Obama Administration Vetoes Apple Product Ban | Hacker News Reader

Obama Administration Vetoes Apple Product Ban

allthingsd.com

72 pointsZirconCode46 comments

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.

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.

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

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

I guess its perfectly graceful to use obvious patents (which got thrown out from the patent office at reexamination), and minimalistic design patents (which should be a contradiction in terms).

Still, since I see it as disgraceful to use any state granted monopoly in efforts to hurt competitors and gain market shares, both Samsung and Apple lacks grace. Arguing who is worse, is like two mass murders arguing over who is more moral and ethical.

No, it's disgraceful that Apple refuses to abide by FRAND terms i.e. cross-licensing, yet at the same time demands the same or better licensing costs as companies who do abide those terms, and then just uses the patented technology anyway without paying. Nokia was forced to litigate against them for this reason, and rightfully won.

No, they didn't. Nokia did.

I think we can score this as a big +1 for time tested techniques like political donations as a way to get what you want.

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

That's one of the major purposes of the patent system. Tech companies pushed patent enforcement hard in the 1990's because Chinese companies were copying American technology.

More generally, property rights favor entrenched interests and therefore entrenched interests have the greatest reason to push for strong enforcement of property rights. On the world stage when it comes to patents, the U.S. is that entrenched interest.

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-...

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

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..

Yup. That's protectionism for you.

“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.

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.

http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2011/TECH/innovation/02/18/stev...

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

But Schmidt isn't sitting next to the president.

And...

Denotes level of influence.

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?

That illustrates nothing and using it to suggest nefarious intent is childish in the extreme.

There is nothing nefarious about protectionism. Follow the money is an excellent principle if you want to understand why policy is made the way it is intervening (an exceptionally rare thing in the first place) on behalf of Apple makes perfect sense to me. I don't like it, but it does make sense.

exactly! when did wanting your country to win become a bad thing? nationalism in small doses is good!

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..

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

As a General Reminder, those so called Infringed Patents ( Whether they are FRAND or not ) are being sold to Apple as an Finished Product.

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.

In more honest times "economics" was more accurately called "political economy": http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_economy

I didn't know that, thanks.

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.

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.

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?

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.

>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.

Except that the ITC ruled that Samsung in fact did NOT fail its FRAND obligations. Please read the original ruling before spreading things that simply are not true.

On top of that, the ITC raised considerable doubt about whether or not the patent was even a SEP to begin with. Quite ironically, when Samsung submitted the patent in question to SETI because it "may" be essential, Apple itself argued that the patent was NOT essential (page 50 of the ITC ruling).

http://essentialpatentblog.com/2013/07/itc-releases-public-v...

This is a protectionist move by Obama, nothing more, nothing less. Had the tables been reversed - an ITC ban on a Samsung product with the exact same ruling - Obama would not have stepped in. Anyone who has read the ITC ruling knows what's really going on.

> The ITC failed to take into consideration Samsung's FRAND obligations

You really believe this? That the committee whose job it is to consider such things and spent months deliberating is not considering the one thing that every internet commentator is apparently an expert on?

This is the reality distortion field taken to the extreme of willful self delusion.

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.

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

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".

Definitely not a dictatorship. Definitely not.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com