Michal Ždanský In June, the court ruled in the Samsung vs. Apple that Apple will not be able to import older models of iPhones and iPads due to infringement of Apple's patents related to the chip for receiving a cellular signal. The ban specifically concerned the iPhone 3GS and iPhone 4 and the 1st and 2nd generation iPad (newer devices use a different chip design). The potential ban was set to take effect in the coming weeks, and a presidential veto was the only way to prevent the import ban in the timeframe. Apple is still selling the iPhone 4 and iPad 2, so US sales could be affected for several months before Apple releases a new device.
And indeed, President Barack Obama's administration stepped in and vetoed the court's decision. The United States Trade Representative Office explained that the president was vetoing the ruling on the grounds that the patent alleged to have infringed on Apple was a standard (that is, commonly licensed; "FRAND") patent that should not be used in the way Samsung used it against Apple , and that similar behavior is harmful. It is the first time in US history since 1987 that a president has vetoed a similar ban.
What does FRAND mean?
Vital patents that are necessary for the functioning of entire technologies are often referred to as "standard-essential". According to US law, they must be provided to the rest of the industry within the framework of FRAND rules (the acronym stands for fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory). In practice, this means that patents are licensed to anyone who applies for a license, on fair terms, at a reasonable price, and without any discrimination.
Samsung based its current lawsuit against Apple on alleged FRAND patent infringement. He did not succeed with a similar lawsuit last year in Europe either.
Source: 9to5Mac.com
[do action=”update” date=”4. 8. 12 hours"/]
Both sides commented on the president's veto, and Apple is excited about the decision:
We applaud the President's administration for standing up for innovation in this important litigation. Samsung should not have abused the patent system in this way.
Samsung was not too happy:
We are disappointed that the US Trade Representative Office has chosen to disregard the order issued by the US International Trade Commission (ICT). In its decision, the ITC correctly recognized that Samsung negotiated in good faith and that Apple remained unwilling to pay royalties.
Source: 9to5Mac.com
Related articles:
[related-posts]
right =)
i love obama from now on :D
You don't understand that he did it mainly because a lot of people buy it in the US = more money from taxes?:( oh yeah.. Btw and they are definitely fans too :D:)
he's a fan :D he uses iPad and iPhone if MacBook nwm but he himself knew Steve well
if someone filed a cod and won that it cannot be "imported" and I am the president of the Slovak Republic.. then I also veto the court's decision.. for God's sake I would be going against myself if I didn't support one of the best companies in my country!! :D
That's how it is in this banana republic. The president goes against the judiciary!
Before everyone gets angry here, it should be noted that Obama got it right. And it doesn't matter at all that it is Apple, he should grant it in the case of any company.
FRAND patents should not be the basis for banning imports, the maximum should be monetary fines. The ITC (as far as I know) first took a FRAND patent and banned imports based on it. Something else is non-essential patents, where import bans and courts really make sense.
This is not really about Obama's patronage of Apple (as of course many people here will think), it is about correct decisions leading to greater standardization in the field of technology. To tell the truth, I find it absurd that someone is suing over FRAND patents.
It should also be noted that Samsung did not try to enforce license fees, but instead wanted an import ban. That also proves something...
I would be very interested in whether that would happen, and vice versa, if he would intervene if it were not an American company (despite the machinations with taxes). Overall, I took this decision quite positively, as it could change the current patent law (I'm still waiting for Apple to apply for a background wipe patent - yes IBM and MS have more patent proposals per year than Apple, but to a much greater extent it is justified) , now instead of finding a solution the result is just an arc…