Tick-tock, Apple: Obama has just days to stop US iPhone iPad sales ban The US International Trade Commission has delayed its decision on whether or not some of Samsung's mobile devices infringe on Apple patents. The commission said that it wouldn't finish its investigation into the mobes and fondleslabs until next week, without giving any explanation. The ruling concerns fruity patents that deal …
Well the iPad2 is still for sale from Apple. And the iPhone 4 & 4S.
But presumable, only until the next iPhone and iPad models are released in a month or two. So Apple aren't really going to feel much pain if the ban goes ahead.
Also, I thought I read previously that it's a ban on importing these items, not on selling the stock currently already within the US.
But yes, if it helps to deter the ridiculous patent lawsuits, then it would seem like a good thing.
If its a ban on importing, than probably no.
If its a ban on sales, possibily if its through those "buy your used phones" sites.
If you're selling your old kit to your buddy, no.
Also, I am not a laywer, and using the collective internet knowledge to form a biased, unfounded opinion. Cheers!
this could be really funny.
But its probably the only way to bring this war to the end. Only a sales ban will cause the warring parties to actually hold a meaningful dialog. Otherwise the children will continue to argue over, my making something slightly different bounce on a screen patent trump your antenna design patent and a I raise you one colouring something white patent... rubbish we've been seeing for the last few years.
to let someone who actually has some in-depth knowledge concerning technology and intellectual property decide such a thing? Mr. Obama appears to be a clever man, but he's a lawyer by profession and trying to run a rather substantial country; he surely must have better things to do than reading up on the details of silly squabbles between toymakers to make an informed decision.
If he makes an uninformed decision, then it could just as well have been left to Paris.
The way it works is that the judgement will go forward unless Obama stops it. He is the only person with the authority to overrule the USITC judgements. Should he choose not to interfere it means that the knowledgeable people have already examined the issue and decided.
Or conclude that Apple is an important US company, Samsung is an important South Korean company, and that the best interests of the country he is supposed to be leading would be best advanced by tilting the scales of justice a little.
As president, his first loyalty is *supposed* to be to the US. Intervening would just be doing his job. Sure, it could be seen as an underhanded subversion of the legal process... but that's basically how the legal process works anyway.
>banning other cultural American icons ... racism
I will give you your fun on the other items but as Obama himself shows America has come a long way on the race front. When do you think you will see a darker skin person running somewhere like Australia (talk about a racist place) or even the UK?. Also as the Italians say about racism but applies to much of Europe “Eskimos who say they don’t mind the heat because they’ve never had to deal with it.” We have our problems but I will put up US society tolerance of race against virtually any European country. Europe has right wing xenophobic parties that make the Republicans look positively inclusive by comparison.
I really hate these kind of comparisons between countries with radically different % of non-white citizens. The USA is 20-30% non-white and the UK and Australia are ~10% non-white (a large percentage of which are Asian so don't fit your 'darker skin' category), i.e. less than half as many (Italy is only ~4% non-white). Both of these countries have had women leaders (~ 50% of the population in all of these countries in case you hadn't noticed). It's disingenuous to not take account of these variations when comparing the US to other countries.
I also think that's a rather unfair characterisation of Europe. The Republican party won 49% of the votes in the presidential election and controls the house, the parties you refer to only make it into government when their numbers are needed to sustain a coalition and frequently don't have ANY seats in parliament (e.g. UK). The US 2 party system may give them less political power but you have more than your share of radical right-wing groups (including as it happens Stormfront, the source of the first hits I got when trying to find the percentage of white people in Italy). The main stream right-wing parties in Europe are frequently to the left of the Democratic party (the right-wing conservatives in the UK just legalised Gay Marriage, Obama only just decided its ok).
All I was trying to say most countries including the UK live in glass houses when it comes to throwing the racism rock. Almost all of Europe has plenty of shameful racism (colonialism anyone?) in its past and even today (such as in football matches). So the USA is not unique in this regard.
>I was referring more to Americans' constitutionally protected "right" to racism
Yes there was the whole 3/5 of a person for the census but as Anthony Hopkins (as John Quincy Adams) says in Amistad, "Give us the courage to do what is right. And if it means civil war? Then let it come. And when it does, may it be, finally, the last battle of the American Revolution." We did get it right eventually.
The Equal Protection Clause is part of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. The clause, which took effect in 1868, provides that no state shall deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.*
*And yes I know the ignorant right wing redneck Southerners for awhile were able to circumvent the law with the retarded separate but equal bullshit but as shown in the last election they always lose in the end.
The written justification for giving the US President veto power over USITC rulings is that he can favor US companies if he feels that allowing the decision to go forward cost US companies too much money, loses them too many jobs, gives a foreign company an advantage inside the US or any combination of those things.
Foreign companies can cry foul all they want but there is no appeal process. The case would have to start over from the beginning with different justifications. By the time it was resolved, the products in question would no longer be relevant.
Besides, there's not much those other companies can do about it. They aren't going to pull out of the US, they any afford to.
"Foreign companies can cry foul all they want but there is no appeal process"
Not inside the USA, but the WTO may have something to say about this. Not the first time the USA has been fined for, basically, wiping their collective arse with the WTO agreements they signed.
And if that fails, some sort of trade war would be the next step. If Obama 'bans the ban', it might cost the American Economy more than the ban itself.
"Besides, there's not much those other companies can do about it."
No, but there are organisations that can - just think how it would feel to be the most popular EU Commissioner in history with a response of seizing all the cash Apple's stashed away in Ireland? Just because they have done so legally (the stashing, I mean) doesn't make it right; and seizing it certainly wouldn't be right, but banning one company's product (Samsung) but not another (Apple) before -all- of their patent nonsense is sorted out is just plain silly.
The problem is that Apple's cash isn't actually stashed away in Ireland, it is stashed away in Texas, but owned by an Irish company. Irish tax law says you pay tax if your activities take place in Ireland. Apple Operations International's activities take place in Texas, not Ireland, so it pays no Irish tax.
US tax law says you pay tax if you are an American company, no matter where you are based in the world. Apple Operations International is an Irish company, so it pays no US tax.
That's a lot cheaper than the FRAND license Apple refuse to buy into, unlike all their competition who paid Samsung for the use of the patents.
Now if the Obama's administration want to show what democracy and freedom are about, they'll also strike down any bans on Samsung (or others) that are about FRAND patent infringement.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2025
