News
News Categories

Obama Administration Vetoes ITC Ruling Against Apple, Samsung Disappointed

By John Law - on 6 Aug 2013, 12:03pm

Obama Administration Vetoes ITC Ruling Against Apple, Samsung Disappointed

And point goes to Apple <br> Image source: ostimes

The war of the electronics giants has waged on for what seems like an eternity. But in a strange turn of events, the tides of battle turned ever so slightly in favor of Apple. Just when Samsung thought they had won the patent infringement case that would effectively ban Apple from selling certain products in the U.S., the Obama Administration stepped in and exercised its power to veto the decision. Why is this significant? Simple: no administration has ever vetoed an ITC ruling in 26 years.

The veto has gone into effect almost immediately. Any and all Apple devices that supposedly infringed on Samsung's patents are now allowed to stay on store shelves and be sold to the public, legally. Financially, this veto could spell what many have forecasted as a US$1 billion dollar (that's approx. RM3 billion) loss for Samsung.

The decision was echoed by Ambassador Michael B.G. Froman, U.S. Trade Representative with this statement:

“My decision to disapprove this determination does not mean that the patent owner is not entitled to a remedy. On the contrary, the patent owner may continue to pursue its rights through the courts.”

Needless to say, Apple was filled to the brim with glee and a representative had this to say:

“We applaud the Administration for standing up for innovation in this landmark case. Samsung was wrong to abuse the patent system in this way.”

And what kind of patent war would this be, if Samsung did not express its disappointment at the veto. In fact, this was their response:

“We are disappointed that the U.S. Trade Representative has decided to set aside the exclusion order issued by the U.S. 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.”

Source: androidspin, Engadget