In June 2013, the International Trade Commission ruled in favor of Samsung in a patent lawsuit aimed at Apple. According to the ITC, Apple was in breach of a number of patents and the commission had decided to ban the iPhone 4 and iPad 2 3G from the United States. After two months of deliberation, President Obama issued a veto on the ban. It was the "first time an administration has vetoed an ITC product ban ruling since the Reagan administration issued a veto in 1987." The administration's statement argued that the ITC's ruling was anticompetitive and anti-innovative. The very nature of patents are anticompetitive and anti-innovative so the ITC's ruling should come as no surprise.
I wonder if the ban would have been vetoed if Apple was not so iconic, or if it was some less popular, influential or more generic company being sued.
In October 2013, Obama actually declined to veto of the ruling to ban Samsung older products in violation of Apple's patent portfolio. Samsung, on the same level of popularity and influence as Apple, was not given the same protection as Apple. What's curious is that is it due to the fact that Apple is an American based company while Samsung is not? Or are other technical factors involved for the administration to chose to veto for Apple but not Samsung?
ReplyDeleteThe issue about a company's country of origin is interesting. It does make sense that the U.S. would be more favorable to Apple than Samsung because it is a U.S. based company. For one company to get support from the government while the other doesn't on a similar topic certainly pushes the evidence in that direction.
ReplyDeleteThat actually seems really interesting that the Obama administration would intervene a ruling of that magnitude. I do think that preventing the products like the iPhone 4 and iPad 2 3g from becoming household products would definitely give Samsung a great competitive advantage. I think its interesting how Samsung is a Korean based company and Apple is an American company that influences millions of people's lives. i wonder if that actually did play a role in Obama using the power of veto. Apple is one of the world's most profitable and valued companies and they have a lot of clout in the United States. They employ a lot of people and maybe Obama made his decision to veto based on job loss if those products weren't manufactured.
ReplyDelete