Obama Administration overrules ITC import ban of older Apple iOS devices

A planned US import ban of several older iOS products from Apple has now been nullified thanks to an unexpected decision made today by a member of the Obama Administration. U.S. Trade Representative Michael Froman has chosen to veto an earlier ruling by the U.S. International Trade Commission on the matter, which is the first such motion that has been made in over 25 years.

In early June, the ITC ruled that AT&T's versions of the iPhone 4, iPhone 3GS, iPhone 3, iPad 3G, iPad 2 3G and iPad 3 violated a Samsung patent concerning data transmission. The ITC imposed a ban that would have kept those products from being imported into the US starting next week.

Before the ITC's decision was made, Apple claimed Samsung's patent was an industry standard and the company should offer it under terms covered by FRAND (Fair, Reasonable, and Non-Discriminatory). Samsung countered that Apple did not want to buy the license to the patent under any terms.

While the ITC seemed to see things Samsung's way in June, AllThingsD reports the decision by Froman today clearly sides with Apple. He stated that a company like Samsung might gain “... undue leverage ..." in order to get a higher price for the license in question before it becomes an industry standard. Before today's decision, several other tech companies, including Microsoft, Intel and Oracle, had asked Froman to step in and overturn the ITC ruling.

Apple sent out a statement that naturally supported the Obama Administration's decision, saying, "Samsung was wrong to abuse the patent system in this way.” Samsung's own statement on the matter said they were disappointed, and added, "The ITC’s decision correctly recognized that Samsung has been negotiating in good faith and that Apple remains unwilling to take a license."

The last time a member of a US presidential administration overturned a decision from the ITC was back in 1987, when President Ronald Reagan was in the White House.

Source: AllThingsD | Image via Apple

Report a problem with article
Previous Story

Research firm: 68 percent of Q2 tablet shipments are small-screen devices

Next Story

GitHub down due to DoS attack [Update]

50 Comments

Commenting is disabled on this article.

That kind of political protection is not allowed in WTO. Korea has all rights now to appeal to WTO court.

Putting "Obama Administration" in the topic title, whilst technically correct, is disingenuous at best. It makes it appear as if Obama is personally responsible for this decision, when in reality it's extremely unlikely that Obama even knew this was happening, let alone is responsible for it.

If the president doesn't even know what his team doing, then he shouldn't be president.

FloatingFatMan said,
Putting "Obama Administration" in the topic title, whilst technically correct, is disingenuous at best. It makes it appear as if Obama is personally responsible for this decision, when in reality it's extremely unlikely that Obama even knew this was happening, let alone is responsible for it.

I'd rather someone like the President worry more about big things, than every tiny little bit of minutae that may cross his desk. That's WHY he has aides and the like.

One man cannot run, or know about, everything.

FloatingFatMan said,
Putting "Obama Administration" in the topic title, whilst technically correct, is disingenuous at best. It makes it appear as if Obama is personally responsible for this decision, when in reality it's extremely unlikely that Obama even knew this was happening, let alone is responsible for it.


Where in the article title does it say the President himself made any decision? Oh wait, it doesn't... Nothing wrong with thread title.

Samsung is an evil just like every other company. Standard Essential Patents should not be used in patent wars. fck Samsung.

Next time, I think Companies should not sue each others on the court. They can just submit their letter to the president and let him to decide ... lolz ... This is a joke.

This decision has nothing to do with choosing sides between two companies. It has to do with how the USA will deal with Standard Essential Patents and this is VERY important. If a company donates its technology to an international standard (like WiFi) should it be allowed to charge its competitors far more than it charges everyone else? And should the US government be complicit it assisting them in what is nothing more than blackmail.

If you want the real story behind these headlines try the excellent, grown-up FOSS Patents, not AllThingD kiddie journalists.

Major_Plonquer said,
This decision has nothing to do with choosing sides between two companies. It has to do with how the USA will deal with Standard Essential Patents and this is VERY important. If a company donates its technology to an international standard (like WiFi) should it be allowed to charge its competitors far more than it charges everyone else? And should the US government be complicit it assisting them in what is nothing more than blackmail.

If you want the real story behind these headlines try the excellent, grown-up FOSS Patents, not AllThingD kiddie journalists.

interesting insight, thank you!

Major_Plonquer said,

If you want the real story behind these headlines try the excellent, grown-up FOSS Patents

Haha that was funny.

Major_Plonquer said,
This decision has nothing to do with choosing sides between two companies. It has to do with how the USA will deal with Standard Essential Patents and this is VERY important. If a company donates its technology to an international standard (like WiFi) should it be allowed to charge its competitors far more than it charges everyone else? And should the US government be complicit it assisting them in what is nothing more than blackmail.

If you want the real story behind these headlines try the excellent, grown-up FOSS Patents, not AllThingD kiddie journalists.

It's not just about Essential Patents. It's also about patents in overall.

And it's still about taking sides. If US Government would care about patents then they would overrule decision for ban of Samsung devices and a billion fine for primitive patents, which are not allowed worldwide. But they didn't.

When Obama asked Steven Jobs if he can move some of Apple's manufacturing back to the US, he told him it is not going to happen.

But the new Apple CEO wants the manufacturing to move here, and I think Obama has returned the favor.

Beside, everything that Samsung makes is a copy of Apple, of course they are improving a lot over Apple.

john.smith_2084 said,
everything that Samsung makes is a copy of Apple

[Citation Needed]

Everything? Really? Because a few things looked similar? What about Samsung SSDs, displays, processors, TVs, fridges, washing machines, dish washers, earth moving equipment and building machinery, what do Apple make that Samsung copied from to make?

Let`s see what Apple copied:

iOS 7 = Windows Phone.
Panorama + Notification Bar + Folders = Android
Reject calls with SMS = Android
iMaps = Google Maps (Opps)
Ping = Facebook, Twitter
iPad = Samsung´s Photoframe
iPad Mini = Dell Streak
iPod = Creative Technology and Walkman
‘iPhone' name = Linksys' iPhone®
Original iPhone = Samsung's S700 Mp3 Player
iPhone 4 & 4S = LG's Prada
iMessage = BlackBerry Messenger
Siri = Xiaoi Bot + Nuance (MS Clippy).
App Store = Ubuntu Software Center
Bigger Screen = Everybody else
MacBook Air = HP's Sojourn
Macsafe = Asian Crockery
Thunderbolt = Intel
OSX, iOS = Unix
Newton = Psion Series 3, HP 95LX
Apple Logo = Genesis 1:6, 3:6
Aluminum = Cheapest Metal
Plastic = ($$$ Reinforced Polymers)
Security = Buy a new one...

john.smith_2084 said,

I think you should stop the cocaine and downgrade to pot, it messed up your mind.

What an insightful comeback back with plenty of evidence.

So since it's obvious Apple payed off the corrupt administration in Washington, will it also reverse the ebook decision? Does this mean Apple can essentially flaunt the law because they can pay off the President? This really bad, and political slant has nothing to do with it

The question is, are other manufacturers paying Samsung for this?

If yes, then why shouldn't Apple pay for that?

Exynos said,
The question is, are other manufacturers paying Samsung for this?

If yes, then why shouldn't Apple pay for that?

Samsung copied just everything they made from Apple (talking about phones and tablets), no sympathy for them.

Also the Exynos processor benchmark where fake and overclocked by 30%, so piracy and cheating = Samsung

john.smith_2084 said,

Samsung copied just everything they made from Apple (talking about phones and tablets), no sympathy for them.

Also the Exynos processor benchmark where fake and overclocked by 30%, so piracy and cheating = Samsung

So Samsung didn't got inspired by Apple in the same way as Apple got inspired by Sony back in 2006 / 2007?

Do you know the differences between copying and getting inspired?

And no, Samsung didn't cheat. They made the 'BenchmarkBoost' app to make sure the Benchmarks apps runst at full speed so the SpeedStep technology doesn't runs the speed on the CPU and GPU at 70% instead of 100%.

Why are Samsung cheating by just making sure the benchmarks runs at the full speed on the CPU and GPU?

The GPU have a speed of 533 MHz witch is the default speed. And those benchmarks use that speed. What other apps use on the CPU and GPU isn't Samsung's liability.

ArthJar said,
"Samsung was wrong to abuse the patent system in this way.”
L. O. L.

Apple has some pretty big brass nads to say something like that when they themselves are just as, if not more so, guilty of the same thing.

ir0nw0lf said,

Apple has some pretty big brass nads to say something like that when they themselves are just as, if not more so, guilty of the same thing.

Considering how their patents are being overturned...

Uh, isn't kind of odd that instead of listing it as "U.S. Trade Representative Michael Froman has now nullified a planned US import ban of several older iOS products from Apple" that it makes sure to lump it in and label it as "The Obama Administration"?

This article has been Callahammed.

[quote=Jaybonaut said,]Uh, isn't kind of odd that instead of listing it as "U.S. Trade Representative Michael Froman has now nullified a planned US import ban of several older iOS products from Apple" that it makes sure to lump it in and label it as "The Obama Administration"?

Duh, he is part of the Obama Administration..............

Jaybonaut said,
Feels like a political slant for headlines.

Would "Executive Branch of the Federal Government..." be less of a political slant?

I blame Obama.

Also bad battery life, and companies that bring out Original Flavor before the Cherry Flavor is Obama's fault.

Lastly, if you don't believe me that Obama is to blame for a lot of things, I'll close with this; there was never any flying sharks until Obama was in office. I blame Obama for the Sharknados.

This is more symbolic than anything. Most (if not all) of those products are not really sold in the US anymore, anyway.

Neobond said,
It isn't at all. the iPhone 4 is still being sold on AT&T

But probably won't be in 2 months or so when the iPhone 5S comes out...

That is what the word "most" means... not "all".

Edited by Shadrack, Aug 3 2013, 10:01pm :

It's probably also because Apple is an American company. If Samsung was banned instead they wouldn't have done anything. Typical corrupt U.S government.

McKay said,
So Samsung won fair and square in Court and the Government just says "Nah" anyway?

No. Samsung is just as guilty as Moto (google) in this case.

They are abusing FRAND.