Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Obama Administration Overrules iPhone Trade Ban

Soulskill posted 1 year,16 days | from the did-not-see-that-one-coming dept.

Iphone 397

Back in June, the U.S. International Trade Commission issued an import ban on the iPhone 4 and iPad 2 3G due to patent violations. Now, the White House has exercised its privilege to overrule the ban. In his letter to the ITC (PDF), Ambassador Michael Froman said 'he was not making a decision about the merits of Samsung's case, or its right to seek compensation. Rather, he emphasized that because the patent in question was now a widely held technology standard, banning the products in question would be too disruptive to consumers and the economy.' This is the first time an ITC decision has been overruled since 1987.

cancel ×

397 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

You know (5, Informative)

oldhack (1037484) | 1 year,16 days | (#44466893)

Money buys a lot.

Sure (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,16 days | (#44466981)

Money buys a lot.

Double standards if nothing else.

Re:You know (2, Insightful)

skovnymfe (1671822) | 1 year,16 days | (#44467023)

At least they're not keeping the buyoffs a secret anymore. With all their promises of transparency and all, this is a lovely sign.

Re:You know (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,16 days | (#44467055)

But it can't buy an import ban apparently.

Re:You know (1)

Dunbal (464142) | 1 year,16 days | (#44467451)

It can, but only temporarily.

Re:You know (4, Informative)

Trepidity (597) | 1 year,16 days | (#44467087)

Apple doesn't actually donate much to politicians at all, and their lobbying budget is exceptionally small for a company of their size, so I doubt that's the reason.

My guess is that this is actually for the stated reason. Whether it's a good reason or not is another question, but I don't think they're covering up a hidden motive here. Basically, the iPhone 2 and 4 sell a lot in the U.S., and banning them would disrupt the U.S. economy to some extent, so they chose not to.

The statute authorizing the ITC pretty explicitly contemplated that possibility, which is why it has an opt-out clause for the president to cancel ITC orders if he determines they would be too disruptive to the economy.

Re:You know (3, Informative)

Tough Love (215404) | 1 year,16 days | (#44467221)

Apple doesn't actually donate much to politicians at all...

And yet judges and presidents seem to display a consistent bias. Funny that.

Re: You know (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,16 days | (#44467255)

Elitist liberals love iPhones.

Re: You know (3, Funny)

quacking duck (607555) | 1 year,16 days | (#44467547)

Elitist liberals love iPhones.

Quick, better tell Rush Limbaugh he's an elitist liberal, he seems to love everything about Apple.

(This in fact is probably contributing to many "liberals" shunning Apple. If Rush likes them so much, they must be bad, so "liberals" proceed to dig up mostly non-stories about the exceedingly rare labour problems and environmental issues while ignoring far worse violations by Apple's competitors.)

Re:You know (0)

quacking duck (607555) | 1 year,16 days | (#44467503)

Apple doesn't actually donate much to politicians at all...

And yet judges and presidents seem to display a consistent bias. Funny that.

Yes, very funny... especially since the bias is against [eweek.com] Apple [groklaw.net] .

(That's not even including the decisions that led to needing this overruling in the first place).

Re:You know (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,16 days | (#44467223)

It also probably doesn't hurt that Apple is a US based corporation, while Samsung is Korean. I'd bet if this was a Samsung vs Asus or Sony dispute, the Obama administration would not have stepped in.

Re:You know (5, Insightful)

Dunbal (464142) | 1 year,16 days | (#44467457)

US based corporation? You mean the one publicly traded on the stock exchange, with manufacturing facilities in China? The one that ships iPhones and iPads directly from China? Or is it because they have an office in Cupertino that you consider them US based?

Re:You know (5, Funny)

am 2k (217885) | 1 year,16 days | (#44467539)

It's designed by Apple in California, it says so on back side of the case!

Re:You know (5, Insightful)

dmbasso (1052166) | 1 year,16 days | (#44467237)

Now when a 3rd-world country decides to ignore pharmaceutical patents to save its people from dying, that is crossing the line! Retaliation through economic restrictions must apply!

Re:You know (4, Informative)

Trepidity (597) | 1 year,16 days | (#44467339)

I think there's definitely some bias towards a U.S. company here, but fwiw, this isn't actually setting aside the patents or authorizing ignoring them. It's purely an import-regulations decision, not a patent-law decision. U.S. customs will not stop iPhone imports as a result of this ruling, but that doesn't mean it's actually legal to sell them in the US. Samsung can still sue Apple in regular courts for patent infringement.

Re:You know (1)

symbolset (646467) | 1 year,16 days | (#44467479)

With no injunction capability, the patents can be safely ignored. Not that injunctions were going to do anything anyway. We're talking about the iPhone 4 and the iPad 2 here. By the time things get to this point we're already two or three generations ahead on products anyway.

Re:You know (1)

Trepidity (597) | 1 year,16 days | (#44467591)

A regular court could still issue an injunction prohibiting sale, if Apple lost and the court determined that was the appropriate remedy. The import-regulations decisions really don't have anything to do with the regular patent-law system. In a way it's silly that they exist at all, since patent complaints should be adjudicated in a regular patent lawsuit, not via some backdoor administrative procedure.

Re:You know (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,16 days | (#44467517)

Why does the % of their income matter in how much they donated? They still donated $2M. Is there a % that is considered good or bad?

Apple gave $2M to politicians last year. Did they give $2M to you or I? Did they give the money to a local county sheriff campaign? Some random county school board person running for office? A representative in CA in their home jurisdiction? No. Those people have no direct impact on what Apple wanted and they could not sway an opinion on something. Would they ever give 2M to you or I? Do you know why? Because giving to you or I does nothing for them. Giving to politicians does. That is a bribe plain and simple. Anyone that thinks it is not is brainwashed. You are giving money to people in power that have influence over laws and regulations. No other reason but to sway things to your advantage. Apple and every other company that gives to a candidate or a party money KNOWS that for a fact or they would not be pissing away money like that. We look the other way and accept this as routine but it is still nothing other than a bribe.

Samsung vs. Apple lobbying (2)

jmcbain (1233044) | 1 year,16 days | (#44467421)

Amount of money spent on lobbying in Washington, D.C., in 2012

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-03-06/samsung-s-patent-spat-with-apple-spurs-u-s-lobbying-push.html [bloomberg.com]

  • Samsung: $900K, up from $150K in 2011
  • Google: $19.2M, up from $9.7M in 2011
  • Facebook: $4M, up from $1.4M in 2011
  • Apple: $2M, down from $2.3M in 2011

Google should be happy (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,16 days | (#44466899)

Google in the past has said they object to companies using FRAND to sue.

Re:Google should be happy (1)

davester666 (731373) | 1 year,16 days | (#44467333)

That's why google only permits it's subsidiaries to do so...

Strangely... (3, Insightful)

kervin (64171) | 1 year,16 days | (#44466903)

The same was not done for Samsung when their products were banned over flimsier design patents

Re:Strangely... (3, Informative)

sessamoid (165542) | 1 year,16 days | (#44466935)

Because those patents were not submitted and accepted as FRAND. Samsung agreed to license these technologies in Fair, Reasonable, and Non-Discriminatory terms. Anybody can use their patented technologies, and the only question is how much they get paid for them. When any infringement can be resolved with monetary payment, injunctive relief is not an appropriate tool. Samsung can always be made whole at any point in time with a monetary judgment.

Apple made no such promises to any industry group concerning the design patents in question. They did make such a promise over the mpeg4 container, which is just the .mov container that quicktime has used for ages, and they have never attempted to get an import injunction over that patent or any others that they submitted to standards bodies.

Re:Strangely... (5, Informative)

sconeu (64226) | 1 year,16 days | (#44467031)

And Apple has refused to license those patents. They have refused to negotiate to license them. They have even stated that they will not accept a court-ordered license fee unless they happen to think it's low enough.

Tell me, oh wise one, what other recourse did Samsung have?

Re:Strangely... (-1, Troll)

sessamoid (165542) | 1 year,16 days | (#44467077)

And Apple has refused to license those patents. They have refused to negotiate to license them. They have even stated that they will not accept a court-ordered license fee unless they happen to think it's low enough.

Tell me, oh wise one, what other recourse did Samsung have?

Unless you work for either company, you don't know what negotiations have or have not taken place. You only have what is printed in the media. You believe everything you read?

Re:Strangely... (4, Informative)

makomk (752139) | 1 year,16 days | (#44467105)

Unless you work for either company, you don't know what negotiations have or have not taken place. You only have what is printed in the media. You believe everything you read?

We know that Apple refused to negotiate a license for those patents because the ITC stated, in their ruling, that they ruled against Apple in part because of their failure to negotiate a license for the patents in question.

Re:Strangely... (2)

Frequency Domain (601421) | 1 year,16 days | (#44467151)

Failure to negotiate a license and failure to negotiate for a license are two different things.

Re:Strangely... (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,16 days | (#44467477)

Court proceeding tend to be published. The order giving rise to this injunction was published. And yes the fact that something published is a court document is prima facie evidence that it's true, as to knowingly present false evidence to a court is the crime of perjury.

Re:Strangely... (0)

Noughmad (1044096) | 1 year,16 days | (#44467185)

And Apple has refused to license those patents. They have refused to negotiate to license them. They have even stated that they will not accept a court-ordered license fee unless they happen to think it's low enough.

Tell me, oh wise one, what other recourse did Samsung have?

Oh, they had good recourses, they just chose a legal one instead.

Re:Strangely... (1, Troll)

a_n_d_e_r_s (136412) | 1 year,16 days | (#44467263)

So they should select an illegal recourse like apple or microsoft and use other intellectual property without paying for them and be patentpirates ?

Suing in court for banning of products is what the politicians has proposed as plan for corporations to follow when criminal corporations break the law and uses their innovations without license.

Re:Strangely... (1)

am 2k (217885) | 1 year,16 days | (#44467565)

Their reasoning was: As a newcomer in the phone area, they didn't have any patents to contribute to that FRAND package, so they would have been the only ones to actually pay licensing fees, giving them an unfair disadvantage in the market.

Re:Strangely... (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,16 days | (#44467437)

Samsung can always be made whole at any point in time with a monetary judgment.

The same could have been said of Apple, but they were the first to ask for an injunction.

Re:Strangely... (5, Insightful)

Rantank (635713) | 1 year,16 days | (#44466953)

Seems to me the Prez just gave permission for good wholesome American companies to take on anyone they like, and if they lose in any way, shape or form, he'll make sure there's no real harm done. I wonder how long before foreign companies start ring-fencing America as just too expensive and corrupt to operate in.

Re:Strangely... (0)

cavreader (1903280) | 1 year,16 days | (#44467085)

It's the President's job to put US interests above all others. This is neither unique nor a surprise. In this case the rational to step in and allow the imports is that they want to limit the harm to the consumer. That's a reasonable and good enough reason. At least it sounds good. Meanwhile this whole mess is costing both Apple and Samsung a lot of money but who cares? These 2 companies are hardly strapped for cash. The competition between these 2 companies is good for the consumer. Corporate competition of any type is good for the consumer. And who cares about some foreign companies thinking the US is too expensive to operate in. The sooner they leave the sooner the jobs farmed out come back to the US. Which has already started in some industries. The US rising energy production will make it cheaper to operate and attracting all types of companies. Of course there are a lot of companies who chose to operate in the US just to avoid all the bullshit regulations and directives constantly being spewed from the EU. And if necessary it is cheaper to bribe the US government because when it comes to bribery, political, and payoffs the EU, China, and Russia are way more expensive.

Re:Strangely... (3, Insightful)

CrimsonAvenger (580665) | 1 year,16 days | (#44467179)

And who cares about some foreign companies thinking the US is too expensive to operate in. The sooner they leave the sooner the jobs farmed out come back to the US.

Senator Smoot? Representative Hawley? Is that you?

Note that the last time we tried this particular technique to bring jobs back to the US, we got what is colloquially known as the "Great Depression".

Re:Strangely... (5, Insightful)

Tough Love (215404) | 1 year,16 days | (#44467233)

It's the President's job to put US interests above all others.

But not above the rule of law.

Re:Strangely... (5, Interesting)

a_n_d_e_r_s (136412) | 1 year,16 days | (#44467287)

Well, they often seem to like to put them before even the US constitution...

Overreaching surveillance by NSA with PRISM and torture in Guantanamo bay are not fiction.

Re:Strangely... (5, Interesting)

Nerdfest (867930) | 1 year,16 days | (#44467375)

Between this and the PRISM bullshit, the US just went on my "don't buy from" list. Congratulations, your government has absolutely no regard for honour or fair play.

Re:Strangely... (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,16 days | (#44467471)

You act as if this is news. It's been this way for a while. Why do you think everyone hates America? Every treaty they sign they end up breaking or "re-interpreting".

Re:Strangely... (2)

Concerned Onlooker (473481) | 1 year,16 days | (#44467361)

I agree, but I think we're phasing out that whole inconvenient "rule of law" thingy. Besides, no one really likes it anyway. When was the last time you saw someone get busted for something and then complain bitterly that he shouldn't have been busted for breaking the law? (Speeding does not count as civil disobedience). Personal responsibility and fairness in action always seems to be someone else's job.

Re:Strangely... (0)

tepples (727027) | 1 year,16 days | (#44467459)

Speeding does not count as civil disobedience

Does running a red light when the vehicle sensor under the road is defective count as civil disobedience?

Re:Strangely... (1)

Larryish (1215510) | 1 year,16 days | (#44467355)

tl;dr

"Ain't no thang. Deys can 'ford it."

Re:Strangely... (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,16 days | (#44467373)

And who cares about some foreign companies

These are multi-nationals. These matters should have no connection to where a company's HQ is.

Re:Strangely... (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,16 days | (#44467341)

USA is the least corrupt place to do business!

Re:Strangely... (1)

couchslug (175151) | 1 year,16 days | (#44467631)

" I wonder how long before foreign companies start ring-fencing America as just too expensive and corrupt to operate in."

That's hilarious. The world has always been corrupt, so the competitve solution is more effective corruption.

Re:Strangely... (3, Insightful)

MachineShedFred (621896) | 1 year,16 days | (#44466957)

Strangely, design patents are not standard-essential, so the two incidents are not directly comparable.

Nice try though.

Re:Strangely... (1)

tepples (727027) | 1 year,16 days | (#44467467)

Strangely, design patents are not standard-essential

If someone had a design patent on brake on the left and accelerator on the right, would that be standard-essential? Or what about a design patent on red light means stop, green light means go?

Re:Strangely... (1)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,16 days | (#44467551)

If it was agreed upon in a standards-defining body, sure, I think it would be standard-essential.

Re:Strangely... (2)

ATMAvatar (648864) | 1 year,16 days | (#44466959)

True, though it is worth pointing out the self-interest angle: Apple is a US-based corporation, while Samsung is not.

Re:Strangely... (4, Insightful)

Jeremy Erwin (2054) | 1 year,16 days | (#44467045)

Of course, if Apple made its products in California, it wouldn't have to import them from its Chinese suppliers.

Re:Strangely... (0)

Tough Love (215404) | 1 year,16 days | (#44467297)

And Americans would be suiciding [cnet.com] instead.

Re: Strangely... (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,16 days | (#44467271)

The "Designed in California" label is only there to ease your guilty conscience. It's made in China.

Re:Strangely... (1, Informative)

djupedal (584558) | 1 year,16 days | (#44467165)

You do know how hard it is for some US manufs. to try to be allowed into the S.Korean markets, right? Korea practices protectionism as much as any other country or block. There are many technology and trade agreements in play, with more tapped for future release - actions like this amount to no more than card play in a high stakes give/take game that will take some time to end.

Slash-gasm (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,16 days | (#44466919)

Hate! Hate! Hate!

Apple

Hate! Hate! Hate!

Barack Obama

This should cause furious Slash-gasms among the nerds, and plenty of page hits, and plenty of profit.

Re:Slash-gasm (1)

Skapare (16644) | 1 year,16 days | (#44467187)

This should cause furious Slash-gasms among the nerds, and plenty of page hits, and plenty of profit.

Nah. Not really. It's typical gaff from Anonymous Coward. We're used to it by now. Move along.

Re:Slash-gasm (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,16 days | (#44467251)

Correction:

USA

HATE! HATE! HATE!

Slashdot is becoming a minster of propaganda's wet dream.

By rights, overturning should be temporary (4, Insightful)

elwinc (663074) | 1 year,16 days | (#44466921)

It would be very wrong of the White House to give one US corporation carte-blanche to ignore a patent. Although the ITC ban may be too strong a response, there's still the fact that Apple has been ignoring a patent for years. They shouldn't be free to continue indefinitely.

Re:By rights, overturning should be temporary (1)

gl4ss (559668) | 1 year,16 days | (#44466949)

well if they would just overturn all other patent shit.

but sure smells like money. btw does this now mean video etc patents are also petionable through white house since they as well are widely used..? why these two irrelevant for today products, and not all phone bans?

Re:By rights, overturning should be temporary (1)

stenvar (2789879) | 1 year,16 days | (#44467029)

That hasn't stopped the White House before.

Re:By rights, overturning should be temporary (2)

Trepidity (597) | 1 year,16 days | (#44467107)

They can still be sued in regular court for damages. The import procedure is parallel to and separate from regular patent law. If Apple made all their products in the U.S., the ITC wouldn't even have entered into it at all, but they could still be held liable for patent violations.

Re:By rights, overturning should be temporary (1)

Anonymous Psychopath (18031) | 1 year,16 days | (#44467109)

It would be very wrong of the White House to give one US corporation carte-blanche to ignore a patent. Although the ITC ban may be too strong a response, there's still the fact that Apple has been ignoring a patent for years. They shouldn't be free to continue indefinitely.

I don't think this is the end of the legal fight. The patent wasn't overturned, just the import ban. I doubt the lawyers on either side are surprised. Samsung can still have their day in court and, if they prevail, receive their royalty payments.

Re:By rights, overturning should be temporary (1)

0123456 (636235) | 1 year,16 days | (#44467217)

Good God, man, this isn't just "one US corporation".

This is Apple.

That guy doesn't have a lot of respect for the law (0, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,16 days | (#44466943)

does he?

Re:That guy doesn't have a lot of respect for the (-1)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,16 days | (#44466951)

Well he is black.

Re:That guy doesn't have a lot of respect for the (-1)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,16 days | (#44467135)

You can't just spew out the truth like that. The Libertards are going to pull the race and victim card on you now. Obama is going to have a speech soon about how apple would be like a company he ran if he was a CEO,

Re:That guy doesn't have a lot of respect for the (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,16 days | (#44467571)

The white guy would just say the law is a piece of paper.

Re:That guy doesn't have a lot of respect for the (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,16 days | (#44467385)

You mean the law that says he can do that?

Or the imaginary one you made up?

Curiouser and curiouser (4, Insightful)

OpenSourced (323149) | 1 year,16 days | (#44466969)

Rather, he emphasized that because the patent in question was now a widely held technology standard, banning the products in question would be too disruptive to consumers and the economy

That argument could be used to sooooo many other patent litigations, and somehow never is, except when the affected part is a big American company.

Re:Curiouser and curiouser (4, Interesting)

sessamoid (165542) | 1 year,16 days | (#44466985)

Rather, he emphasized that because the patent in question was now a widely held technology standard, banning the products in question would be too disruptive to consumers and the economy

That argument could be used to sooooo many other patent litigations, and somehow never is, except when the affected part is a big American company.

Actually, only recently have big corporations started trying to use standards-essential patents as tools of corporate warfare. The EU is investigating Samsung [latimes.com] for just this kind of behavior.

Re:Curiouser and curiouser (4, Informative)

makomk (752139) | 1 year,16 days | (#44467149)

That's probably because Apple was the first big corporation which refused to license those standards-essential patents under the same RAND terms as all of their competitors, again as a form of corporate warfare - they're trying to get all the R&D work required to make modern mobiles possible for free, whilst suing all their competitors who did do the R&D over crap like swipe-to-unlock, meaning those companies can't even make back their costs by selling their own phones!

Re: Curiouser and curiouser (-1)

statusbar (314703) | 1 year,16 days | (#44467563)

The difference here is that Samsung did agree to license essential patents for an IEEE standard under FRAND with the IEEE and then refused to do so.

Re:Curiouser and curiouser (2, Insightful)

a_n_d_e_r_s (136412) | 1 year,16 days | (#44467329)

And only recently have big corporations started to use standards-essential patents and refused to pay the license fee.

It used to be that big corporation only stole small company patents. Now they steal big corporations patents too - when those big corporations gets angry and wants to get payed for their patents - the abusers run to the government and hide behind their tailcoat

Re:Curiouser and curiouser (1)

quacking duck (607555) | 1 year,16 days | (#44467593)

It used to be that big corporation only stole small company patents. Now they steal big corporations patents too - when those big corporations gets angry and wants to get payed for their patents - the abusers run to the government and hide behind their tailcoat

Note that Apple and Samsung (and others) have been on both the abusing and abuser side of this argument.

Re:Curiouser and curiouser (1)

cheesybagel (670288) | 1 year,16 days | (#44467511)

Actually, only recently have big corporations started trying to use standards-essential patents as tools of corporate warfare.

Depends on how you defend big. Remember the Unisys LZW patent and the Rambus SDRAM patents?

Re:Curiouser and curiouser (1)

cheesybagel (670288) | 1 year,16 days | (#44467519)

s/defend/define/

Re:Curiouser and curiouser (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,16 days | (#44467139)

Also notice that instead of annulling the patent, they're just excluding apple from the ban, so samsung can still sue companies other than apple over this one.
The only american company that I think would be affected is google/motorola.

Re:Curiouser and curiouser (0)

Anubis IV (1279820) | 1 year,16 days | (#44467411)

That's because the patent is still valid. What was invalid was the punishment being levied against Apple. The proper way to resolve a case involving a (F)RAND patent is to simply compel the infringing party to license the patent (and maybe toss in some extra fees for willful infringement and whatnot), not to ban their products or even pursue that in the first place. It shouldn't even be on the table when the infringing party is still capable of licensing the patent at any time and doing so would wholly restore everything that was due to the party that was infringed upon.

Re:Curiouser and curiouser (0)

Anubis IV (1279820) | 1 year,16 days | (#44467379)

Since it could be used for "sooooo many other" ones, would you mind naming a few? Should be easy, since there are sooooo many.

What you'll find is that patents that are licensed under (F)RAND terms are rarely used for litigation of this sort, and when they are, the way the issue is supposed to be resolved is by compelling the infringing party to license the standards-essential patent in question, rather than banning the infringing products. It's different with patents that are not licensed under (F)RAND terms, since licensing them may not even be an option on the table, but with (F)RAND patents licensing is always an option, so there exists no need to ban products when there's an obvious and simple monetary solution to the problem.

Re:Curiouser and curiouser (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,16 days | (#44467399)

Because we have this law says that the president can overturn an import ban from the ITC, whereas he does not have this power over the USPTO.

Has to be said.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,16 days | (#44467001)

This is how you get rewarded for letting the NSA in your servers

U.S.A. is dead. (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,16 days | (#44467043)

U.S.A. is dead. Period.

Re: U.S.A. is dead. (3, Funny)

turbidostato (878842) | 1 year,16 days | (#44467439)

Not unless netcraft confirms it!

Executive Privilege (-1)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,16 days | (#44467057)

The Obama Administration seems to think it has "executive privilege" to act as a dictatorship.

Re:Executive Privilege (1)

Dunbal (464142) | 1 year,16 days | (#44467483)

The other two branches of government always seem to be looking the other way. So it is a de facto dictatorship. Nixon was forced to resign for much, much less than Obama has gotten away with.

Another set of rules for the powerfull (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,16 days | (#44467071)

Will the white house do something similar for a small company?, or this is the white house on the rescue of a rich company?

Re:Another set of rules for the powerfull (1)

pipatron (966506) | 1 year,16 days | (#44467115)

Not unless banning the products in question would be too disruptive to consumers and the economy. Unlikely for a small company.

Switched Parties (0, Flamebait)

pubwvj (1045960) | 1 year,16 days | (#44467093)

Imagine how the liberals would be screaming if a Republican President did this. I'm not arguing with what he did. Just listening to the silence.

Re:Switched Parties (1)

the eric conspiracy (20178) | 1 year,16 days | (#44467213)

Who was President in 1987? Was there any screaming when Reagan overturned a ban?

Hmmmmm....

Re:Switched Parties (0)

wonkey_monkey (2592601) | 1 year,16 days | (#44467415)

Was there any screaming when Reagan overturned a ban?

I don't know. Did he overturn any bans? Was there any screaming, if he did?

Hmmmmm....

Re:Switched Parties (1)

Ambassador Kosh (18352) | 1 year,16 days | (#44467283)

This is wrong no matter who does it. However, what can we really do to stop this kind of behavior? The side with the most money wins elections and with the citizens united ruling there is no way to ever match what a company can for money there seems to be no real chance of getting better politicians. It seems that every group that wants to fix politics is quickly coopted and twisted..

How can we actually get real leaders that don't do this? My state had some of the toughest election laws in the county and within one year of citizens united that was mostly burned to the ground. The price of elections went up by over a factor of 10x and a LOT of pro-corporate people got it in some very nasty campaigns. If you can't even have clean city or state elections what chance is there for president?

Suddenly (-1)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,16 days | (#44467121)

Because it's Apple who won this move, patents are important to the Slashdot crowd. Funny that.

Re:Suddenly (2, Insightful)

0123456 (636235) | 1 year,16 days | (#44467227)

Because it's Apple who won this move, patents are important to the Slashdot crowd. Funny that.

Most of us would be happy if patents were to go away.

What we object to is the US President telling US courts that he's going to ignore the law for Apple, but not for everyone else. Either the law applies to everyone, or it should be repealed, not just ignored by executive fiat.

Re:Suddenly (1)

RandomFactor (22447) | 1 year,16 days | (#44467279)

Glad they aren't pulling this crap with something important like healthcare!

Meanwhile, Microsoft gets paid for Fat32 an ExFAT. (2)

goruka (1721094) | 1 year,16 days | (#44467127)

And all the Asian companies comply. If this isnt protectionism, I don't know what it is.

Figures (4, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,16 days | (#44467167)

Apple Political Donations
Top Candidate Recipients, 2011-2012
Barack Obama (D) $308,081
Mitt Romney (R) $28,910
Ron Paul (R-TX) $16,004
Nathan Shinagawa (D-NY) $5,000
Mark W. Neumann (R-WI) $5,000
http://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/summary.php?id=D000021754

Donation to earnings ratio (2)

tepples (727027) | 1 year,16 days | (#44467489)

How does Apple's donation to earnings ratio compare to that of, say, The Walt Disney Company or ExxonMobil?

Apple Protection Act (1)

Reliable Windmill (2932227) | 1 year,16 days | (#44467417)

The Apple Protection Act at work. More big U.S companies will get the same treatment as Monsanto and now Apple, and the hammer is going to come down on foreign owned companies.

I Wonder (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,16 days | (#44467443)

Perhaps the devices come equipped for NSA snooping and they're wanting to keep them selling for that reason?

the farce (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,16 days | (#44467461)

and the patent system came tumbling down.... This the clearest indication yet that the system is a dead duck. When the US won't follow its own rules, why should anyone else.

This is actually quite funny... (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,16 days | (#44467521)

I mean... the US is a big market, but it's peanuts compared to the US. You can only be an asshole for so long before it comes and bites you in the ass.

The US has been like a tumor since the 60s. Most people I know (who do travel a lot, I don't) won't set foot in the country, just out of principle. And these are not concentious people who have an agenda. These are drunkard who don't give a flying fuck about anything.

They are just repulsed by the US and its constant dickwaving.

So am I.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>