
Clinton's case, brother).

Here's starting at Johnson, great reading:
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_people_pardoned_or_gran...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_people_pardoned_or_granted_clemency_by_the_President_of_the_United_States#Lyndon_B._Johnson)

------
3327
This is the most misleading headline I have seen.

~~~
bdcravens
You obviously haven't been on HN very long :-)

~~~
3327
Almost a year mostly interested in actual hack threads and python threads. and
pro keeping HN, HN, despise reddit style posts as there is a place for that
and its called Reddit !

~~~
bdcravens
If you're lucky you'll get 50% "hacker" threads. Most are political or fanboy
threads.

------
mpyne
I've wanted the Obama administration to take serious action for patent reform
for awhile. This is not at all the direction I was thinking he'd take, and
it's disappointing to see.

------
mike_ivanov
Apparently, Apple is too ~riesenhafte~ to fail. Typical, as of late.

------
noonespecial
I'm not sure I'm totally on board with this particular intervention as it
seems to smack of the potential of favoritism; I'd have to think about that
for a while after learning more about the specific case.

What is _extremely_ encouraging is that this is a sign that the highest levels
of government understand that patents don't exist for their own sake and are
merely a means to an end. When the desired end result isn't reached,
intervention is required. That's hopeful.

------
danmaz74
I'm disgusted, this is such a rigged game.

------
nraynaud
From the country that forbid car parts from entering Cuba...

------
bdcravens
Thank goodness! I was afraid Best Buy wouldn't be allowed to sell me an iPad 2
come Christmas.

------
jolohaga
Hooray for Apple!

------
voodoo123
Judging by the comments here, people on HN hate Apple more than they hate
patents.

Incidentally - for those suggesting that Apple should get a taste of its own
medicine, what on earth are you talking about? Since when did Apple have
competitors products banned?

~~~
Mikeb85
Is this a joke?

~~~
voodoo123
Is that a point?

------
asveikau
I know political discussion on HN is frowned upon by some, but I get amused
thinking of hypothetical reaction from the president's opponents. This seems
to be an action against regulation of business, but it's the Obama
administration, therefore... Communism! Apple is in the tank for Obamacare!

~~~
ruswick
It's upsetting that some proponents of this administration dismiss its critics
because they presume that they dislike him categorically. It is this sort of
bigoted presumption and political antagonism that is causing the erosion of
political discourse in this country. This issue is not that Obama has critics,
it's that some people believe that he shouldn't.

Why is it so difficult for people to accept that those who disagree with them
aren't just trying to antagonize them, and may have actual, legitimate
political orientations and views?

Instead of dismissing everyone with whom you disagree and painting them as
irrational bigots, why don't you attempt to discuss something with them?

~~~
asveikau
It's upsetting that you dismiss my dismissal, because a lot of the "criticism"
I do see, including in this thread, amounts to little more than a
transparently knee-jerk reaction that tends to be very lazy with the details.
I am not mocking every criticism of Obama I have ever seen, only the crazy
people who see the word "Obama" and instantly start talking about Kenya and
health care regardless of the topic, drawing comparisons with the Axis powers
(yes! this happened on this thread very early!) and a whole bunch of other
shit that has nothing to do with anything. I don't think you can deny that
this line of thought exists in the American psyche and it has more influence
than it ought to.

But I would like to make another thing clear: Obama is a center-right
politician. Your first line implies that I am a "proponent of [his]
administration" but I am considerably to the left of that guy. But a large
component of the attitude I am mocking is that many Obama haters really don't
care about the details, they just know they're against the guy. Here's a guy
who's got a tax plan from George Bush, a health care plan from Dole/Gingrich
and implemented by Romney, a more competent wiretapper, assassin, and
immigrant-deporter than his predecessor - even if some of these critics
previously held similar beliefs as Obama, they don't care about any of that,
he's just Satan to them. This includes congresspeople who are now against
things they previously sponsored, because it's now an Obama plan. Witness on
this thread that the administration is actually _blocking_ "government
intrusion in the marketplace", and people are really just finding excuses to
find faults with this because of what party it comes from. I'd say on the
balance they've proved my initial assertion right, far more than I expected
even from the pseudo-libertarians I am accustomed to seeing on HN.

~~~
ruswick
I respect your views and sympathize with many of them, but your original
comment did nothing to rationally confront the issues in the way that your
second comment did. Your original post pertained to "the president's
opponents," which seemed to include all of them. It just appeared as a off-
handed, categorical attack, similar to the ones that you decried. I
acknowledge that the reactionary, bigoted uber-right is frustrating, but
immediately jumping on them in a way that didn't pertain to the the specifics
of this case seemed like an unwarranted attack. I wish that you had explained
your displeasure in a more thorough and thoughtful way that didn't seem like a
political straw man, like you did in your second comment. Sorry if my initial
response seemed condescending.

