It wasn't a huge win for Samsung, but at least it was something. Back in June, the U.S. International Trade Commission awarded Samsung a sales ban on AT&T models of the iPhone, iPhone 3GS, iPad 3G, and iPad 2 3G. Yes, I know these are older devices, but it was one of the very few wins for Samsung.
Apparently the Obama Administration seems to be fans of the Romper Room style iOS because they just vetoed the ban. Hit the break for the full text.
In addition, on January 8, 2013, the Department of Justice and United States Patent and Trademark Office issued an important Policy Statement entitled “Policy Statement on Remedies for Standard-Essential Patents Subject to Voluntary FRAND Commitments” (“Policy Statement”).2 The Policy Statement makes clear that standards, and particularly voluntary consensus standards set by standards developing organizations (“SDO”), have incorporated important technical advances that are fundamental to the interoperability of many of the products on which consumers have come to rely, including the types of devices that are the subject of the Commission’s determination. The Policy Statement expresses substantial concerns, which I strongly share, about the potential harms that can result from owners of standardsessential patents (“SEPs”) who have made a voluntary commitment to offer to license SEPs on terms that are fair, reasonable, and nondiscriminatory (“FRAND”), gaining undue leverage and engaging in “patent holdup”, i.e., asserting the patent to exclude an implementer of the standard from a market to obtain a higher price for use of the patent than would have been possible before the standard was set, when alternative technologies could have been chosen. At the same time, technology implementers also can cause potential harm by, for example, engaging in “reverse holdup” (“holdout”), e. g., by constructive refusal to negotiate a FRAND license with the SEP owner or refusal to pay what has been determined to be a FRAND royalty.
source: 9to5mac
Well I guess we know which one donated the most to his campaign.
A veto can be overwritten by a 2/3 majority vote in both houses. It’s not absolute. The president can not write any law into effect with only his own agenda in mind. Even after a veto the bill goes back to the house where it can be reviewed and re-proposed.
If you ask me.. this sounds like a dictatorship. There is no democracy.. i mean WHAT THE HELL.. VETO!!?? Are you kidding me. The court AND ITC agreed and banned those apple products, so i guess the government has nothing to do with it.
AND PLEASE don’t be like FRAND or any other kind of nonsense. In dutch we have a saying. “Who ever diggs a grave for somebody else, will eventuelly fall in himself”.
Huh? Presidents clearly have veto power over legislation. This involves a case where legislation gives the president veto power over agency decisions. Hardly a situation involving dictator powers. It’s merely executive power.
Whether it’s an abuse of power, or ironically the improper influence of corporate dollars on government as lamented by President Obama in one of his first SOTU addresses, that’s more questionable. But clearly not something that calls into question democracy or brings up questions of dictatorship.
So, if i dont agree with something, then i can choose my own way EVEN IF i’m the ONLY one of the 100 people or organizations, but as long as i’ve been chosen i could do what pleases me?
I’m not an american, so this is kind of new and strange to me.
Ok, well that’s not how we do things here. Any US administration would collapse in days if it granted any kind of absolute power to an agency based outside the USA. Any agency, for any purpose.
Oke.. so if i understand correctly.. why do you have all those agency’s if they can’t do their work properly? Why don’t they use veto for using for example higher taxes for the rich americans or banning guns..
I mean you agree with me that those are good things for the american people right?
Doesn’t work quite so easily. There are three branches of gov’t in the USA, and each of them can override either of the other two. It can prevent a high level misuse of power.
When Congress (both houses) passes a ‘bill’ (a proposed law), the President can sign it, making it a law, or not, and say why, and it goes back to Congress still a bill. That’s a veto.
The problem is that with laws, they are rarely ever about one single thing. Congress has this awful habit of attaching things to a bill that may or may not be related. And often, a bill may be reported as one thing (Little Old Ladies Struck By Icecream Trucks while Crossing the Street to buy Girl Scout Cookies exempt from Taxes!) when in reality, there’s LOTs of little things in a bill that the President might object to (like the part that doesn’t exclude little old ladies that are already multi billionaires who are now tax exempt, and set up fake icecream truck accidents as a tax dodge now).
So whenever you hear of a president vetoing a bill, know that it is actually a very rare event, and that if the bill is really that important, Congress can override the veto.
Chances are, there was something not right about that bill.
It would have only affected 1 product. The iPad 2 3G. All of the others are no longer produced or sold.
This almost sounds racist, nepotism at its best. I’m not a big fan of Samsung products but this is blatantly biased on every level considering the history between both companies.
Nothing biased about it. Samsung voluntarily signed up to its FRAND commitments in relation to standard essential patents and so shouldn’t be abusing then in the courts. The European courts agree.
You may be right about that, I’m not too familiar with the details of the case and American laws and it’s procedures but the fact that the President’s administration had to lift the ban and not the court of justice IS what makes this outcome “smell funny”.
When an company adds their stuff to a FRAND agreement, they still expect to be paid a licensing fee.
This is what Samsung wants, and the company they’re suing is basically saying “fuck you, we’re not paying…”, and Obama saying “sure, we’ll let you get away with it”.
Good use of $308,000 by Apple. (Apple’s campaign contribution to the Obama campaign).