Samsung has spent a fortune pursuing this patent violation case. There are two ways to pursue a patent violation-- in the civil courts and through the United States International Trade Commission. (ITC)
Usually, for big players, when the first, civil route fails to yield success, the ITC route is chosen.
This time, it worked for Samsung. All but one of the six ITC commissioners supported Samsung's claims against Apple. But the dissenting voice, Dean A. Pinkert , opposed the decision because of failure to meet FRAND-- Fair, Reasonable, and Non-Discriminatory- criteria for licensing.
So Obama's brand spanking new US Trade Representative, Michael Froman, stepped in and issued a letter voiding the decision, a virtual veto. That will earn Apple many billions of dollars in revenues-- which, as are the rest of Apple's revenues, un-taxed, because of the loopholes Apple has used to avoid taxation.
A Gigaohm article explained the reasons for the veto,
The decision signed by the U.S. Trade Representative cited "substantial concerns" over "the potential harm that can result in owners of standards-essential patents"gaining undue leverage and engaging in a "patent holdup.'"
That 'patent holdup' is ALL about the failure to FRAND criteria for fair and reasonable licensing.
Let's talk about Trade Rep Froman for a moment. He's one of the Robert Rubin bankster acolytes, a former managing director at Citigroup, that Obama has surrounded himself with, also a classmate of Obama's. He actually introduced Obama to Rubin-- sort of like introducing someone to the devil.
I recently quicklinked a story about Froman here: Only Elizabeth Warren & 3 Other Dems Oppose Obama's TPP Secrecy Supporting Nominee for Trade Representative
Froman will be Obama's main lead man for getting TPP-- the Transpacific Partnership trade deal passed. This is a horrific treaty that is bad for America.
Mike Massnick writes, in Techdirt.com,
"... Hopefully, this signals a bit of a change in understanding under the new USTR, such that there's a real recognition that overaggressive intellectual property laws and enforcement can have a seriously negative impact. Of course, the more cynical among you might note that this is also the US government stepping in to protect the US company (Apple) against a foreign company (Samsung). An even more cynical group might further note that the Obama administration also probably didn't want to deal with the headache of headlines about how the federal government had suddenly banned a bunch of iPhones and iPads... But, for the sake of being optimistic, let's hope that this really is a sign of a more thoughtful USTR, which isn't quite as wedded to intellectual property maximalism, as its predecessors have been."
The problem is, the ITC is a US agency and it ignored the FRAND criteria, siding with corporate "intellectual property maximalism." Imagine if, and probably WHEN, the TPP trade deal is passed, when anonymous business leaders will be the ones making such decisions. And remember that the TPP agreement will allow the TPP to prevail over US laws.
Frankly, I've written this because it's odd, the first time in 25 years. And it involves a Rubin bankster acolyte I don't trust and expect bad things from. So, I'm hoping you, the readers, will help do some digging and tying together connections I haven't seen.
5
3
3
