Cu doar o zi inainte ca o interdictie de import pentru anumite iDevice-uri sa intre in vigoare in SUA, presedintele SUA, Barack Obama, si-a utilizat dreptul de veto pentru a anula decizia luata de catre ITC cu cateva luni in urma. Apple si multe alte companii au cerut administratiei prezidentiale sa ia aceasta decizie, practic impotriva Samsung, si se pare ca presedintele american a fost de acord. Desi interdictia afecta doar terminalele lansate inainte de iPhone 4S si iPad 2(inclusiv), presedintele american isi apara companiile si mentine acest dispozitive in vanzare.
We applaud the administration for standing up for innovation in this landmark case. Samsung was wrong to abuse the patent system in this way. – Apple.
We are disappointed that the U.S. Trade Representative has decided to set aside the exclusion order issued by the U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC). The ITC’s decision correctly recognized that Samsung has been negotiating in good faith and that Apple remains unwilling to take a license. – Samsung.
Apple si Samsung au laudat/dezaprobat decizia luata de catre presedintele american si intr-o anumita masura era normal ca Obama sa isi apere compania americana care genereaza locuri de munca si foarte multi bani la bugetul de stat. Samsung a castigat batalia intr-o instanta comerciala, insa n-a reusit sa convinga si guvernul ca are dreptate, dar va avea destule ocazii sa scoata iDevice-uri din vanzare, daca va mai reusi sa convinga vreo instanta ca are dreptate. Mai jos aveti comunicatul de presa emis de catre guvernul SUA, aceasta fiind prima utilizare a dreptului de veto in ultimii 26 de ani.
In addition, on January 8, 2013, the Department of Justice and United States Patent and Trademark Office issued an important Policy Statement entitled “Policy Statement on Remedies for Standard-Essential Patents Subject to Voluntary FRAND Commitments” (“Policy Statement”).2 The Policy Statement makes clear that standards, and particularly voluntary consensus standards set by standards developing organizations (“SDO”), have incorporated important technical advances that are fundamental to the interoperability of many of the products on which consumers have come to rely, including the types of devices that are the subject of the Commission’s determination. The Policy Statement expresses substantial concerns, which I strongly share, about the potential harms that can result from owners of standardsessential patents (“SEPs”) who have made a voluntary commitment to offer to license SEPs on terms that are fair, reasonable, and nondiscriminatory (“FRAND”), gaining undue leverage and engaging in “patent holdup”, i.e., asserting the patent to exclude an implementer of the standard from a market to obtain a higher price for use of the patent than would have been possible before the standard was set, when alternative technologies could have been chosen. At the same time, technology implementers also can cause potential harm by, for example, engaging in “reverse holdup” (“holdout”), e. g., by constructive refusal to negotiate a FRAND license with the SEP owner or refusal to pay what has been determined to be a FRAND royalty.