Why Obama needn’t overturn U.S. ITC Samsung ban after Apple veto

“There’s some who feel Samsung should receive a waiver on the Apple victory against it at the ITC, in the same way its case against Apple was waived,” Jonny Evans writes for Computerworld. “This puerile argument has no substance to it as the circumstances of both cases are very, very different.”

“Bloomberg reports Samsung wants a presidential pardon because Apple got one — but the circumstances of these two cases are very different,” Evans writes. “In this case, Samsung’s patents are essential to an industry standard. That’s why the firm agreed to license them in an open way to all in the industry who wanted to use them, and to do so at a fair and equable rate to all. (It amuses me how some Android champions who cling to the word ‘open’ as part of their religion seem so unwilling to respect the need for fair and open dealing in those industry standards their ‘open’ is based on.)”

“In Apple’s case the argument it has won pertains to functionality that differentiates the Apple products from other devices,” Evans writes. “The difference between these cases doesn’t stop Samsung from demanding the same treatment it claims Apple received. Unable or unwilling to concede the different meaning of the two findings, it states: ‘The world is watching how Samsung is treated by the United States in this ‘smartphone war. The administration has a significant interest in avoiding the perception of favoritism and protectionism toward US companies.'”

Evans writes, “The world is indeed watching; not because it feels Samsung is an innocent victim of US protectionism, but because it is waiting to see what precisely the US will choose to protect.”

Read more in the full article here.

Related articles:
Samsung, EU in talks to settle antitrust case involving FRAND abuse against Apple – June 25, 2013
Japan finds Samsung guilty of FRAND abuse – March 5, 2013
FRAND abuse: Samsung could face $15 billion fine for trying to ban Apple iPhone via standard-essential patents – December 28, 2012
FTC staff said to formally recommend antitrust lawsuit against Google over FRAND abuse – November 1, 2012
Google U.S. antitrust lawsuit said to be urged by FTC investigators over Internet search, FRAND abuse – October 15, 2012
U.S. FTC investigating Google, Motorola Mobility over FRAND abuse – June 30, 2012
EU launches full-blown investigation of Samsung’s suspected abuse of FRAND-pledged patents; Motorola on notice – January 31, 2012
Apple asked standards body to set rules for essential FRAND patents – February 8, 2012
Apple’s iterative approach to FRAND abuse is not for the faint of heart, but there’s no better alternative – February 5, 2012
Motorola Mobility wants 2.25% of Apple’s sales for standards-essential wireless patents license – February 4, 2012
EU launches full-blown investigation of Samsung’s suspected abuse of FRAND-pledged patents; Motorola on notice – January 31, 2012
EU opens antitrust investigation into Samsung over patents – January 31, 2012
European Commission investigates Samsung over possible abuse of FRAND patents against Apple – November 3, 2011
Why is Samsung attempting to ban Apple’s iPhone 4S over FRAND patents? – October 5, 2011


    1. Hey, botvinnik….You seems to be level headed and interested in politics, may be you should consider getting into politics…….May be you could get elected as a Senator and the Country will be grateful to you.

            1. NO MORE BICKERING!
              Reject the false messiah, Obama!
              All Hail the illumination, goodness and wisdom of the True Messiah, botvijerk!
              All truth floweth from Him.
              botvijerk messiah for President!

  1. Also google should get punished for creating the android OS using stolen IP and helping photo copiers like Samsung and other play dirty and unfair games

  2. Articles on this subject have been going around for a few days. Reading the comments by phandroids/Apple haters continually bringing up “rounded corners” is laughable. Just goes to show how little they know about patents or the current state of patent related litigation

  3. Obama is already overturning the US constitution, so he can do just about anything and the libturds will worship his half-black ass and slurp what what comes out from it.

  4. It seems to me that much of this could be avoided if patents that were declared as “standards-essential” could be removed from administration by their owners and given (for licensing and defense purposes) to an independent body which could fairly handle such things. It seems that some large corporations and some governments have lost the ability to make sense of the words on the paper; taking this kind of thing out of the hands of Samsung, IBM, or any other standards-essential patent holder, would at least clear the noise from the playing field, and leave the patents that are distinguishing to be properly viewed.

    (And my prediction is that Mr. Obama WILL grant a veto; since he has neither a technical nor a business background, and since his style seems to rely more on his own feelings rather than gathering and listening to competent advisers, I believe that he will err on the side of what he wrongly believes to be “fair.”)

Reader Feedback

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.