I'm not aware of a poll that showed either position to be in the minority much as you'll like to claim that "everyone is on Apple's side". Do a couple of web searches. It might surprise you.
I don't know about anyone else, but the article that I read was about the appeals court overturning an ITC decision. Given that, I am a little confused by the calls for a presidential veto. How can the president veto a decision that was already overturned by the courts?
Exactly!
The headline should read, "ITC smacked down again ... first by the President and now by the U.S. Court of Appeals".
ITC is a federal agency not an Article III court. The POTUS is required to review (not may review but is statutorily mandated to review) exclusion orders and cease and desist orders issued by ITC. The President, along with his trade representative and other advisers, conducted that review and made his decision. I think it was the correct decision. Others may not, but the point is it was the POTUS's decision to make. Like Obama or not, he is a Harvard educated lawyer who taught constitutional law at the University of Chicago. Both of those schools are among the elite of U.S. law schools ... so he gets it. He understands the legal, political, and economic issues better than just about anyone.
Likewise, decisions of the ITC are reviewable by federal Article III courts. Happens all the time when an agency such as the EPA issues a regulation and someone sues claiming the agency abused their discretion or overstepped their bounds. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit is one level below the U.S. Supreme Court so unless SCOTUS overrules the U.S. Court of Appeals their decision will stand. The POTUS cannot overrule an Article III court like he can a federal agency. It's called separation of powers.
Like Obama or not, he is a Harvard educated lawyer who taught constitutional law at the University of Chicago. Both of those schools are among the elite of U.S. law schools ... so he gets it. He understands the legal, political, and economic issues better than just about anyone.
All this does at this point is give Apple another chance to argue that Motorola, which now becomes Motorola Mobility, does infringe on one or both patents. One or both could still be found invalid or not infringed by the ITC. There's no import ban as it stands.
... and yes as unlikely as it might be even an import ban on non-SEP patents can be overruled by the President.
No, the important part is that all you Google shills argue that Apple doesn't have any case because ITC said there was no case. The Court of Appeals disagreed and said that there is sufficient evidence that the ITC has to hear it.
IOW, you just lost one of your very few 'wins' against Apple.
No, the important part is that all you Google shills argue that Apple doesn't have any case because ITC said there was no case. The Court of Appeals disagreed and said that there is sufficient evidence that the ITC has to hear it.
IOW, you just lost one of your very few 'wins' against Apple.
You're obviously not referring to me for any one of several reasons, including anything you just mentioned.
Like Obama or not, he is a Harvard educated lawyer who taught constitutional law at the University of Chicago. Both of those schools are among the elite of U.S. law schools ... so he gets it. He understands the legal, political, and economic issues better than just about anyone.
Yet oddly enough Apple argued strongly that the Samsung patent wasn't FRAND to begin with.
Umm, that's not what Apple or the ITC argued... They said the IP was fairly insignificant and most likely never even touched by Apple's code, but it is in fact part of the standard and included in the baseband chip, which means it would still fall under FRAND terms. However, as Apple rightly argued, the licensing fees for that IP would have been covered by the manufacturer of the part, not the customers of said manufacturer.
I'm absolutely convinced that one day you'll have more than a one-liner to contribute and come up with some really useful piece of knowledge that adds to AI.
... and yes as unlikely as it might be even an import ban on non-SEP patents can be overruled by the President.
Obviously, as all ITC decisions are subject to Presidential review.
However, the only reason a veto would take place in this instance is if the President feels that it would have a negative impact on consumers, etc. Which is unlikely. Unless the President wants to remove the only teeth the ITC has.
Umm, that's not what Apple or the ITC argued... They said the IP was fairly insignificant and most likely never even touched by Apple's code, but it is in fact part of the standard and included in the baseband chip, which means it would still fall under FRAND terms. However, as Apple rightly argued, the licensing fees for that IP would have been covered by the manufacturer of the part, not the customers of said manufacturer.
"Samsung has asserted to ETSI that the '348 and '644 patents may be considered essential
to the UMTS standard, but Apple argued to the ALJ that the '348 and '644 patents are not
essential. See Apple Resp. to San1Slmg's Pet. for Review, 4 (Oct. 9, 20 12)"
Page 50 in the ITC opinion finding in Samsung's favor.
I'm not aware of a poll that showed either position to be in the minority much as you'll like to claim that "everyone is on Apple's side". Do a couple of web searches. It might surprise you.
Who said anything about a poll? How about all the letters of support and amicus curiae that supported Apples position? I'm sure you know all about them - you just choose to ignore them.
The only companies/entities that support Google:Motorola are a bunch of has-beens or groups Google has a stake in. I don't know of anyone credible that supports Google. Perhaps you could list a few?
Who said anything about a poll? How about all the letters of support and amicus curiae that supported Apples position? I'm sure you know all about them - you just choose to ignore them.
The only companies/entities that support Google:Motorola are a bunch of has-beens or groups Google has a stake in. I don't know of anyone credible that supports Google. Perhaps you could list a few?
You seem to like Nokia, They agree with Moto and not Apple. Qualcomm is another. and Blackberry. Companies like Verizon didn't support Apple so much as they were against injunctions altogether for misc. infringed IP.
Yet others that were reported to be "supporting Apple" like Altera, Cisco, CME Group, Garmin, Hewlett-Packard, Logitech, Nest Labs, NETGEAR, Newegg, Rackspace Hosting, Safeway, SAS Institute, Symantec, Wal-Mart etc actually had a broader agenda in advocating for reasonable patent damages as a whole and not just FRAND-pledged. Strictly speaking they aren't really in "Apple's corner". In some other cases they'd actually be against Apple's position on appropriate damages for infringement.
I realize that deep in your heart you want this to be a pure black and white issue with Google in a black hat and Apple in white so everyone knows who the good guys are all the time and in every instance. Well this ain't a Western and the hat colors might change from episode to episode. If you don't pay attention you don't catch on.
The President's direct authority to veto an ITC decision is written into the ITC authorizing document. The President has that authority and used it.
However, regarding US Patent law, the President, as the sole authority for executing the law, including patent decisions by the USPTO, could decide differently from the USPTO (since they have only delegated authority). He is unlikely to do that except through the legislative process and policy and legal arguments before the courts.
Comments
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy
I'm not aware of a poll that showed either position to be in the minority much as you'll like to claim that "everyone is on Apple's side". Do a couple of web searches. It might surprise you.
Neat
Originally Posted by AppleInsider
Apple first filed the ITC complaint in October 2010 in response to a Motorola patent attack ...
Google lit $12.5 billion on fire and got Motorola Mobility as a reward.
With 17,000 obsolete and FRAND-encumbered patents and an implicit threat to all of Google's Android hardware partners.
And the cash is still burning: MM lost $218 million for Google last quarter (4 times the previous year's quarter.)
Net effect against Apple: zero.
Quote:
Originally Posted by hydr
Que Obama comments.
Que Obama debe recibir nuestro más sincero agradecimiento.
Quote:
Originally Posted by iaeen
I don't know about anyone else, but the article that I read was about the appeals court overturning an ITC decision. Given that, I am a little confused by the calls for a presidential veto. How can the president veto a decision that was already overturned by the courts?
Exactly!
The headline should read, "ITC smacked down again ... first by the President and now by the U.S. Court of Appeals".
ITC is a federal agency not an Article III court. The POTUS is required to review (not may review but is statutorily mandated to review) exclusion orders and cease and desist orders issued by ITC. The President, along with his trade representative and other advisers, conducted that review and made his decision. I think it was the correct decision. Others may not, but the point is it was the POTUS's decision to make. Like Obama or not, he is a Harvard educated lawyer who taught constitutional law at the University of Chicago. Both of those schools are among the elite of U.S. law schools ... so he gets it. He understands the legal, political, and economic issues better than just about anyone.
Likewise, decisions of the ITC are reviewable by federal Article III courts. Happens all the time when an agency such as the EPA issues a regulation and someone sues claiming the agency abused their discretion or overstepped their bounds. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit is one level below the U.S. Supreme Court so unless SCOTUS overrules the U.S. Court of Appeals their decision will stand. The POTUS cannot overrule an Article III court like he can a federal agency. It's called separation of powers.
Ok, civics lesson over.
NSA.
No, the important part is that all you Google shills argue that Apple doesn't have any case because ITC said there was no case. The Court of Appeals disagreed and said that there is sufficient evidence that the ITC has to hear it.
IOW, you just lost one of your very few 'wins' against Apple.
You're obviously not referring to me for any one of several reasons, including anything you just mentioned.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Harmon
Like Obama or not, he is a Harvard educated lawyer who taught constitutional law at the University of Chicago. Both of those schools are among the elite of U.S. law schools ... so he gets it. He understands the legal, political, and economic issues better than just about anyone.
Sequester.
Obamacare.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy
Yet oddly enough Apple argued strongly that the Samsung patent wasn't FRAND to begin with.
Umm, that's not what Apple or the ITC argued... They said the IP was fairly insignificant and most likely never even touched by Apple's code, but it is in fact part of the standard and included in the baseband chip, which means it would still fall under FRAND terms. However, as Apple rightly argued, the licensing fees for that IP would have been covered by the manufacturer of the part, not the customers of said manufacturer.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jungmark
NSA.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/08/05/intercepted-communications-terror/
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy
I'm absolutely convinced that one day you'll have more than a one-liner to contribute and come up with some really useful piece of knowledge that adds to AI.
Take it easy there Sally with the winking.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy
... and yes as unlikely as it might be even an import ban on non-SEP patents can be overruled by the President.
Obviously, as all ITC decisions are subject to Presidential review.
However, the only reason a veto would take place in this instance is if the President feels that it would have a negative impact on consumers, etc. Which is unlikely. Unless the President wants to remove the only teeth the ITC has.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jungmark
NSA.
Just because the President understands the issues doesn't mean he will ethically follow them; all the OP said was that the President is not ignorant.
People do stuff they know is wrong all the time.
I don't mind the spying on terrorists. I do mind the spying on average joe/Jane who are law abiding citizens.
Besides, I think O campaigned against this when he was running against McCain.
"Samsung has asserted to ETSI that the '348 and '644 patents may be considered essential
to the UMTS standard, but Apple argued to the ALJ that the '348 and '644 patents are not
essential. See Apple Resp. to San1Slmg's Pet. for Review, 4 (Oct. 9, 20 12)"
Page 50 in the ITC opinion finding in Samsung's favor.
If you really want to understand the history of this particular SEP negotiation and how it landed at the ITC start with page 55. It should help clear up some of the misinformation you've read here at AI from posters that hadn't bothered to look before claiming "FACTS" that may be "FICTION".
http://essentialpatentblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/337-TA-794-Commission-Opinion-Public-Version.pdf
...aaand yet another one-liner.
The only companies/entities that support Google:Motorola are a bunch of has-beens or groups Google has a stake in. I don't know of anyone credible that supports Google. Perhaps you could list a few?
You seem to like Nokia, They agree with Moto and not Apple. Qualcomm is another. and Blackberry. Companies like Verizon didn't support Apple so much as they were against injunctions altogether for misc. infringed IP.
Yet others that were reported to be "supporting Apple" like Altera, Cisco, CME Group, Garmin, Hewlett-Packard, Logitech, Nest Labs, NETGEAR, Newegg, Rackspace Hosting, Safeway, SAS Institute, Symantec, Wal-Mart etc actually had a broader agenda in advocating for reasonable patent damages as a whole and not just FRAND-pledged. Strictly speaking they aren't really in "Apple's corner". In some other cases they'd actually be against Apple's position on appropriate damages for infringement.
I realize that deep in your heart you want this to be a pure black and white issue with Google in a black hat and Apple in white so everyone knows who the good guys are all the time and in every instance. Well this ain't a Western and the hat colors might change from episode to episode. If you don't pay attention you don't catch on.
However, regarding US Patent law, the President, as the sole authority for executing the law, including patent decisions by the USPTO, could decide differently from the USPTO (since they have only delegated authority). He is unlikely to do that except through the legislative process and policy and legal arguments before the courts.