6 ms·
Intervening in one case for an iconic American company is protectionism, not free trade. That would have entailed reforming the patent system for everyone. Thi
by jivatmanx 13y ago
Intervening in one case for an iconic American company is protectionism, not free trade. That would have entailed reforming the patent system for everyone.
This is ominous, what if this is remembered as the equivalent of Smoot-Hawley? Patents are a hell of a lot more complex than tariffs... and at least the ITC is trying to do international coordination here, and Obama has just blatantly undermined them.
- melling 13y agoI've gotta ask if you understand anything about the case, or are you just trying to speak generally.
- comex 13y agoTaking legal action against FRAND abuse is hardly unique to the US. http://www.fosspatents.com/2012/12/european-commission-to-issue-statement.html http://www.fosspatents.com/2012/12/european-commission-to-is... See also Mueller on this veto; while I often disagree with him, I tend to agree on this issue: http://www.fosspatents.com/2013/08/obama-administration-vetoes-itc-import.html http://www.fosspatents.com/2013/08/obama-administration-veto...
- jivatmanx 13y agoThe problem I have with this argument, is, isn't the point of every technological advance to become widespread and Standards-Essential? If we're going to disallow them, why have patents at all? For "Look-And-Feel" patents?
- comex 13y agoBecause even strong software patents often have alternatives, and weak ones are easy to find an alternative to, decreasing their value, but once a standard protocol requires their use, the patent holder can jack up the price. As an extreme example, consider the exFAT patents: there are many file systems superior to exFAT that have no need for whatever bits of functionality Microsoft patented, but because Windows speaks exFAT as one of few alternatives, some companies have licensed them. Not exactly a standard, but the same idea.
- corresation 13y agoThe ITC specifically considered FRAND, so interesting that you or the perpetually wrong troll Mueller decide that it is abuse.
- throwawaykf 13y agoWell, evidently the ITC "considered" FRAND inaccurately, as their decision conflicted with both, the Obama Administration and the European Commission. (Not to mention the opinions of jurists such as Judge Posner.) You could cry "protectionism" on this veto, but what excuse could you make for the EC's actions?
- corresation 13y agoBizarre how you group in multiple completely different actions and pretend that they're one. And the Obama Administration didn't make a statement about FRAND or the correctness of the ITC's judgment -- they simply decided that they'd rather not have an American company's products blocked.
- throwawaykf 13y agoCompletely different actions with precisely the same underlyng issue: abuse of standards essential patents. Bizarre how you do not notice this. And this is not a new issue, and not just restricted to the smartphone patent wars. The same criticisms were made and similar outrage was outpoured in the semiconductor industry when Rambus tried to pull similar shenanigans. [1] 1. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rambus#Lawsuits http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rambus#Lawsuits
- josteink 13y agoApple was offered the same terms as everyone else but they "decided"that this wasn't fair and demanded special treatment. Apple is the one not following the FRAND spirit here.
- tnuc 13y agoI can't begin to imagine what the ITC will do having been completely undermined by Obama. I wouldn't be surprised if Apple suffers from some international retaliation for this. Obama doesn't fully understand how commerce works.
- rhizome 13y agoNo, it's that many of us don't agree with how commerce and government actually work together.
- sillysaurus 13y agoCare to expand?
- rhizome 13y agoSure: government will always be two-faced with respect to "free" markets, interfering where it suits their and/or their friends/benefactors' interests, or not, as the case may be. It has been this way for centuries, Adam Smith just added to the lexicon of rationales.
- sillysaurus 13y agoWell, in what way was Apple the government's friend or benefactor?
- rhizome 13y agoHonestly, is that a serious question? Do you have no concept of what I'm describing such that I'm required to list these things out? Pretty much all Apple hardware is made in China, which makes the company an instrument of foreign policy. That's one aspect.
- sillysaurus 13y agoDude, you're being more than a little bit of a dick. I'm ignorant of government policy and politics in general, and it's only recently that I've begun rectifying that. Yes, it was a simple, straightforward query for information that I lack. And you hardly answered.
- _delirium 13y agoCongress seems to have explicitly preferred this approach, however. They could've set up a system with uniform rules and a mandatory process that the president can't overrule, as is commonly done with other areas like environmental rules. The president does have some power over the EPA, but can't arbitrarily instruct the EPA to drop rules simply because he disagrees with the outcome of the rulemaking process. But here Congress said that if the President disagrees with any ruling of the IPC "for policy reasons", he need merely notify the ITC and the ruling will be voided. That seems to indicate Congress wanted case-by-case review of ITC determinations for policy conformance. Why would they write that into the law? My guess is precisely to allow national economic interests to take priority over the rules on a case-by-case basis.
- jivatmanx 13y agoCongress, in most cases of late, prefers to give more arbitrary authority to the Executive branch rather than actually craft specific and meaningful rules.
- BrandonMarc 13y agoSounds like they built a recipe for patronage with this law. By creating a system such as what you describe, it's ripe for businesses to $$ convince $$ the right politicians that their success is in the best interest of the country.
- jolohaga 13y agoRegardless. Apple's genius isn't patentable anyway.