Feeds

USA reverses iPhone, iPad sales ban

Patent reform policy saves the day

Next gen security for virtualised datacentres

US Trade Representative Michael Froman has recommended Samsung's bid to prevent Apple from selling its iPhone and iPad due to patent violations not be approved.

In a letter (PDF) dated August 3rd, Froman wrote to the Chair of the International Trade Commission (USITC) and laid out his reasons for deciding not to impose a sales ban.

The letter makes much of the Obama administration's January 2013 Policy statement on remedies for standards-essential patents subject to voluntary/FRAND commitments (PDF). That document outlines some of Obama's patent reform proposals, by encouraging offices like the USTIC to “consider whether a patent holder has acknowledged voluntarily through a commitment to license its patents on F/RAND terms that money damages, rather than injunctive or exclusionary relief, is the appropriate remedy for infringement.”

A quick bit of exposition: “FRAND” stands for “fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory” a term that is used to describe patent licensing conditions. FRAND is the US government's preferred way of licensing “SEPs” - standards-essential patents – that an entity holds but that really need to be licensed widely if complex systems are to be operable.

The policy statement we mention above discusses “FRAND-encumbered SEPs” and suggests exclusion orders like that being sought be Samsung should not be granted, because doing so stifles innovation.

Froman's letter explores that policy, finds no reason to disagree with it and he therefore “decided to disapprove the USITC's determination to issue an exclusion order and a cease and desist order in this investigation.”

It's business as usual then, for all concerned. Shelves will remain full at Apple stores throughout the USA, resellers and carriers in the land of the free remain free to sell iPads and iPhones. And lawyers can bank on more time in court representing either Apple or Samsung, as Froman concludes that his decision means “the patent owner may continue to pursue its rights through the courts.” ®

The essential guide to IT transformation

More from The Register

next story
'Stop dissing Google or quit': OK, I quit, says Code Club co-founder
And now a message from our sponsors: 'STFU or else'
Ex US cybersecurity czar guilty in child sex abuse website case
Health and Human Services IT security chief headed online to share vile images
Don't even THINK about copyright violation, says Indian state
Pre-emptive arrest for pirates in Karnataka
The police are WRONG: Watching YouTube videos is NOT illegal
And our man Corfield is pretty bloody cross about it
Felony charges? Harsh! Alleged Anon hackers plead guilty to misdemeanours
US judge questions harsh sentence sought by prosecutors
Oz biz regulator discovers shared servers in EPIC FACEPALM
'Not aware' that one IP can hold more than one Website
Apple tried to get a ban on Galaxy, judge said: NO, NO, NO
Judge Koh refuses Samsung ban for the third time
prev story

Whitepapers

Best practices for enterprise data
Discussing how technology providers have innovated in order to solve new challenges, creating a new framework for enterprise data.
Implementing global e-invoicing with guaranteed legal certainty
Explaining the role local tax compliance plays in successful supply chain management and e-business and how leading global brands are addressing this.
Advanced data protection for your virtualized environments
Find a natural fit for optimizing protection for the often resource-constrained data protection process found in virtual environments.
How modern custom applications can spur business growth
Learn how to create, deploy and manage custom applications without consuming or expanding the need for scarce, expensive IT resources.
High Performance for All
While HPC is not new, it has traditionally been seen as a specialist area – is it now geared up to meet more mainstream requirements?