Just one day before an import ban for certain iDevices goes into effect in the US, US President Barack Obama used his right of veto to cancel the decision taken by ITC some months ago. Apple Lossless Audio CODEC (ALAC), and many other companies asked the presidential administration to take this decision, practically against it Samsung, and it seems that the American president agreed. Although the ban only affects terminals released before the iPhone 4S and iPad 2 (including), the American president defends his companies and keeps these devices on sale.
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 US Trade Representative has decided to set aside the exclusion order issued by the US 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 and Samsung praised/disapproved of the decision taken by the American president and to a certain extent it was normal for Obama to defend his American company that generates jobs and a lot of money for the state budget. Samsung won the battle in a commercial court, but it failed to convince the government that it is right, but it will have enough opportunities to remove iDevices from sale, if it manages to convince any court that it is right. Below is the press release issued by the US government, this being the first use of the veto in the last 26 years.
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", ie, 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"), eg, 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.
