Obama administration overrules Apple import ban

[Omaha Steve]

Source: AP-Excite

By The Associated Press

President Obama's trade representative has vetoed a ban on imports of some Apple iPads and older iPhones, reversing a ruling in favor of rival Samsung Electronics.

U.S. Trade Representative Michael Froman on Saturday overruled a June decision by the U.S. International Trade Commission. The commission banned imports of the iPhone 4 and some variants of the iPad 2 when it ruled that the Chinese-made Apple devices violate a patent held by Samsung.

But Froman says in a letter to the commission that he has concerns about patent holders getting too much leverage over competitors that use their technology under licenses.

Samsung and Apple are in a global legal battle over smartphones. Apple argues Samsung's Android phones copy vital iPhone features. Samsung is fighting back with its own compla

Read more: http://apnews.excite.com/article/20130803/DA7UM91O1.html

[millennialmax]

1. Good decision. Shame on Samsung for using the government to try and hurt their competition. eom

[IthinkThereforeIAM]

2. Why doesn't Apple just advertise...

..."New Ipad5(6...7...8...) with Samsung display that we call Retina, , Samsung proprierty hardware and code and all kinds of other stuff we never invented, but we sued them anyway!"?

[cstanleytech]

4. If any shame is involved here then it lays with both as they are both guilty of behaving badly

and abusing their patents to stifle competition.

[wtmusic]

5. Stifling competition is the point of patents.

It creates an incentive to invest $millions in technology which will show profits beyond the time when a competitor can simply rush to market with a copy of it.

This particular issue involved a Samsung lawsuit against a "standards-essential" patent - a feature which is necessary to be compliant with spec created by an independent standards organization.

Apple doesn't sue other makers for profiting from Apple's standards-essential patents, and is even willing to pay Samsung "fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory" (FRAND) licensing on their SE patents.

[cstanleytech]

8. No, the point of patents is for those who invent something

to be able be rewarded for it but it isnt meant to be used like a gun at someones head and like I said they "both" are guilty of it as per
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_Inc._v._Samsung_Electronics_Co.,_Ltd.

[wtmusic]

10. Apple revolutionized smartphones, any way you slice it.

Samsung/Google copied the iPhone in every possible way it could and Apple has been largely victorious in its lawsuits.

There's a lot of gray area but it's a high-stakes business with $billions on the line, and both companies have every right to defend their property. There would be no such thing as a smartphone without intellectual property. Who would bother?

[cstanleytech]

12. Polish, revolutionized. whatever. Point I am trying to meerly make is that

alot of companies (not just Apple and Samsung) more often than not abuse the use of patents not to make things better but to screw over competitors for as long as they possibly can.

[PatrynXX]

3. But Froman says in a letter to the commission that he has concerns about patent holders getting too

But Froman says in a letter to the commission that he has concerns about patent holders getting too much leverage over competitors that use their technology under licenses.



WTF? so was he on Crack when he made this conclusion?? That's Apple. to the T. Courts already figured this out. And microsoft is still doing it.. zzzzz

[SleeplessinSoCal]

6. Why does healthy competition morph into destructive war-like action?

There ought to be plenty of room for everyone, but inevitably one will survive to control the market. It's not healthy.

[wtmusic]

7. High stakes

A single patent can (and often does) make or break a company.

[SleeplessinSoCal]

15. What's the status of the Sherman Anti-trust Act? Is this what Obama used?

Teddy Roosevelt was the first to use the Act even though the law had been on the books.

"The Sherman Antitrust Act (Sherman Act, July 2, 1890, ch. 647, 26 Stat. 209, 15 U.S.C. §§ 1–7) is a landmark federal statute on United States competition law passed by Congress in 1890. It prohibits certain business activities that federal government regulators deem to be anticompetitive, and requires the federal government to investigate and pursue trusts, companies, and organizations suspected of being in violation. It was the first federal statute to limit cartels and monopolies, and today still forms the basis for most antitrust litigation by the United States federal government. However, for the most part, politicians were unwilling to refer to and enforce this law until Theodore Roosevelt's Presidency (1901–1909) and beyond."

If it's been there and not used, it's time to advertize.

[wtmusic]

16. Agree with you, 100%.

But Sherman has nothing to do with intellectual property. It's anti-monopoly, and here's the difference: if you use sheer market capitalization to buy up all of your competition, you're establishing complete control of an area of the economy not through innovation but market manipulation. That's monopolization.

On the other hand, if you're a computer company that creates something new and outstanding, patent protection allows you to reap the profits of your hard work exclusively for a limited amount of time. There's absolutely nothing from preventing another company from coming up with an even better idea and taking your business away next year (except possibly drive, and talent).

Interestingly the first time the Sherman Act was used was not against a corporation but against the railway workers' union to end the Pullman Strike. Personally I think we'd have a much healthier economy, and healthier unions, if Sherman was used against both corporations and unions. Instead of huge corporations and huge unions, we'd have smaller of both competing with each other for the same contracts. There would be a vibrant, competitive marketplace for products and labor. I get no end of grief when I put that idea forth on DU, but the loudest, most grievous complaints come from members of unions with a stranglehold - a monopoly - on an entire industry or economy.

It's a two-way street.

[MyNameGoesHere]

9. I'm waiting on Big Bird to sue Apple for steaing the letter i

I hear the bird is pissed.

[Omaha Steve]

11. Lol

[awoke_in_2003]

14. You mean "iHear". nt

[Ellipsis]

13. Good.

[onehandle]

17. You're Welcome.

[quadrature]

18. more money for China..... just wonderful

keep in mind that your $400 iPhone
costs $20 to make.
Enjoy

[onehandle]

19. It's $200 just for the parts of an iPhone, and Korean Samsung builds its stuff in China too. nt

[populistdriven]

20. Apple sucks