I have witnessed a trial in the ITC, and it is quite strange. At the beginning of the trial a time limit was set and the judge made it quite clear there would be no extension because he was going on vacation. If the matter had not been srious it would have been comical at times.
Moments like this make me want to harken back to Lincoln's promise: "that we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain...and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth." This frustrating power wrangling/money grabbing needs some practical streamlining. Hope things get cleared up soon.
"...of the people, by the people and for the people" has been replaced with "..at the people, by Obama and for his friends". And to be included in the latter you need to get on the list. How do you do that? You pay...usually either with effort (culling mass votes) or cash (campaign donations). But in Apples case their tribute will come in the form of ceding control of their Apps services to the Collections...uhhh, I mean, "Justice" Department in the OTHER impending legal matter in which they find themselves on the outs.
This article starts out with an insulting civics lesson. We've all watched The Sapranos, right? It seems that's the only civics lesson one needs these days.
@C VanDorne - Sorry that you felt the lesson in civics was unnecessary, but most of the world does not know how the government of the US is put together. This publication reaches a worldwide audience and it is important to ensure that they understand who and why these types of decisions get made. I am glad that you also added another aspect of US government, which to put the record straight - applies to all of the political parties in this country.
@BrianBailey - Touché on the world-wide coverage and my apologies to all my parliamentary peeps out there.
As for your other comment about putting "the record straight...both parties" and so on, I would like to make clear that I did not intend my creative, pointed and sardonic re-write of Lincoln "..at the people, by Obama and for his friends"...to be directed at anyone but Obama and his party. This blatant, rapacious Mobocracy that we are moving toward (The Chicago Way, if you will) is something rather new at the national level and your attempt to equivocate is highly debatable.
But...in the spirit of appropriateness I'll leave you with one of my father's unforgettable comments about modern times: The Democrats'll screw you seven days a week. The Republicans take the weekends off.
As usual we are making something complicated which is really quite simple. Samsung is trying to abuse the FRAND process to gain a competitive advantage. This is clear from its actions in the US and Europe. The case should be thrown out and judicial action should be taken against Samsung. I'm not sure if Samsung is an advertiser withinEET and this is the reason why your publication is reluctant to criticise Samsung. They have been shown to be very comfortable in cheating (gaming performance scores in their devices), stealing intelectual property, paying to have developers marketing their products and paying for bloggers to disparage competitor products on sites like this. Lets not beat about the bush here.
I doubt very much that Obama would overrule the ITC, which -- as noted -- is an appointed body designed to make informed ruling in the interest of the US. It would be like the president stepping in to overrule the FCC on Internet regulations, or overruling the EPA in a major environmental decision. Any US intervention would likely have a minimal impact on the case in the International courts, anyway, because -- as noted -- they make their own decisions.
I am not even sure that I agree with the existance of the ITC. Why is it not a standard part of the judicial system? The fact that it is in some ways outside the law is why companies choose to do their battles there. This should be a function of the Court of International Trade.
"The judiciary, too, has seen its authority diminished by the rise of the fourth branch. Under Article III of the Constitution, citizens facing charges and fines are entitled to due process in our court system. As the number of federal regulations increased, however, Congress decided to relieve the judiciary of most regulatory cases and create administrative courts tied to individual agencies. The result is that a citizen is 10 times more likely to be tried by an agency than by an actual court. In a given year, federal judges conduct roughly 95,000 adjudicatory proceedings, including trials, while federal agencies complete more than 939,000."
So it is essential to older iPhones but not newer ones? When did essential suddenly become no-essential? I know for sure 3GPP didn't suddenly change its standard. Anyone more familiar know what gives here?
The same applies to any of the other courts. If a product were not included in the original suit there has been no discovery on the new device to determine if it infringes. Now in the case it is an essential patent, so not as clear that any discovery would have been required,
President Obama had a very good chance to pratice prudent diplomatic policy and bring Apple and Samsung closer and more oriented towards more innovation. However, this looks failure may be due to lack of time or lack of efforts. It is not tool late for them to convince their logic to South Korean people.
Thanks for your wonderful article and trying to explain a complicated process such as the American government, the Court of International trade (CIT) and the International Trade Commission (ITC) laws within and article. You have indeed earned your paycheck for the year. But this is not a situation that will be solved within a few years. It is likely that everyone will go back to court and there will be more appeals. You see, in America, if you have money, there is always a hidden law that can be applied if lawyers have more time to research information for the case. In terms of being heard by the President in this case. President Obama has more pressing issues like foreign affairs to be concerned about at this time. By the time this issue goes to court again.... it will be election time. I look forward to seeing your follow article to this one within the next few years.
This has less to do with the current President and more to do with the ITC. The ITC has been around since 1916, but the Trade Act of 1974 added the so called "Fast Track" authority that all but gives the President carte blanc powers to negotiate trade agreements. The 1974 act had an expiration date, but it has been extended ever since by both Democratic and Republican Congresses and Presidents, the last being the Trade Act of 2002.
The ITC has been granted judicial powers that greatly overstep the intended separation of powers of the legislative, executive, and judicial branches established by the Constitution. This is why the case has come down to one man interpreting trade law for the nation and removes the courts from the proces altogether. That alone is proof that the ITC oversteps the authority of the office of President. Hopefully Samsung or someone will challenge the acts implementing the ITC so that the Supreme Court can rule whether or not the acts are constituional. Certainly, if there is to be an ITC, its judicial matters should be overseen by the courts, not the President.
Apple spent $1.9mil lobbying US government in 2012 and Samsung spent zero. President overturns ITC verdict after ITC rules for Samsung that apple violated patents. See opensecrets.org
Apple files patent suit in home state of California, convinces jury they own rectangles with rounded corners, jury falsely awards $1bil in damages.
Hard not to feel like samsung has no chance for fair treatment in US.
As we unveil EE Times’ 2015 Silicon 60 list, journalist & Silicon 60 researcher Peter Clarke hosts a conversation on startups in the electronics industry. Panelists Dan Armbrust (investment firm Silicon Catalyst), Andrew Kau (venture capital firm Walden International), and Stan Boland (successful serial entrepreneur, former CEO of Neul, Icera) join in the live debate.