Intervening in one case for an iconic American company is protectionism, not free trade. That would have entailed reforming the patent system for everyone.
This is ominous, what if this is remembered as the equivalent of Smoot-Hawley? Patents are a hell of a lot more complex than tariffs... and at least the ITC is trying to do international coordination here, and Obama has just blatantly undermined them.
The problem I have with this argument, is, isn't the point of every technological advance to become widespread and Standards-Essential? If we're going to disallow them, why have patents at all? For "Look-And-Feel" patents?
Because even strong software patents often have alternatives, and weak ones are easy to find an alternative to, decreasing their value, but once a standard protocol requires their use, the patent holder can jack up the price. As an extreme example, consider the exFAT patents: there are many file systems superior to exFAT that have no need for whatever bits of functionality Microsoft patented, but because Windows speaks exFAT as one of few alternatives, some companies have licensed them. Not exactly a standard, but the same idea.
Well, evidently the ITC "considered" FRAND inaccurately, as their decision conflicted with both, the Obama Administration and the European Commission. (Not to mention the opinions of jurists such as Judge Posner.) You could cry "protectionism" on this veto, but what excuse could you make for the EC's actions?
Bizarre how you group in multiple completely different actions and pretend that they're one. And the Obama Administration didn't make a statement about FRAND or the correctness of the ITC's judgment -- they simply decided that they'd rather not have an American company's products blocked.
Completely different actions with precisely the same underlyng issue: abuse of standards essential patents. Bizarre how you do not notice this.
And this is not a new issue, and not just restricted to the smartphone patent wars. The same criticisms were made and similar outrage was outpoured in the semiconductor industry when Rambus tried to pull similar shenanigans. [1]
I can't begin to imagine what the ITC will do having been completely undermined by Obama. I wouldn't be surprised if Apple suffers from some international retaliation for this.
Obama doesn't fully understand how commerce works.
Sure: government will always be two-faced with respect to "free" markets, interfering where it suits their and/or their friends/benefactors' interests, or not, as the case may be. It has been this way for centuries, Adam Smith just added to the lexicon of rationales.
Dude, you're being more than a little bit of a dick. I'm ignorant of government policy and politics in general, and it's only recently that I've begun rectifying that.
Yes, it was a simple, straightforward query for information that I lack. And you hardly answered.
You know what. I'm outta here for awhile. It's people like you that make me depressed to read HN or try to be involved. The guidelines even say "if you wouldn't say it to their face, then don't say it." Yet you were such an asshole to me right there without even an apology. That would've been okay if I had received an actual answer to my question, but instead I got a context-free link to a Wikipedia article with no way to interpret the complexities of how it relates to the issue at hand. The result is an unhelpful, unhealthy, negative state of mind. And that would be okay if I actually learned something from the experience. But the only thing I've learned from this is that you personally attack and belittle anyone who doesn't know the same things you know.
Congress seems to have explicitly preferred this approach, however. They could've set up a system with uniform rules and a mandatory process that the president can't overrule, as is commonly done with other areas like environmental rules. The president does have some power over the EPA, but can't arbitrarily instruct the EPA to drop rules simply because he disagrees with the outcome of the rulemaking process. But here Congress said that if the President disagrees with any ruling of the IPC "for policy reasons", he need merely notify the ITC and the ruling will be voided. That seems to indicate Congress wanted case-by-case review of ITC determinations for policy conformance. Why would they write that into the law? My guess is precisely to allow national economic interests to take priority over the rules on a case-by-case basis.
Congress, in most cases of late, prefers to give more arbitrary authority to the Executive branch rather than actually craft specific and meaningful rules.
Sounds like they built a recipe for patronage with this law. By creating a system such as what you describe, it's ripe for businesses to $$ convince $$ the right politicians that their success is in the best interest of the country.
What a joke. So good to see the president is finally tackling the patent abuses, by protecting local trolls from a taste of their very own medicine.
(The justification here being that this ban is not "in the interest of the public". If this was considered in ay other cases, we'd all be paying cents for generics from India instead of thousands of millions for the brand version)
This is what increasingly bothers me lately about the decisions they make. They're sacrificing a lot of stuff "in the interest of public good". It seems like a lot of collectivism.
"We can't put bankers in prison because this way it's better for the public/the economy"
"We can't punish any corporation with more than a relatively minor fine, because that would hurt the public"
"We can't let a judge's decision about banning Apple's product for losing a patent battle in war they started, be implemented, because that would hurt the public".
The worst part is that they must be thinking these are really good decisions. It's probably why Obama convinced himself and did a 180 on the mass spying, too "because it's in the interest of the public".
I think they're following the theories of Consequentialism here, where you're trying to maximise the different consequences instead of aiming for one single maximised consequence - even if that means violating an established ethical rule:
" The consequentialist analysis can take the form of a utility function, where the expected utility of an action is determined by the sum of the utility of each of its possible consequences, individually weighted by their respective probability of occurrence. Therefore, the correct action is always the one which maximizes o total value of positive consequences, even if it violates some established moral rule. Consequentialism is based on a cost and benefits analysis and measure goodness by calculating the total expected good." [1]
I don't presume to be able to say whether that's right or wrong, but it certainly feels like the underlying theory with which the government currently acts.
>This is what increasingly bothers me lately about the decisions they make. They're sacrificing a lot of stuff "in the interest of public good". It seems like a lot of collectivism.
That's nothing like "collectivism". Notice how in all this cases you state "the public" is just a pretext, and those who would indeed lose are the fat cats: bankers, corporations, Apple, etc.
That's plain and simple market capitalism: the big money gets its own laws (aka "the golden rule": those with gold make the rules).
In "collectivism" (in the USSR sense) the power lies in the state/government, for the benefit of the party officials.
In market capitalism, the power lies in the big money, and the government works for the benefit of large private interests.
Neither Apple, nor Samsung or Google invented patents. It's a government's creation made before they came to the scene. Once you build a company in a framework of patents and police enforcing them (by threatening to take your property by force), you have to play by the rules. And the rules are: grab first to protect yourself against others. In absence of brutal enforcement, companies would have to find peaceful ways to agree on "merchant's code" (which was always happening in history where the state did not intervene too much). E.g. Apple could come to a voluntary agreement with BestBuy that they won't sell "copycat" products, or Apple wouldn't sell iPhones there. And everyone would try to find a balance where certain business practices are acceptable or not. And ultimately customers would judge if the companies serve them well enough. But when government introduces a paperwork for violence, then business gets ugly.
a) Big > Small : smaller companies are subject to market forces and are expected to sink or swim as deemed by their own competitive merit, but Apple gets a hand when times are tough!
This is essentially a State-assisted protection of private wealth owned by the few; Tim Cook and all the mutual funds and hedge funds that invested in AAPL can now sleep well at night knowing that the American government has a Protectionism Put Option on AAPL.
b) Free trade, patents, et al are "the American way" as long as they benefit America, but the moment a foreign competitor uses the same tools and wins, oh no no no, we can't have that.
I believe that protectionism and jingoism ("Buy American") is how the American car industry, amongst others, survived for many decades despite being uncompetitive? At least, this is the gist of what I got from reading articles here and there. Ironically, such protectionism is not (always) in Americans' interest; I believe the car industry has successfully stymied the development of metro trains and other public transport options that would have made cars supremely unnecessary? Just take the MTR in Hong Kong or the MRT in Singapore to realize what you are missing.
Seems to me that in the future, companies are going to withhold some of their patents from FRAND even if they would be potentially more useful as FRAND to continue to use them as a weapon. The potential royalties of many of these FRAND patents seem small compared to the damages from infringement.
In fact, it seems the value of a patent is inversely proportional to it's usefulness. A patent which covers a critical wireless protocol component is worth a few pennies and can't be used to get injunctions, but a patent for some rounded corner button can be used to sue for billions.
If you look at the patent trolling going on, a lot of the cases are for really, obvious, trivialities.
While I don't think one should be able to get bans like this, sooner or later, Apple or Microsoft has to lose a patent case in a painful way so they stop trying to shake down competitors. Mutually assured destruction doesn't work if it's not mutual. This ITC case was the closest they've come to experiencing a real threat of pain.
I've been mulling over the most common argument predictably
wheeled out by the patent aggressors and their supporters:
"Theft! We don't want them to steal our stuff!!"
Never mind that even if one allows that the whole concept of patents
is a legitimate, and an ethical legal framework, patent infringement
is never theft.
Theft would involve actual trespass of someone's physical property,
that involves removing and/or otherwise exploiting said property without
the owner's permission -- in effect depriving them of it.
So for an obvious example, if Corp A. breaks into Corp B's engineering
offices, and literally steals their code and/or design documents.
That would be theft.
Of course, computer break in is not technically a physical trespass,
but the distinction still stands: an actual trespass must occur.
We already have time-tested criminal laws for this, and justly so.
Patents are completely redundant for this case.
But if you think about, there is actual, honest to goodness
theft that goes on in patent cases... and the thief, it's
the aggressor! Albeit for a "limited time" (that's of course
subject to interpretation, in 20 years many things happen, to
someone who dies, that limitation is permanent), someone is given
the government-sanctioned go-ahead to literally deprive another
of their own discoveries and hard work.
Independently discovered, independently arrived at and hammered out.
I'm not a fan of the concept of intellectual property, but...
...you apparently don't understand the concept of an analogy. The whole reason that IP is called intellectual property is precisely to draw an analogy. Thus, the violation of that property is called theft.
And besides, you don't understand theft of physical property either. It does not require physical trespass: taking someone's wallet when they put it down on a table for a moment is theft. Theft is a transfer of possession without an accompanying transfer of ownership.
In intellectual property, theft is a duplication of possession without an accompanying duplication of ownership. The result is nevertheless that someone comes into possession of property without the right to own it. Distilled, this is an entirely fair conceptualization of theft.
The above deals specifically with copyright, but the concept is the same.
Secondly, in the post you replied to, I'm not talking about "intellectual property",
I'm talking specifically about patents. I think that the copyright laws for instance,
are far more balanced, and fair... lengthy time scales notwithstanding.
> It does not require physical trespass: taking someone's wallet
> when they put it down on a table for a moment is theft.
Indeed, it is also trespass on someone's physical property. This is obvious,
and brings into question your own understanding.
Back to patents.
Suppose I discover, and implement a product, doing so entirely independently.
I'm then summarily denied the right to practice it via a patent shakedown.
Am I still in possession of it?
Is one still in possession of one's freedom, if all one has remaining is a
tiny cell to walk around in?
Let's now break it down in your terms. If Alice infringes on Bob's patent,
both have possession, but only Bob, under the law has ownership. However,
in the case of patents, Alice can come into possession of "Bob's property"
without even knowing of Bob's existence, much less of the existence of
"Bob's property".
This is not theft.
Now let's turn it around. Assuming Alice came into possession of "Bob's property"
without being aware of Bob, or "his property", i.e., Alice discovered and
implemented it entirely independently.
It is now Bob, who can deprive Alice of her own property, in effect taking
the ownership of it, as well as having it in his possession.
If this is not theft, then I do not know what is.
One more time... in the event of infringement, Bob can still practice his art
and make use of his property. Alice then merely engages in competition with Bob.
In the event of patent enforcement action via the iron hand of the government,
Alice can neither exercise, nor even posses "Bob's property".
> Indeed, it is also trespass on someone's physical property. This is obvious, and brings into question your own understanding.
It really isn't. Trespass is about land, though in our modern day world of two-story buildings, it is more exactingly about space. See: http://thelawdictionary.org/trespass/
In order to work trespass into your convoluted example, you had to call upon several other ancillary crimes, like breaking and entering and the oddity about exploiting someone else's property, which I don't think is even codified.
Personally? If you want to figure out how to fix patents, I'd suggest dropping software as an example and going over to food recipes.
> Back to patents.
I don't particularly care about your clever table-turning unless you actually get the argument to hold up in a court of law. Patents are problematic: this is obvious to virtually everyone working in the tech industry and many more besides. Philosophical tricks are useless until legally recognized. It's nice to be able to play semantic word games, but it's an entirely different league to be using legal language.
Also, you seem to be under the misapprehension that I was defending patents. I am not. I'm objecting to your criticism of the word "theft".
Well, to borrow a phrase, it really isn't. Or more precisely, land is one subject area.
Take a few moments to research if you're curious, but do go beyond a law dictionary.
> that I was defending patents. I am not.
It seems we agree... then?
> I'm objecting to your criticism
Ok, fair objection. I also noticed your objection was less than friendly,
so perhaps your predisposition to the abuse of certain words is so strong,
that you will recognize that indeed, using the word theft when one intends
to convey the concept of infringement, is invalid.
This is precise legal language and meaning.
As to changes to the patent laws, I can only hope. I do also hope, that as
you say, it is obvious. The more blindingly obvious this becomes to people,
the better. So hopefully, we can close on the positive note of both hoping
for the same thing?
An interesting opinion. It'll be interesting to see if the incentives align better with the guaranteed royalties from FRAND licensing vs. as you say "potential" royalties from trolling. If they don't this is an obvious place for policy changes (not that that is likely to happen if this kind of interventionism prevents real pain for large corporations).
The problem with "the guaranteed royalties" is that they aren't really guaranteed. Samsung has been in negotiations with Apple for ages. I'm not sure who is to blame, but there sure as hell isn't a licensing agreement between them. If Samsung can't force Apple's product of the market, what is stopping Apple from never agreeing to a license?
It's signed by the US trade representative, not Obama. I don't know if this kind of thing is approved all the way at the top, but the letter uses "I" a lot suggesting it was his decision. I think the headline should at least be changed to "The Obama Administration". Also, it's not a "veto".
The law puts it in the hands of the President, see this subthead: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6153056 ; he may of course delegate his authority, but the buck stops on the desk in the Oval Office.
I'm so happy the President can take the time to address the patent system when it's in regards to giving protectionism to multi-national corporations while small businesses are drowning in frivolous patent lawsuits.
Especially when it's multi-national corporations that use patents in the worst possible way, and use any possible scheme to withhold money from taxation.
And Gruber yesterday posted a link indicating that Apple's punishment of recent e-book trial was result of Amazon's good relation with Obama administration http://daringfireball.net/linked/2013/08/02/amazon. I wonder what will he say now.
I think few people, including Gruber, expected the Obama administration would step in. It was a possibility, but it wasn’t at all likely.
As for the ebook farce: Apple was told by Capitol Hill insiders that it should increase its lobbying efforts (like Amazon and Google), otherwise bad things might happen.
And people say what incentives do companies have to cooperate with the government. This is one of them. All PRISM participants do. It's a mutually beneficial relationship.
I'm a bit lost for words on this case. On one hand, I can't help but feel it would have been good for Apple to get a taste of their own medicine. At the same time, I think this excessive patent protection is harming the industry...
In a perfect world, Apple would have never pursued Samsung in their frivolous extortion case, and this ban would never have reached the Obama admin. But this is a world motivated by cutthroat competition.
I've traced the history several times over the past few years here, but suffice to say, Apple wasn't suing anyone until the mobile phone industry realized Apple's little toy was gobbling all the profits.
Over two [now three] years ago, I argued that patent suits were how the licensing game was played among the existing players. It was considered an everyday cost of doing business by the incumbents, but Apple wasn't well prepared for this. (They've learned fast.)
This wasn't on consumers' radar because none of the fights were as interesting as the juggernauts of Apple v. Android which get framed in almost religious terms and taken personally by users who have chosen a camp.
The argument then was that Apple had not been actively litgating patents, but when Nokia (faced with dwindling profits, most of which appeared to be landing in Apple's pockets) started the fight, and Kodak piled on, Apple had to demonstrate that the patents it was using to counter these suits were patents that it was actively defending. This pushed Apple to file against HTC, and eventually against others who, again, had all been actively (but boringly) suing one another before Apple got to the table.
I mean, if you're comparing bans in Europe with bans in the U.S., they're not comparable. I don't think Korea is going to ban Samsung phones in its own country either.
So they intend to veto any product bans related to FRAND patents from this point going forward. That makes a lot of sense to me. Using standards-essential patents as legal weapons is completely unethical.
However, I can't help but wonder if the public good would've been greater served by letting a few multinational corporations like Apple feel some real patent pain. It's the only way the system will ever be overhauled.
> Using standards-essential patents as legal weapons is completely unethical.
I would argue, it's more like: "using patents as weapons is completely unethical."
And yes, it's a shame to see any patent aggressor get away with it. There is no fundamental difference between FRAND and any other patent. In all cases, independent invention is prohibited, denying inventors their natural right to gather the fruits of their labor.
Secondly, the "can't work around argument" is equally applicable to any patent discussion: unlike copyright, patent regime does not recognize the merger doctrine, placing some foundational methods at risk of being completely locked up by greedy entities.
Third, patent aggressors benefit tremendously from the work of third parties on whose shoulders they stand; patent aggression is an ugly contrast to this.
Veto just means "I forbid". It is perfectly fine to use it outside the context of the President denying his consent to legislation.
For example I could, and have, vetoed a resturant in a discussion of where to go for dinner.
In this case a decision of the International Trade Commission is presumptively valid unless the President, or his designee, forbids the ruling from going into effect -- or in other words, unless he vetoes it.
However, when you use the word "veto" in the context of the President, it implies a certain set of actions that have taken place. It actually encourages people to think those events took place, when reading the letter makes it obvious that they didn't.
This is all moot now, since they changed the headline from "Obama vetoes..." to "Obama Administration vetoes...".
The President is the only one authorized by Section 337 to take this action. Although the President assigned his authority to the trade representative on his behalf, this action is only permitted under the law to the extent it is done by the President.
(1) If the Commission determines that there is a violation of this section, or that, for purposes of subsection (e) of this section, there is reason to believe that there is such a violation, it shall—
[...]
(B) transmit to the President a copy of such determination and the action taken.... If, before the close of the 60-day period beginning on the day after the day on which he receives a copy of such determination, the President, for policy reasons, disapproves such determination and notifies the Commission of his disapproval, then, effective on the date of such notice, such determination and the action taken under subsection (d), (e), (f), (g), or (i) of this section with respect thereto shall have no force or effect."
Although there is clear legal justification for this veto, I still fear that it was issued for perverse reasons. Apple is a lobbying juggernaut and is a favorite among the Government.
Undoubtedly, Apple exerted extreme pressure on this decision, and I have severe doubts that this same conclusion would have been reached had Apple sought an embargo on Samsung products. Absurd cases and wholesale perversion of intellectual property law are nothing new in this country. Why has the administration only intervened for Apple?
It's just worrying when proper execution of the law becomes transactional.
Apple's not even in the top ten tech companies. In 2012, Google spent $18M while Apple spent $1.9M, less than Google, Microsoft, Hp, Oracle, IBM, Facebook, Intel, Cisco, Amazon, and Dell.
Key quotes: "Apple has historically spent less than its rivals on government lobbying" and "Apple's lobbying efforts were spread out pretty thinly over a wide range of issues".
Slightly off topic, but lobbying includes companies lobbying against NSA privacy contentions, so lobbying by the $ is not a good measure of wanting a "self licking icecream".
A reply to both Terretta and voodoo123: you don't suppose putting the former Democratic vice president on your board improves, not to mention leverages, lobbying "power", do you?
At the very least, whatever Al Gore is getting paid should probably get added to the official lobbying expenses.
Entirely incorrect. Evidently, you neglected to read the details of the article. First, Samsung isn't mentioned at all, so there's no context for this specific debate. The fact that Microsoft or IBM gave more money to government officials means absolutely nothing when someone is trying to to decide between Apple and Samsung. Moreover, this article pertains only to a three month period. You can't possibly pretend that this data is conclusive.
I actually looked up the empirics. First, Samsung didn't really lobby at all until last year, whereas Apple has consistently spent millions. Even when Samsung did start expanding their lobbying efforts, Apple has outspent them by more than double every year.
The article to which you linked is in no way pertinent to the discussion, and totally betrays the actual statistics.
My comment from earlier this week[1] seems extremely relevant:
And thus, too big to fail rears its head again. If we ignore laws surrounding patent restriction enforcement due to Apple's products forming the bottom line of many mobile operators offerings, then it stands to reason that the lesson learned here is it's better to become so entrenched that nobody -- not even the government -- can pull you out, rather than forming a competitive patent portfolio.
I wasn't "outraged" because it didn't affect me or mine, but I do find incidents like that distressing. Especially because, at least in Korea's case, it can compete.
One example, granted, with Google's help, is my father, who tried both an iPhone and a Galaxy, and decided the latter was better.
Apple has argued that Samsung isn't licensing their standards essential patents on FRAND terms. If that is the case, it seems reasonable to me to prevent them from threatening product bans to extract exorbitant licensing fees. In my limited understanding, that right to discriminatory license fees is waived when patents are contributed to a standard, in exchange for acceptance for use in the standard. Otherwise it would be a de facto monopoly for the patent holders, with all of the negative consequences for competition.
Have there been any other cases where a product ban has been enforced because of an FRAND patent dispute? Unless there have, claims of protectionism are unwarranted. But even if there have, that doesn't prove protectionism is in play, but rather possibly that a past wrong is being corrected.
Samsung demanded a fee equal to 2.5% of the cost of the phone. From everyone, including Apple. Apple decided this was "unreasonable" for them, demanded special treatment and refused to pay.
The ITC concluded Apple was not following the rules and not playing fairly and thus initiated the ban.
And now the administration overturns the court's decision on a whim. Keep in mind this is the same legal playground which fined Samsung 1 billion dollars for having pinch to zoom on a phone.
It's very hard to see this is anything but unfair market manipulation.
2.4%. And please cite your source that says it applied to every other licensee. My reading of the commission document indicates that all other license agreements Samsung made for this patent involved multiple SEPs from each party in cross-licensing agreements. Samsung was also trying to use its SEPs as leverage to get Apple to cross-license its non-SEPs to them at a discount to Apple's proposal. Were both parties being reasonable in their demands? Honestly, I couldn't tell from the redacted document.
Samsung blatantly copied the iPhone in many many ways. Using the pinch to zoom patent is likely similar to prosecuting the mafia for tax evasion - it wasn't their most egregious offense, but it was the only one the feds could make stick.
The ITC found the Apple could neither prove that the infringed was covered by FRAND, nor did Apple agree to what the ITC thought was a reasonable agreement. Of course the ITC considers FRAND which is exactly why Motorola's injunction against the Xbox was denied.
Citation please. From reading the Commission Opinion document, it appears to me that what was in dispute was whether Apple proved that Samsung had not made at least one FRAND offer, and even if not, whether Apple proved the ITC didn't have authority to apply an import ban because of an SEP. Commissioner Pinkert offered a dissenting opinion (from a footnote in the report):
"...Samsung does not dispute that it has made FRAND licensing commitments in regard to the '348 patent, and, as explained in his dissenting views, he has considered the evidence before the Commission in the current phase of the investigation and has found the weight of the evidence to indicate that Samsung has not made FRAND licensing terms covering the '348 patent available to Apple."
So apparently it is not clear whether Samsung made a FRAND offer to Apple. Most details of negotiations are redacted, so I cannot make a judgement. It seems irrational to me that the ITC's comments regarding the negotiations seem to require Apple to irrefutably prove Samsung's offers weren't FRAND, but don't require Samsung to prove they were FRAND. Unfortunately in this case I believe all of Samsung's other licenses involve cross-licenses of multiple SEPs from each party, so there is no easily referenced objectively reasonable license fee for the single patent.
In case of a stalemate in negotiations, I am not sure what the proper remedy should be, but an import ban on the would-be licensee seems to put far too much power into the hands of SEP licensors.
One simple way to let Apple know you don't think their abuse of the legal system is cool is to simply not buy their products. No iPhone, no iPad, no MacBook, no iStore products. simply stop feeding them money to fuel their lawyer-machine.
It's easy. Apple is by far one if the least competitive players out there one you take a look at value for money and let go of the need for a hipster-approved badge.
Almost a year mostly interested in actual hack threads and python threads. and pro keeping HN, HN, despise reddit style posts as there is a place for that and its called Reddit !
I've wanted the Obama administration to take serious action for patent reform for awhile. This is not at all the direction I was thinking he'd take, and it's disappointing to see.
I'm not sure I'm totally on board with this particular intervention as it seems to smack of the potential of favoritism; I'd have to think about that for a while after learning more about the specific case.
What is extremely encouraging is that this is a sign that the highest levels of government understand that patents don't exist for their own sake and are merely a means to an end. When the desired end result isn't reached, intervention is required. That's hopeful.
Judging by the comments here, people on HN hate Apple more than they hate patents.
Incidentally - for those suggesting that Apple should get a taste of its own medicine, what on earth are you talking about? Since when did Apple have competitors products banned?
I know political discussion on HN is frowned upon by some, but I get amused thinking of hypothetical reaction from the president's opponents. This seems to be an action against regulation of business, but it's the Obama administration, therefore... Communism! Apple is in the tank for Obamacare!
If you had any familiarly with "the president's opponents", you would know we label this as "crony capitalism" (much more akin to original formula Italian fascist corporatism), and have so since at least the 2009 cram-down of Chrysler's secured bond holders. While of course partisan, this OPED by the Republican governor of Indiana lays out the issues and some of the longer term consequences and outcomes: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142405274870356160457528...
Note Apple's board includes one "Albert Gore Jr., Former Vice President of the
United States": http://www.apple.com/pr/bios/ It's good to have friends in high places.
(Also note the cramdown was a remarkably bad long term idea; most specifically, because it ensures in the future heavily unionized companies in trouble will find it very difficult to pledge their assets for money to get themselves out of it. One of the major reasons Ford didn't have to declare bankruptcy is that its then new CEO, previously a Boeing lifer, in 2006 pledged all the company's assets to borrow $23.6 billion dollars: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alan_Mulally#Ford_Motor_Company .)
Thanks, good sir, for confirming everything I was saying.
(It's funny that you begin by assuming I am unfamiliar with such positions. Thinking they are goofy, humorous and exaggerated is very different from never having been exposed to them. It was exactly this exposure that compelled me to write this, even knowing that it would be a target of downvotes and flames.)
"Action against regulation of large corporations with good relationships with the government" is only a subset of "action against regulation of business".
It's upsetting that some proponents of this administration dismiss its critics because they presume that they dislike him categorically. It is this sort of bigoted presumption and political antagonism that is causing the erosion of political discourse in this country. This issue is not that Obama has critics, it's that some people believe that he shouldn't.
Why is it so difficult for people to accept that those who disagree with them aren't just trying to antagonize them, and may have actual, legitimate political orientations and views?
Instead of dismissing everyone with whom you disagree and painting them as irrational bigots, why don't you attempt to discuss something with them?
Some of the criticism that's raised against presidents is about personal attributes, not policy. However, this kind of criticism is not a new phenomenon, and Obama isn't the greatest victim of this. For a recent example, many people were more fond of pointing at GWB's buffoonery than the problems with his policies and the actions of his administration.
Political debate in a de-facto two party system easily turns into a fight between partisan hacks.
Actually, even left and right aren't clear in real life politics. Is "crony capitalism" right or left?
Agreed it seems as though most political reporting, especially on the partisan channels, has been reduced to irrelevant attacks based around embarrassming incidents and off-hand statements. It doesn't even seem as though people want to discus the issues.
It's upsetting that you dismiss my dismissal, because a lot of the "criticism" I do see, including in this thread, amounts to little more than a transparently knee-jerk reaction that tends to be very lazy with the details. I am not mocking every criticism of Obama I have ever seen, only the crazy people who see the word "Obama" and instantly start talking about Kenya and health care regardless of the topic, drawing comparisons with the Axis powers (yes! this happened on this thread very early!) and a whole bunch of other shit that has nothing to do with anything. I don't think you can deny that this line of thought exists in the American psyche and it has more influence than it ought to.
But I would like to make another thing clear: Obama is a center-right politician. Your first line implies that I am a "proponent of [his] administration" but I am considerably to the left of that guy. But a large component of the attitude I am mocking is that many Obama haters really don't care about the details, they just know they're against the guy. Here's a guy who's got a tax plan from George Bush, a health care plan from Dole/Gingrich and implemented by Romney, a more competent wiretapper, assassin, and immigrant-deporter than his predecessor - even if some of these critics previously held similar beliefs as Obama, they don't care about any of that, he's just Satan to them. This includes congresspeople who are now against things they previously sponsored, because it's now an Obama plan. Witness on this thread that the administration is actually blocking "government intrusion in the marketplace", and people are really just finding excuses to find faults with this because of what party it comes from. I'd say on the balance they've proved my initial assertion right, far more than I expected even from the pseudo-libertarians I am accustomed to seeing on HN.
I respect your views and sympathize with many of them, but your original comment did nothing to rationally confront the issues in the way that your second comment did. Your original post pertained to "the president's opponents," which seemed to include all of them. It just appeared as a off-handed, categorical attack, similar to the ones that you decried. I acknowledge that the reactionary, bigoted uber-right is frustrating, but immediately jumping on them in a way that didn't pertain to the the specifics of this case seemed like an unwarranted attack. I wish that you had explained your displeasure in a more thorough and thoughtful way that didn't seem like a political straw man, like you did in your second comment. Sorry if my initial response seemed condescending.
Please explain how this instance of the government choosing winners and losers arbitrarily is pro free market?
Creating arbitrary rules that don't apply to businesses who are serving the 'public interest' (politically connected) is only one step away from a planned economy.
My reading of the source material is that the administration is blocking an instance of a government entity "picking winners and losers". If you take off your John Galt Goggles maybe you would parse it that way too.
The administration blocked government intervention when it applied to their friends. Others do not get the same treatment. Did the administration dissolve the USITC? Did it declare the Tariff Act of 1930 unenforced? No, it simply picks and chooses who the rules apply to.
Can you show me the counter-example that proves this alleged favoritism? Some action by US ITC or recent enforcement of the Tariff Act that you feel is particularly egregious?
My previous experience with Obama-haters and pseudo-libertarians tells me the answer is probably no. But I am open to evidence to the contrary. Absent that I can't just assume an Apple/Obama conspiracy by default.
This is ominous, what if this is remembered as the equivalent of Smoot-Hawley? Patents are a hell of a lot more complex than tariffs... and at least the ITC is trying to do international coordination here, and Obama has just blatantly undermined them.