President Obama vetoes iPhone sales ban, Samsung disappointed

[The Messiah]

President Obama vetoes iPhone sales ban, Samsung disappointed

The administration of the US President Barack Obama has recently issued a veto on the pending sales ban of certain older Apple products (the iPad 2 or earlier and the iPhone 4 or earlier). Following a ruling of the US International Trade Commission (ITC) back in early June, the products were supposed to be banned from selling because of violation of a certain Samsung-owned standards-essential patent.

The Obama administration stepped up and disproved the ITC determination to issue an exclusion order and cease and desist order due to its effect on "competitive conditions in the U.S. economy and the effect on U.S. consumers." This action is entirely in the competence of the President's office although this block of the ITC ban is said to be the first of its kind since the Reagan administration in 1987.

Obama's office reminds of "the potential harms that can result" from using standards--essential patents for "gaining undue leverage and engaging in "patent hold-up". It reminds that standards--essential patents should be easily accessible for licensing under FRAND terms, which, they consider, was not the case with this Samsung's patent.

Back in June, the ITC ruled that Apple was violating one of Samsung's smartphone and tablet-related patents. Due to that decision, Apple was about to face bans on the sales of certain AT&T iPhone and iPad models. Apple was highly disappointed because they claimed Samsung would readily license the said patent to anyone else interested, yet it insisted on a sales ban in Apple's case.

Companies holding standards--essential patent such as the one in question, are obliged to license these to third parties on terms that are Fair, Reasonable, And Non-Discriminatory (hence FRAND). According to Apple, in this case Samsung was far from offering them FRAND licensing terms.

Up until now Apple was appealing the ITC's initial ruling and the Commission was supposed to come up with a final ruling on August 9.

Fortunately, the block does not mean the patent holder is not entitled to a compensation, just on the contrary.

Samsung has already responded to the decision of the president's office:

"We are disappointed that the U.S. Trade Representative has decided to set aside the exclusion order issued by the U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC). The ITC's decision correctly recognized that Samsung has been negotiating in good faith and that Apple remains unwilling to take a license."

Quite expectedly, Apple's stance on the President's office decision is just on the contrary:

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

We are yet to see which direction this thing takes. It's more than obvious that the Apple vs. Samsung patent brawls are already getting out of hand. It's getting increasingly harder to tell who's right and who's wrong.

President Obama vetoes iPhone sales ban, Samsung disappointed - GSMArena.com news

 

[Known_Unknown]

I thought the US was all about maximum protection for intellectual property @Energon Seems the "protection" is merely one-sided advocacy in favour of US companies under the thinly disguised veneer of trade policy.

 

[trackwhack]

Surprise surprise. The US does not ever practice what it preaches.

 

[W.G.Ewald]

Obama's disapproval of an ITC decision is not a veto. The president vetoes bills from Congress.

 

[Energon]

Two things to point out:
1. As the article clearly states, the bans have been see-sawing so this isn't a static ruling by any means, which is also why the representative of the ruling clearly stipulates that "My decision does not mean that the patent owner in this case is not entitled to a remedy." "On the contrary, the patent owner may continue to pursue its rights in the courts," Furthermore the article above also states "the block does not mean the patent holder is not entitled to a compensation."
2. The last sentence of the article highlights the core problem. With rapid technological innovation, patent law wars are getting out of control ostensibly because the current laws as they stand are unable to cope with the pace of technology turnover. This means the entire system is in need of an overhaul. This will not happen overnight and in the mean time we will keep seeing suits and counter suits.

Lastly, this is not a USA vs South Korea issue. Samsung's holdings in the United States and their R&D investments in silicon valley make them just as important as any American company. If the goal of the article is to convince me that intellectual property rights are systematically violated in the United States then the job remains unaccomplished. Besides if the evil American government was really that nefarious then companies wouldn't do business or conduct research in the United States.

I am however interested in seeing how the legal establishment adjusts to new challenges posed by the rapid technological turnovers we see in the marketplace today.

 

[Known_Unknown]

Two things to point out:
1. As the article clearly states, the bans have been see-sawing so this isn't a static ruling by any means, which is also why the representative of the ruling clearly stipulates that "My decision does not mean that the patent owner in this case is not entitled to a remedy." "On the contrary, the patent owner may continue to pursue its rights in the courts," Furthermore the article above also states "the block does not mean the patent holder is not entitled to a compensation."
2. The last sentence of the article highlights the core problem. With rapid technological innovation, patent law wars are getting out of control ostensibly because the current laws as they stand are unable to cope with the pace of technology turnover. This means the entire system is in need of an overhaul. This will not happen overnight and in the mean time we will keep seeing suits and counter suits.

Lastly, this is not a USA vs South Korea issue. Samsung's holdings in the United States and their R&D investments in silicon valley make them just as important as any American company. If the goal of the article is to convince me that intellectual property rights are systematically violated in the United States then the job remains unaccomplished. Besides if the evil American government was really that nefarious then companies wouldn't do business or conduct research in the United States.

I am however interested in seeing how the legal establishment adjusts to new challenges posed by the rapid technological turnovers we see in the marketplace today.

The South Koreans are already pissed off that despite following the legal process and winning, Samsung is now facing losses due to Obama's disregard for international trade law:

South Korean government expresses concern over Obama's veto in Apple-Samsung patent dispute

The intervention of President Barack Obama's administration and subsequent comments from South Korea may signal that the patent dispute between Apple and Samsung could become an international political issue.

The two countries entered into the U.S.-Korea Trade Agreement last March, promising "countless new opportunities for U.S. exporters to sell more Made-in-America goods, services and agricultural products to Korean customers." The U.S. government characterized the deal as the most commercially significant free trade agreement in nearly 20 years, adding up to $12 billion to the annual U.S. Gross Domestic Product by making almost 80 percent of U.S. exports to Korea duty free.

Experts have said that the Obama administration needs to be careful and not give the impression that it is favoring Apple, an American company, over its rival Samsung, from South Korea.