Originally Posted by Gatorguy
I'm not exactly sure what you just said or if it's a question you have........
Your original post quoted "public interest ramifications" from a Reuters article. You then stated that these public interest concerns.... were, somehow, independent of SEPs.
I simply quoted the FULL sentence from Reuters that states QUITE CLEARLY how the "public interest ramifications" were directly related to SEPs. Here it is again... if you missed it.
From Reuters: "Froman on Saturday said the ITC should thoroughly examine the public interest ramifications of its rulings in disputes over standard essential patents."
Your next post contains a different and more extensive quote:
In essence the ban was overturned more over public interest concerns rather than as a statement on the merits of SEP injunction requests.
Not fine! A really strange interpretation, on your part, of the written word. Of course Froman has to give cogent reasons for the veto. He's not going to come out with "Obama uses an iPad and..... we hate SEPs" The TWO main reasons appear to be competition in the US and, consequently, the "effect on US consumers" Obvious. Aren't those a couple of fundamental considerations in any (US) patent dispute?
This whole case, or at least the controversial part of the case is all about SEPs. Fromer's official letter makes frequent references to SEP's and FRAND commitments. The DOJ and US Patent office issued a policy statement, back in January.... all about SEPs. Also mentioned in Fromer's letter. This was all about SEPs.
I'm not sure why (although I can hazard a guess) you are hell bent on downplaying the Standards Essential Patents angle... and pushing "the public interest" to the fore.