Obama Administration Overrules iPhone Trade Ban 397
Back in June, the U.S. International Trade Commission issued an import ban on the iPhone 4 and iPad 2 3G due to patent violations. Now, the White House has exercised its privilege to overrule the ban. In his letter to the ITC (PDF), Ambassador Michael Froman said 'he was not making a decision about the merits of Samsung's case, or its right to seek compensation. Rather, he emphasized that because the patent in question was now a widely held technology standard, banning the products in question would be too disruptive to consumers and the economy.' This is the first time an ITC decision has been overruled since 1987.
You know (Score:5, Informative)
Sure (Score:3, Insightful)
Money buys a lot.
Double standards if nothing else.
Re:Sure (Score:5, Funny)
banning the products in question would be too disruptive to consumers and the economy
I'm sure they were thinking of all those poor Chinese workers employed by Foxconn that could lose their jobs over this ...
Thank god there's the Obama administration looking out for the little guy!
Re:Sure (Score:5, Informative)
Of course the last time the ITC was overruled was in 1987, siding WITH SAMSUNG. Lol.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Except you can't consider monster multi-nationals to belong to any country, once you realize where do they pay their taxes...
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:You know (Score:5, Informative)
Apple doesn't actually donate much to politicians at all, and their lobbying budget is exceptionally small for a company of their size, so I doubt that's the reason.
My guess is that this is actually for the stated reason. Whether it's a good reason or not is another question, but I don't think they're covering up a hidden motive here. Basically, the iPhone 2 and 4 sell a lot in the U.S., and banning them would disrupt the U.S. economy to some extent, so they chose not to.
The statute authorizing the ITC pretty explicitly contemplated that possibility, which is why it has an opt-out clause for the president to cancel ITC orders if he determines they would be too disruptive to the economy.
Re:You know (Score:4, Informative)
Apple doesn't actually donate much to politicians at all...
And yet judges and presidents seem to display a consistent bias. Funny that.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: You know (Score:4, Funny)
Elitist liberals love iPhones.
Quick, better tell Rush Limbaugh he's an elitist liberal, he seems to love everything about Apple.
(This in fact is probably contributing to many "liberals" shunning Apple. If Rush likes them so much, they must be bad, so "liberals" proceed to dig up mostly non-stories about the exceedingly rare labour problems and environmental issues while ignoring far worse violations by Apple's competitors.)
Re: (Score:3)
You mean like "round corners" on a box is a perfectly reasonable copyright?
Sorry, but I *don't* believe that Apple is usually right. Sometimes it is, but often, especially recently, it's a ligitigous (vile characterization), suing over patents that should never have been granted.
Re:You know (Score:5, Insightful)
It also probably doesn't hurt that Apple is a US based corporation, while Samsung is Korean. I'd bet if this was a Samsung vs Asus or Sony dispute, the Obama administration would not have stepped in.
Re:You know (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:You know (Score:5, Funny)
It's designed by Apple in California, it says so on back side of the case!
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Re:You know (Score:5, Interesting)
US based corporation? You mean the one publicly traded on the stock exchange, with manufacturing facilities in China? The one that ships iPhones and iPads directly from China? Or is it because they have an office in Cupertino that you consider them US based?
But where is the value added? Every other phone maker in the world makes their phones in the exact same factories in China. Why aren't they all worth the same amount? Almost every dollar of value added over a simple sum of the cost of the parts (plus a couple dollars for assembly) is added in California. And even after the sale, Apple's call centers are all in the US to help get them their astronomical satisfaction numbers. Apple's about as US-based a corporation as you can get in that industry.
Actually, Apple's more an Irish corporation (Score:5, Interesting)
Almost every dollar of value added over a simple sum of the cost of the parts (plus a couple dollars for assembly) is added in California.
Apple has filed legal documents that say that's untrue, and in May Tim Cook testified in front of The Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations where he reiterated that a large percentage of the dollar value added by Apple is added in Ireland.
Re: You know (Score:5, Informative)
That "office in Cupertino" is a campus the size of a small college plus satellite offices throughout the rest of town. It employs well over ten thousand people. And those are the high-value, well-paying jobs that propel people into the upper-middle class and beyond.
Really, what's with the obsession with the location that a widget is put together, when the design, programming, and engineering (The good, high-value jobs that I'd actually like to have.) are all done here?
Re: You know (Score:5, Interesting)
Actually a lot of the engineering is done in Asia:
* The screen is designed and built by Sharp in Japan.
* The CPU and SoC is designed and built by Samsung and/or Exynos in Korea.
* The Plastic tooling and dies are designed by a subcontractor to Hon Hai in Shen Zhen from designs for the part from Apple or a subcontractor in California (or possibly elsewhere)
* The motion estimation parts are designed by Intersil in California
* The production system is designed and managed by Hon Hai in Shen Zhen
* The Flash is designed by Samsung or Micron in Korea or Taiwan
It's safe to say it is an international collaboration, but they don't say that, they just say "Designed by Apple in California".
The obsession with where the widget is made is because some people have some foresight and can see that once you give all your manufacturing capability (the hard bit) to another country, it won't take that long for that country to figure out the design (the easy bit), and cut you out of the loop. In fact this happened and now look at the Samsung Galaxy and all the Chinese Android devices (which are nearly as good and much, much cheaper). I can buy a near-equivalent to a Galaxy tablet for US$99 from Ali Express.
Re: (Score:3)
> the CPU is very much "designed by Apple in California", though manufactured by samsung and/or TSCM.
If you mean by "designed by Apple" in so far as that Apple demands all its suppliers to print the Apple logo (and only that) on the chip, then yes. Other than that, though, you're sorely mistaken, as a 2 minute search would've easily told you:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IPhone [wikipedia.org]
CPU
1st gen and 3G: Samsung 32-bit RISC ARM 1176JZ(F)-S v1.0[3]
3GS: 600 MHz ARM Cortex-A8[4]
4: 800 MHz ARM Cortex-A8[5]
4S: 800 MHz
Re: (Score:3)
And with all that, it still beats Wal-Mart and McDonald's, not to mention unemployment. The obsession with manufacturing is that it's the least miserable job people who aren't artistic, engineers or psychopaths can do, and the on
You missed one (Score:4, Informative)
One of the few computer companies moving more manufacturing to the U.S. (the new Mac Pros are made in the U.S.).
Or the one with many hundreds of retail stores in the U.S. bringing in billions of revenue each year to U.S. states?
So yes, THAT U.S. based corporation. It's more U.S. based than just about any other at this point...
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The one that doesn't pay any corporation tax or tax on its vast cash stockpiles? I think you will find that for Apple Inc. is not a US company, at least as far as taxation goes.
Re: (Score:3)
Uh, no, Apple doesn't pay taxes on the money it makes. It siphons that money over to Ireland in a tax avoidance scheme [wikipedia.org] they helped pioneer.
Re:You missed one (Score:4, Informative)
Wrong.
If they paid no taxes at all (completely false) then the IRS would have climbed so far up their ass that they'd need to cut in switchback trails to find their way back out. Just by having a single retail store that sells a single retail product, the would owe taxes on that revenue. To say otherwise is just being a fuckwad or a troll - you choose.
Stop being willfully ignorant, and read [forbes.com].
Apple pays US tax on all revenue gained in the US, Canada, Central America, and South America.
Re:You know (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:You know (Score:5, Informative)
I think there's definitely some bias towards a U.S. company here, but fwiw, this isn't actually setting aside the patents or authorizing ignoring them. It's purely an import-regulations decision, not a patent-law decision. U.S. customs will not stop iPhone imports as a result of this ruling, but that doesn't mean it's actually legal to sell them in the US. Samsung can still sue Apple in regular courts for patent infringement.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
A regular court could still issue an injunction prohibiting sale, if Apple lost and the court determined that was the appropriate remedy. The import-regulations decisions really don't have anything to do with the regular patent-law system. In a way it's silly that they exist at all, since patent complaints should be adjudicated in a regular patent lawsuit, not via some backdoor administrative procedure.
Re:You know (Score:5, Informative)
Apple doesn't actually donate much to politicians at all, and their lobbying budget is exceptionally small for a company of their size, so I doubt that's the reason.
They don't need money. They have connections. Apple has Al Gore on their board of directors. [apple.com]
My guess is that this is actually for the stated reason. Whether it's a good reason or not is another question, but I don't think they're covering up a hidden motive here. Basically, the iPhone 2 and 4 sell a lot in the U.S., and banning them would disrupt the U.S. economy to some extent, so they chose not to.
Moral of the story. Intellectual property can only be enforced in the USA if your company has connections. Samsung violates Apple patents? 1 Beeeeelion dollar fine. Apple violates Samsung patents? Presidential pardon.
If I were Samsung, I'd stop selling components to Apple until they decided to pay their licensing fees. That would put a stop to iPhone4 and iPad2 just as fast as an injuction. That would put a dent in new Apple products too.
The statute authorizing the ITC pretty explicitly contemplated that possibility, which is why it has an opt-out clause for the president to cancel ITC orders if he determines they would be too disruptive to the economy.
'too disruptive to the economy'? Read: Enforce laws only on companies full of dirty slant eyes who we don't like here in 'murica.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Samsung lost in an actual court, which Apple hasn't. This was just an administrative procedure, which explicitly gives the President the authority to consider policy preferences in making decisions.
If Samsung wants to, they can file a proper patent lawsuit in a proper court, instead of trying for this backdoor ITC procedure. The president has no authority to set aside the judgment in a regular patent suit.
Re:You know (Score:4, Interesting)
There doesn't need to be a trial because there's no question that Apple is breaking the law. That is not in dispute. The Obama regime didn't say the judge was wrong and that laws were not broken. The Obama regime is specifically saying that Apple has the priviledge to break the law until Samsung decides to accept what Apple is willing to pay them.
You know what this reminds me of? This reminds me of the time when AllOfMP3 decided to sell music they didn't have rights to sell in the US. AllOfMP3 actually offered to pay licensing fees to the RIAA, but only what AllOfMP3 thought was fair. That amounted to a few pennies per song, and the RIAA wasn't hearing any of that. Russia sided with AllOfMP3 and it was all perfectly legal there. The US music industry had to pursue other avenues to shut them down. In the end, they cut of the payment processing with Visa/Mastercard.
So, I would expect to see new Korean law that allows Samsung to terminate Apple contracts for failure to pay licensing fees soon, if such a law does not already exist.
I'm really beginning to think the Obama regime is destined to destroy the entire tech industry in the US. Between this and Snowden's revelations, they've driven a stake through the heart of the tech industry. Now they're just nailing the coffin shut for good measure. By the end of his second term, no one anywhere is going to want to do business with US tech companies anymore. He will have accomplished what no other US dictator has managed to do. Kill the goose that laid the golden egg over in silicon valley...
Re: (Score:3)
Not yet have I heard anyone mention FRAND. The patents in question are those that Samsung got incorporated into standards (essential for interoperability of cell phones) and in exchange agreed to license those patents on fair and reasonable terms. And FRAND patents being offered to Apple a
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
People will rue the day that they allowed the Executive Branch to so widely ignore laws on immigration, health care, spending and now finding of a duly authorized organization.
Re: (Score:3)
If the ban was active, this flow of money would still exist but would go in a non-US company's pocket. This event is the admission that IP laws are just seen as a US domination tool. Not as a fair rule of the game
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Now extend this attitude to every side of every issue and you'll understand why politics is so dysfunctional.
Also, it is a sad testament to our culture that you can publicly confess that you'll stick to your initital prejudice no matter what facts or logic you might encounter, and apparently see that as a source of pride rather than a serious cognitive flaw.
nonsense... this is about anti-trust not apple (Score:3)
Please actually read the source articles out there.
Fosspatents:
"Florian Mueller of Foss Patents, who has been following Apple and Samsung’s case before the ITC, called today’s veto “a victory for consumers and fair competition.”"
Forbes:
"To the surprise of almost no one the Obama Administration has overturned the looming ITC ban on the imports of certain of Apple's older products...The particular reason used was that the patent in question was a standards essential one... This seems r
Re: (Score:2)
Strangely... (Score:4, Insightful)
The same was not done for Samsung when their products were banned over flimsier design patents
Re:Strangely... (Score:4, Informative)
Apple made no such promises to any industry group concerning the design patents in question. They did make such a promise over the mpeg4 container, which is just the
Re:Strangely... (Score:5, Informative)
And Apple has refused to license those patents. They have refused to negotiate to license them. They have even stated that they will not accept a court-ordered license fee unless they happen to think it's low enough.
Tell me, oh wise one, what other recourse did Samsung have?
Re: (Score:2)
Their reasoning was: As a newcomer in the phone area, they didn't have any patents to contribute to that FRAND package, so they would have been the only ones to actually pay licensing fees, giving them an unfair disadvantage in the market.
Re:Strangely... (Score:4, Informative)
Samsung refused to reasonably license the patents. Most FRAND patents are licensed as a percentage of the product using them. However which part of the product is the biggest question. Typically it is the piece that implements the patent. However in this case Samsung wants a percentage of the phone, rather than the typically percentage of the baseband processor (which implements the patent). Notice it is only a few of the products that are unlicensed, most notably ones that don't use Qualcomm modems. Qualcomm licensed the patents for Apple at a percentage of the baseband cost (~3%-5% of ~$20), where the older product Apple was supposed to license them separately and Samsung is asking for ~3%-5% of $450 which is basically discriminatory compared to the other products that license it for 1/20 of the cost.
Re:Strangely... (Score:5, Informative)
Unless you work for either company, you don't know what negotiations have or have not taken place. You only have what is printed in the media. You believe everything you read?
We know that Apple refused to negotiate a license for those patents because the ITC stated, in their ruling, that they ruled against Apple in part because of their failure to negotiate a license for the patents in question.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Strangely... (Score:4, Informative)
Samsung offered fair and reasonable terms. The ITC agreed that they did. Apple just kept saying "no", hoping to get a lower price. The ITC saw that they were being unreasonable and rightly blamed them for the failure to reach an agreement.
Read the report, it's quite clear. What it boils down to is that Apple doesn't have any real technical patents that Samsung needs in order to do the usual license exchange, so they have to pay cash. The cash rate is set as a percentage of retail price, and because Apple products are at the upper end of the market it isn't pennies. It's the same rate that everyone else pays though.
Re: (Score:3)
You are mis-informed (or a astroturfer, as samsung seems to be paying a army of these),
Samsung is not offering FRAND terms. They are trying to do a armed robbery stick-up. Read fosspatents.com (http://www.fosspatents.com/2013/07/wheres-doj-samsung-takes-extortionate.html)
Samsung is trying to use SEP patents as a weapon to get Apple to cross-license their design patents, which are the most valuable patents in tech right now according to the IEEE's survey of patent quality and innovation. Apple feels that Sam
Re: (Score:3)
Unless you work for either company, you don't know what negotiations have or have not taken place. You only have what is printed in the media. You believe everything you read?
We know that Apple refused to negotiate a license for those patents because the ITC stated, in their ruling, that they ruled against Apple in part because of their failure to negotiate a license for the patents in question.
Ignoring that Apple already had paid for those patents by buying parts from a manufacturer who had licensed the patents.
Re: (Score:2)
Pardon me. Apple said they would refuse to accept a court-ordered rate in the Motorola suit.
See http://www.groklaw.net/articlebasic.php?story=2012110322254380 [groklaw.net]. PJ uses only court documents as her sources.
Now, given that, what should Samsung assume about Apple's good faith in any negotiations?
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
So they should select an illegal recourse like apple or microsoft and use other intellectual property without paying for them and be patentpirates ?
Suing in court for banning of products is what the politicians has proposed as plan for corporations to follow when criminal corporations break the law and uses their innovations without license.
Re:Strangely... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
" I wonder how long before foreign companies start ring-fencing America as just too expensive and corrupt to operate in."
That's hilarious. The world has always been corrupt, so the competitve solution is more effective corruption.
No, it is much better (Score:4, Interesting)
Basically Obama just killed the patent system. The US is no longer the power it once was and it is just legitimized India's moves to take essential medicines out of the patent system. And while American voters can be easily swayed, the rest of the world has just seen that it is okay to ignore US laws when it doesn't suit you and they WILL follow.
Obama seems determined to go down in history as the worst US president ever. This WILL end up biting the US in the ass. Samsung doesn't care about a billion dollar fine but the US NEEDS the patent system and for it to be respected. You can't win a trade war if you just made your only remaining product worthless.
Re:Strangely... (Score:4, Insightful)
Senator Smoot? Representative Hawley? Is that you?
Note that the last time we tried this particular technique to bring jobs back to the US, we got what is colloquially known as the "Great Depression".
Re:Strangely... (Score:5, Insightful)
It's the President's job to put US interests above all others.
But not above the rule of law.
Re:Strangely... (Score:5, Interesting)
Well, they often seem to like to put them before even the US constitution...
Overreaching surveillance by NSA with PRISM and torture in Guantanamo bay are not fiction.
Re:Strangely... (Score:5, Interesting)
Between this and the PRISM bullshit, the US just went on my "don't buy from" list. Congratulations, your government has absolutely no regard for honour or fair play.
Re: (Score:3)
I agree, but I think we're phasing out that whole inconvenient "rule of law" thingy. Besides, no one really likes it anyway. When was the last time you saw someone get busted for something and then complain bitterly that he shouldn't have been busted for breaking the law? (Speeding does not count as civil disobedience). Personal responsibility and fairness in action always seems to be someone else's job.
Re: (Score:2)
"But not above the rule of law."
Laws are mere words on paper.
Application is everything.
Re: (Score:2)
tl;dr
"Ain't no thang. Deys can 'ford it."
Re:Strangely... (Score:4, Insightful)
Strangely, design patents are not standard-essential, so the two incidents are not directly comparable.
Nice try though.
Re: (Score:2)
Strangely, design patents are not standard-essential
If someone had a design patent on brake on the left and accelerator on the right, would that be standard-essential? Or what about a design patent on red light means stop, green light means go?
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Strangely... (Score:5, Insightful)
Of course, if Apple made its products in California, it wouldn't have to import them from its Chinese suppliers.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
I can't actually find a reference to any case where the ITC has banned Samsung imports over a design patent case. Can you please provide a citation? There's definitely an ITC complaint filed from Apple, but the ITC has delayed ruling on it. Microsoft has a complaint against Motorola (Google), and won, but now the ITC appears to not actually be enforcing the ban... after some secret Google-US Customs meetings, customs decided to let them through anyway despite the ban. And Google is still using standards
By rights, overturning should be temporary (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
well if they would just overturn all other patent shit.
but sure smells like money. btw does this now mean video etc patents are also petionable through white house since they as well are widely used..? why these two irrelevant for today products, and not all phone bans?
Re: (Score:2)
That hasn't stopped the White House before.
Re: (Score:3)
They can still be sued in regular court for damages. The import procedure is parallel to and separate from regular patent law. If Apple made all their products in the U.S., the ITC wouldn't even have entered into it at all, but they could still be held liable for patent violations.
Re: (Score:2)
It would be very wrong of the White House to give one US corporation carte-blanche to ignore a patent. Although the ITC ban may be too strong a response, there's still the fact that Apple has been ignoring a patent for years. They shouldn't be free to continue indefinitely.
I don't think this is the end of the legal fight. The patent wasn't overturned, just the import ban. I doubt the lawyers on either side are surprised. Samsung can still have their day in court and, if they prevail, receive their royalty payments.
Re: (Score:2)
Good God, man, this isn't just "one US corporation".
This is Apple.
Re: (Score:2)
Nah, they'll only be free to continue for the next year or two. By which time they won't have any reason to import iPhone 4s and iPad 2s anyway.
Curiouser and curiouser (Score:5, Insightful)
Rather, he emphasized that because the patent in question was now a widely held technology standard, banning the products in question would be too disruptive to consumers and the economy
That argument could be used to sooooo many other patent litigations, and somehow never is, except when the affected part is a big American company.
Re:Curiouser and curiouser (Score:5, Interesting)
Rather, he emphasized that because the patent in question was now a widely held technology standard, banning the products in question would be too disruptive to consumers and the economy
That argument could be used to sooooo many other patent litigations, and somehow never is, except when the affected part is a big American company.
Actually, only recently have big corporations started trying to use standards-essential patents as tools of corporate warfare. The EU is investigating Samsung [latimes.com] for just this kind of behavior.
Re:Curiouser and curiouser (Score:5, Informative)
That's probably because Apple was the first big corporation which refused to license those standards-essential patents under the same RAND terms as all of their competitors, again as a form of corporate warfare - they're trying to get all the R&D work required to make modern mobiles possible for free, whilst suing all their competitors who did do the R&D over crap like swipe-to-unlock, meaning those companies can't even make back their costs by selling their own phones!
Re:Curiouser and curiouser (Score:5, Informative)
Apple is not much of an innovator as you claim.
What they are is very good at creating a well integrated product with a very slick user interface out of existing technologies. This is a hard skill which very few other companies have, and one that they wish to protect with lawyers. It is not, however, one you can protect with lawyers.
So they they try by sueing over bullshit patents and people like you step up to defend them. You believe that others are doing a disservice to Apple, but you are just as guilty of doing a disservice to the people who invented those things in the first place.
When it comes to swipe and multitouch gestures, it was mostly covered by academic (universities and industry) researchers im the early 80s long before the touch screen tech was anything but cumbersome, expensive and unusable out of the lab.
Oh and as for the interface, you know that the whole icon grid, touch screen and apps was not even remotely an Apple innovation, right? http://www.xorl.org/people/krw/ipaqalone.jpg [xorl.org]
And the whole nothing but a touch screen as an interface was even older. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:IBM_Simon_Personal_Communicator.png [wikipedia.org]
The point is many innovations that are associated with Apple were around before.
Apple are very good, possibly better than anyone a putting them together, but it does everyone a disservice to pretend Apple is something that it is not.
Re: (Score:3)
All patents related to IEEE standards are listed on the IEEE website:
http://standards.ieee.org/about/sasb/patcom/patents.html [ieee.org]
Any companies that have essential patents for an IEEE standard are required to disclose them and give letters of assurances that they will license them to users under FRAND conditions. Samsung did do this.
In my opinion, the terms that Samsung offered were not "Reasonable" and were completely out of line compared to all other license fees associated with IEEE standards. Typically thes
Re: (Score:3)
Your link points to Apples patents which samsung violated, not the SEP patents that Samsung is holding Apple hostage for. I see nothing pointing to Apple refusing to pay FRAND terms for SEP patents. Neither 'SEP' or 'FRAND' are even referred to in those articles.
Apple is in the right here, and is even being backed by competitors like Microsoft (http://www.fosspatents.com/2013/03/microsoft-and-intel-back-apple-in.html). Any serious commentator seems to agree that this is nothing more than Samsung blackmailin
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
And only recently have big corporations started to use standards-essential patents and refused to pay the license fee.
It used to be that big corporation only stole small company patents. Now they steal big corporations patents too - when those big corporations gets angry and wants to get payed for their patents - the abusers run to the government and hide behind their tailcoat
Re: (Score:2)
It used to be that big corporation only stole small company patents. Now they steal big corporations patents too - when those big corporations gets angry and wants to get payed for their patents - the abusers run to the government and hide behind their tailcoat
Note that Apple and Samsung (and others) have been on both the abusing and abuser side of this argument.
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, only recently have big corporations started trying to use standards-essential patents as tools of corporate warfare.
Depends on how you defend big. Remember the Unisys LZW patent and the Rambus SDRAM patents?
Re: (Score:2)
s/defend/define/
Meanwhile, Microsoft gets paid for Fat32 an ExFAT. (Score:3)
Figures (Score:4, Informative)
Apple Political Donations
Top Candidate Recipients, 2011-2012
Barack Obama (D) $308,081
Mitt Romney (R) $28,910
Ron Paul (R-TX) $16,004
Nathan Shinagawa (D-NY) $5,000
Mark W. Neumann (R-WI) $5,000
http://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/summary.php?id=D000021754
Donation to earnings ratio (Score:3)
Split Apple? (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Not unless banning the products in question would be too disruptive to consumers and the economy. Unlikely for a small company.
Re: (Score:2)
This should cause furious Slash-gasms among the nerds, and plenty of page hits, and plenty of profit.
Nah. Not really. It's typical gaff from Anonymous Coward. We're used to it by now. Move along.
Re: (Score:2)
Who was President in 1987? Was there any screaming when Reagan overturned a ban?
Hmmmmm....
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, he did.
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-03-13/apple-decision-in-samsung-itc-case-rescheduled-to-may-31.html [bloomberg.com]
I certainly don't remember any screaming from liberals in 1987.
In fact the only screaming is that we are hearing from conservatives in 2013.
Re: (Score:2)
This is wrong no matter who does it. However, what can we really do to stop this kind of behavior? The side with the most money wins elections and with the citizens united ruling there is no way to ever match what a company can for money there seems to be no real chance of getting better politicians. It seems that every group that wants to fix politics is quickly coopted and twisted..
How can we actually get real leaders that don't do this? My state had some of the toughest election laws in the county and wi
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Because it's Apple who won this move, patents are important to the Slashdot crowd. Funny that.
Most of us would be happy if patents were to go away.
What we object to is the US President telling US courts that he's going to ignore the law for Apple, but not for everyone else. Either the law applies to everyone, or it should be repealed, not just ignored by executive fiat.
Re: (Score:2)
Glad they aren't pulling this crap with something important like healthcare!
Re: U.S.A. is dead. (Score:4, Funny)
Not unless netcraft confirms it!
Re: (Score:2)