Slashdot Mirror

The ITC begs to differ with you. 35% on imported blue vein cheese, for example, and plenty of tariffs on vehicle parts.

The full title being the United States International Trade Commission and in this case functioning as the lobbying arm of the native US solar power industry. What's this self serving political waffle doing on a technology forum.

"The United States International Trade Commission is an .. federal agency of the United States .. The President nominates and the U.S. Senate confirms the six commissioners who make up the USITC"

MRI machines
http://hts.usitc.gov/?query=re...

Have no US tariff, this would allow us to sell more machines overseas to countries that have just eliminated their tariffs

You can look up the products and see which ones have US-sided tariffs that are being eliminated

For example, non-volatile memory
http://hts.usitc.gov/?query=85...

Switches and routers
http://hts.usitc.gov/?query=85... ...have no existing US tariffs, and we would benefit from other countries dropping their barriers to trade

However, stereoscopic microscopes enjoy a 5-7% US tariff, and will see competition

It will take a while to sort out, but this may work in our advantage

You can look up the products and see which ones have US-sided tariffs that are being eliminated

For example, non-volatile memory
http://hts.usitc.gov/?query=85...

Switches and routers
http://hts.usitc.gov/?query=85... ...have no existing US tariffs, and we would benefit from other countries dropping their barriers to trade

However, stereoscopic microscopes enjoy a 5-7% US tariff, and will see competition

It will take a while to sort out, but this may work in our advantage

The economists love to say that trade is great for everyone.

You are correct. Economists do love to say that trade is great for everyone. The reason that economists love to say that trade is great for everyone is because it's true, and economists love to say true things. (Exception: exporters who face stiffer competition from foreign suppliers.)

But they assume that all parties have an equal amount of advantages and disadvantages.

What! Nothing could be further from the truth! Economists would never say that because they love avoiding saying untrue things.

There is this illusion of comparative advantage.

Illusion! It's a mathematical near-certainty. The only way that two countries could have no comparative advantage would be if the productivity of First Country divided by the productivity of Second Country were the same ratio for every product that either of them makes.

But at least with the US we are making trade deals for the sole purpose of businesses lowering their costs to boost profits and make their shareholders richer and their CEOs even richer; while we little people lose opportunities and jobs and stagnant wages.

We do make trade deals so that businesses can lower their costs, but that's not the sole purpose. It's also so that consumers can buy things at lower prices. People do lose opportunities and jobs when they are employed at making things that can be made more cheaply elsewhere, but they gain jobs when they are employed at making things that can be made more cheaply here. The neat thing about comparative advantage is that the latter must exist.

Protectionism? Absolutely not!

Protectionism? Ubiquitous! Exactly how much can be found here

What we need is a business environment like Germany's where government, business and labor all work together for society's overall prosperity.

What you need to do is give me all of your money and all of your possessions and, for a nominal fee that I'll determine at my sole discretion, I'll make sure that it's used to best effect.

In the US, labor needs much more power (unions) and business needs to be taken down a few notches.

What we need is for the government to have far less power. If they had, there there would be no incentives for business to lobby them for exclusive advantages for themselves. What we need is for labor to have exactly as much power as businesses. If businesses can't have a monopoly on goods, then labor shouldn't have a monopoly on services.

~Loyal

this IS from one of the sub-departments of DHS; I'm not surprised that they didn't really bother to read the line that says "Color is not claimed as a feature of the mark."

DHS probably read the published general exclusion order (pp. 7-10 of the .pdf), which, like Fluke's trademark registration certificate, does not disclaim or exclude color.

This just highlights the need for adding an appeals process to the whole thing.

Like this one?. Item (b)(4)?

(that and perhaps ICE needs some basic legalese comprehension requirements for their agents)

ICE doesn't look at the USPTO's Trademark Status & Document Retrieval system. They look at the ITC exclusion order. The ITC looks at the actual trademark registration certificate. Only the Slashdot crowd unquestioningly accepts the first semi-official looking document provided to them by an anonymous reader and/or Soulskill.

http://www.usitc.gov/publicati...

"* Certain Digital Multimeters, and Products with Multimeter Functionality
Investigation No. 337-TA-588
(Publication No. 4210; December 2010)"

from http://www.usitc.gov/intellect...

(Warning 162 page pdf)

Basically Fluke was a party behind the Trade investigation as to importations of comparable-appearing knockoffs.

I have no horse in this race; I don't use multimeters and couldn't care less who wins (although I tend to be a free-marketeer, generally). Imagegoogling for both, some of them look remarkably similar. I'd say the block was justified. If a bunch got through before the ban was enforced, that doesn't mean the ban was unjust or arbitrary.

http://www.usitc.gov/publicati...

"* Certain Digital Multimeters, and Products with Multimeter Functionality
Investigation No. 337-TA-588
(Publication No. 4210; December 2010)"

from http://www.usitc.gov/intellect...

(Warning 162 page pdf)

Basically Fluke was a party behind the Trade investigation as to importations of comparable-appearing knockoffs.

I have no horse in this race; I don't use multimeters and couldn't care less who wins (although I tend to be a free-marketeer, generally). Imagegoogling for both, some of them look remarkably similar. I'd say the block was justified. If a bunch got through before the ban was enforced, that doesn't mean the ban was unjust or arbitrary.

Samsung obtained a ban using Standards Essential, FRAND patents

The substance of the original ITC ban on Apple notes that Samsung offered Apple FRAND access via a standard percentage licence fee for the FRAND patents. What is unusual is that Apple refused to pay that licence fee but then did not return with a counter-offer. Apple basically refused to negotiate and continued importing products using the patents but without paying anything. Given Apple's refusal to even begin negotiating that seems evident bad faith, the ITC had no option but to decide against them

Of course, now that Obama vetoed that decision, now you have the absurd position where a hold of patents essential for the operation of a technology is not getting paid for them by a major patent abuser, and now has limited recourse. Whereas the holder of some minor design and questionable methods patents has a new import ban still standing. So thanks to Obama's protectionism, we've entered topsy turvy patent land, where essential patents become worthless, and design patents become coin.

Most other imported finished goods have no tariffs.

Heh - you're cute. While many finished products don't have a tariff - arms aren't exactly in a small group of tariffed goods.

Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States
http://hts.usitc.gov/

I file an individual HTS classification for each line item

The HTS is a fascinating bit of work. For people that don't know, the Harmonized Tariff Schedule is a US government published document that classifies just about every conceivable good and assigns tariffs, duties, etc. It is huge and is now only published in electronic form.

As the parent wrote, most finished goods in the HTS are 0% tariff. There are many things in the HTS with tariffs, but if it's a finished good it is usually exempt from any cost whatsoever. Some exceptions include small arms and autos; the UAW negotiated a 25% domestic value-add requirement in the '80s if foreign manufacturers wish to avoid tariffs. That one requirement is the sole reason that all auto manufacturing hasn't evacuated the US. Today there are dozens of foreign owned auto plants in the southern US writing paychecks to thousands of US workers because of that law.

No other nation is as import friendly as the US. Unless your nation has imams and muftis actively operating uranium isotope centrifuges in a bunker somewhere then you too can export to the US tariff free. You can wreck the environment to whatever degree you wish, abuse, neglect or contaminate however many people you want and it won't even slow down your goods as they get whisked into the US.

That's what domestic manufacturers and the US working class have to compete with for 80% of all finished goods in the US.

The title of the complaint is Certain Wireless Communication Equipment and Articles Therein. That description would apply to dozens, no: hundreds, of patent lawsuits in the world.

"The title of the complaint is 'State v. Jones'. That description would apply to dozens, no: hundreds, of criminal actions in the world."

Similar concept. The title is irrelevant, Subby. It simply identifies the general subject matter as a way of checking to see if you've got the right suit, because if you have a single digit typo in your case number, you might get "Balloon Dissection Devices" or "Olive Oil" or "Ground Fault Interrupters and Products". I'm not sure whether this was an attempt to spread FUD or simple ignorance, but either way, stop it.

If this was "made public" today, why is [sic] there so many articles from August 20th, when it was submitted?

Because the USITC acted on it yesterday.

The bits about AMDs motion is in the second to last paragraph.

The actual finding

Anyways, give it a read before discussing what it says.

but wait, this is slashdot, rtfa? nah

Apple lost just about their entire claim against Nokia, when half the patents they were seeking to enforce were declared invalid by the FTC, and the rest dismissed as not being infringed.

It would be interesting to see Apple now try to enforce those patents declared invalid against Motorola et al.

This all started when Apple refused to pay consortium of GSM patent holders fees that all other GSM manufacturers subscribe to, some how feeling the were above the law.

You're delusional. Firstly, it's not the Federal Trade Commision (FTC) involved in the Nokia suing Apple and Apple counter suing case. It's the United States International Trade Commission [USITC).

Source: USITC (pdf)

http://www.usitc.gov/secretary/fed_reg_notices/337/337_701_notice04222010sgl.pdf

READ THE DOCUMENT. The update gives the status moved between May 31, 2011 -- August 1, 2011.

Research seems to be a difficult commodity to come by these days.

Really? They have judges, lawyers, clerks, hearings and all the trappings of a court.

Quote their home page: The Commission also adjudicates cases involving imports that allegedly infringe intellectual property rights. "Adjudicates" implies court.

Further quote: Section 337 investigations, which are conducted pursuant to 19 U.S.C. 1337 and the Administrative Procedure Act, include trial proceedings before administrative law judges and review by the Commission.

They have been "discussing" this for some time now, if you had not noticed.

Further, Apple and Nokia are not tying up normal or federal courts with this issue: The filings are with the ITC (International Trade Commission).

The mission of the Commission is to (1) administer U.S. trade remedy laws within its mandate in a fair and objective manner; (2) provide the President, USTR, and Congress with independent analysis, information, and support on matters of tariffs, international trade, and U.S. competitiveness; and (3) maintain the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTS).

If Amazon moves overseas, everything they ship into the US is subject to import duties. Import duties are generally much higher than sales taxes.

Actually, that's not the case. Import duties are typically LOWER than sales taxes; you can look at the import duties here. And for many countries there are zero duties applied to all their products imported.

Here in Amazon's home State, Washington, there is a 6.5% State sales tax, and in Seattle the total sales tax is 10%. If you're buying an iPod boom box in Seattle, you pay 10%; if you import that item from China you pay 4.9%, and if you import it from India you pay 0%.

Note that the import tariff schedule is also a LOT simpler than the sales tax fiasco across the nation... It would be a LOT simpler for Amazon to work with the USITC duty schedule as compared to the literally hundreds of thousands of taxation jurisdictions across the US, and the level of tax or duty would often be lower for consumer as well.

California is getting zero tax revenue from Amazon at the moment.

And why should they? CA gets no tax revenue if I drive from Riverside to Las Vegas and buy a shirt in Nevada; why should a purchase completed in another State (the financial transaction doesn't happen in CA) be taxed inside CA? CA - and all States - have use taxes that citizens are to pay for products acquired outside the State. That the people don't report and don't pay says a lot about the feasibility of such taxation.

How can you show that Amazon shipped to a CA resident without the CA resident reporting? Should the State set up and monitor all package shipments into and out from the State, to ensure they aren't commercial products?

And what if I - residing in WA - buy a gift for a friend in CA. I bought it, I paid for it, I reside in WA so I must pay WA sales tax (Amazon is here). But it is shipped to CA, so does CA get to claim sales tax as well?

Sorry, but Japan is #4, after Canada, China and Mexico. http://dataweb.usitc.gov/scripts/cy_m3_run.asp

--
.nosig

Legally speaking IP infringement is not "OK".

In practice ... it's another story entirely.

Why is she requesting that all imports of the tech in question be stopped? Doesn't this sort of thing usually just end with a licensing agreement? The inventor gets paid, and everybody goes on. The article doesn't mention that she is involved with any sort of competitor, so it just seems sort of malevolent for her to try and put a halt to the entire market.
I certainly hope there is a better explanation, though.

She is requesting blocking of imports because that's the basic remedy an intellectual property right holder gets with the International Trade Commission. I don't think it is even possible to get damages for infringement in the ITC (although a regular lawsuit to go after damages can still be filed). You also can't use ITC proceedings to prevent infringement within the country.

Some advantages of going to the ITC include speedy proceedings (so you're not still engaged in the suit 10 years later) and enforcement of exclusion orders by customs. Because the ability to import a set of goods is often vital, the threat of such exclusion orders can provide a powerful motivation to license if it appears likely that the plaintiff will win.

Another advantage is that the ITC is fairly specialized. It has people who really know the law and can pick up on technical nuances readily. ITC decisions may be higher-quality than the decisions that come from the district courts because either party can demand a jury in patent cases in the district courts and because district courts do not have the specialized legal knowledge and experience with technical cases.

With the word "threatening" I referred to the essence of your post, which is to deny that Trend Micro accused ClamAV of patent infringement. It did. Denial of the main issue on a mere point of phrasing is not the way an honest debate is conducted, let alone with the language you seem believe is appropriate for you to use.

Apparently I have to be a little more precise to deny you any wiggle room that might allow you to use a loose phrase on my part as a cop-out. Well, here goes.

See this link:

http://www.usitc.gov/ext_relations/news_release/2007/er1221ee4.htm

The investigation is based on a complaint filed by Trend Micro Incorporated of Cupertino, CA, on November 21, 2007. The complaint alleges violations of section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930 in the importation into the United States of certain systems for detecting and removing viruses and worms, components thereof, and products containing same that infringe a patent owned by Trend Micro. The complainant requests that the ITC issue an exclusion order and cease and desist orders.

See the highlighted bits? Just to make things explicit for you: they show that Trend Micro really *did* accuse Barracuda of patent infringement. It did this by filing a complaint with the United States International Trace Commissions (USITC). Notwithstanding the fact that the USITC is not a district court, this clearly shows that Groklaw's report is correct, and your off-hand opinion is wrong.

Having settled that, the ZDnet article notes that Trend Micro had sent Barracuda a lengthy series of legal correspondence pointing out that in their view Barracude either had to pay them or stop using the OSS program ClamAV. Now the only ground they could have claimed that on is by pointing out that Barracuda used CLamAV which, allegedly, infringes on Trend Micro's patent. Since the end user is responsible for patent infringement of OSS software they user, this in effect means that Trend Micro accused Barracuda of patent infringement. So the ZNnet article I cited shows the same thing, namely your claim that Trend Micro did not accuse Barracude of patent infringement is wrong and Groklaw's representation is right albeit not as authoritativelty as the press release from the USITC.

Actually, the only remedy available at the ITC is an injunction - they CANNOT award damages. The "Section 337" jurisdiction of the ITC is all about international unfair trade practices, generally patent or trademark violations. If they find unfair trade under the act, they get the Immigration and Customs Enforcement people (formerly Customs and Border Patrol) to stop the import of infringing foreign goods. Some more information is available at http://www.usitc.gov/trade_remedy/int_prop/index.htm.

I am not a lawyer, I am not licensed to practice in any jurisdiction, and this is not legal advice.

A federal agency has banned imports of new cellphones made with Qualcomm semiconductors

Did anyone notice in the actual ITC Filing that they sent in along with the complaint a Creative Zen, an iPod and a nano to "actually see the similarities"? Heck, I'll bet that the judge will throw the case out after he sees exactly how much the Zen sucks.

I just checked customs.gov, I found this. (pdf) It seems to indicate that importing books is free. Has anyone else gotten a customs bill for importing textbooks? I'd really like to know since I'm now seriously thinking about using amazon.co.uk next semester.

Ask the Canadians about hard wood lumber or the Europeans about bananas or Detroit about selling cars in Japan

And any tax rate times $0 is still zero. You already pay duty, sales or value added taxes when you buy a distro now but that is not on the free software. What happens if other countries put a tariff on proprietary U.S. software

If they want to strangle their own economy then so be it. It will make their raw materials and goods cheaper for us to import.

If you find the export of US tech jobs to India offensive (and the same process is happening in Europe, Japan and just about every other developed economy) then fine, make a moral stand. Hell, I won't be the one to argue with you. But bear in mind that the reason you can buy clothes, for instance, as cheaply as you can is that the jobs producing those things have been exported, too.

The percentage of U.S. citizens who make a living in Agriculture is at an all time low

Just a few observations.

If you don't have the balls to log in before you call me a liar, you should just keep your mouth shut. By the way, you posted a malformed URL. Furthermore, if you don't know what you're talking about, you should just keep your mouth shut before you stick your foot in it.

I don't have any doubt that Hynix has been subsidized to keep it afloat. So what. Let the Koreans throw money at Hynix all they want. It's probably a part of their industrial policy, much like Chrysler bailout in the 80's. The Korean clearly feel it's in their countries best interest to have a DRAM producer. Again, so what.

Micron's argument is that Hynix has dumped it's RAM on the US market at an extremely reduced price while being support by gov't subsidies. I agree it if the S. Korean gov't is financing Hynix losses caused by dumping, they should be punished with protective duties. So show me the evidence of dumping. I'll even give you a direct link to the investigation opinion. Here's a direct quote: ...we determine that there is a reasonable indication that the dometic industry producing DRAM products is materially injured by reason of subject import of DRAM..." In other words, there is indication that Micron might be injured by competition from Korea. Show me the proof of dumping, i.e. drastic price differential between foreign and domestic prices for Korean DRAM, heavy increase of imports into the US of Korean DRAM, etc.

I live in Boise, ID, headquarters of Micron Technology. Micron is the the largest private employer in Boise (and Idaho, for that matter), so criticizing the company is often risky business considering all the company loyals in town, as well as the clout they hold on local leaders. There has been almost no direct negative press about MU in the local newpapers or media.

In January, Micron CEO Steve Appleton held a press conference and announced a "product misstep" was to blame for several quarters of steep losses. This "misstep" is Micron's leapfrog to DDR400, which essentially left them out of the hot market for all of 2002. This press conference was covered lightly, and the media certainly didn't dwell on it this revelation.

By March, nearly everybody had forgotten about Appleton's admission of "misstep"ing the company into perpetual quarterly losses, and decided to go on the spin campaign. Another press conference was called to announce the company's losses were the fault of subsidized Korean chip maker Hynix. This time, every media outlet in driving distance was notified. U.S. Senator Mike Crapo was on hand to lend his support for the home-town corporation and blast the Korean government for propping up Hynix and running Micron into the ground. This story ran for several days in the local media.

Appleton masterfully deflected earnings shortcomings from himself to the Koreans, and at the same time positioned Micron to be the beneficiary of "emergency" protection from the the US International Trade Commision, the body who deals with trade complaints from US companies. Interestingly, according to US trade law, it is not necessary for the ITC to have conclusive evidence of dumping/subsidies/etc to grant short-term protective tariffs. They need only have proof that there may be "unfair" trade practices taking place. In addition, the ITC may levy countervailing duties against foreign offenders if a company is harned, or may be harmed, by fair and legal trade .

As with most protection, the consumer ends up footing the bill. The greatly inceased duty on Korean chips will drive up the price in the DRAM market and force US consumers to pay artifically high prices. Meanwhile, Micron recovers and Appleton saves face. These duties are NOT about Korean subsidies, they are about Micron trade protection wrapped in an All-American, patriotic, apple-pie-loving shell.

Just remember who's paying for the "product misstep": YOU!!!

A lot of people are talking about U.S. tariffs possibly being the reason desktop and TV LCDs are more expensive that notebook LCDs. I don't know if they actually are more expensive or not, as I'm writing this on a Cornea Systems MP704B 17" LCD I got from Amazon for about $350 that suits me just fine (450:1 contrast ratio). I'm no lawyer or anything, but it seems to me that information from the U.S. Harmonized Tariff Schedule might help in sorting this out.

Heading 8528.12 (reception apparatus for television, whether or not incorporating radiobroadcast receivers or sound or video recording or reproducing apparatus) states that, from most countries, there is no tariff on screens smaller than 13.5in (34.29cm), and on larger screens only a 3.9% (recording) or 5% (non-recording) tariff. A lot of countries are also excluded from these tariffs, but I'm not sure where to dig up the codes.

Check it out for yourselves:
http://dataweb.usitc.gov/SCRIPTS/tariff/0301c85.pd f

Well free trade works both ways. Like it or not you have to compete with programmers all over the world.

Where did you get the idea that we had "free trade"? Have you ever examined the import tariffs on foreign goods? Try checking out this web page and maybe you'll have a better understanding of our "free trade" policies.

You can try to fight it all you want. It didn't work for the 80's auto-workers and it won't work for you.

There are many auto-workers employed in the U.S. Many foreign manufacturers, including Honda and Nissan, now have plants here that employ U.S. auto-workers. The reason for this is import tariffs on foreign cars and components made it more attractive to pay Americans a good wage than to pay a lower wage to foreign workers. And Japan has horrendous tariffs on American goods, so please don't portray America as the big bully in all of this.

Adapt and survive, adapt or die.

So by "adapt", do you mean "lower your standard of living, take a demeaningly low wage, and accept that it's too late for you to change professions"?

Beijing San Huan New Material High-tech, Inc., China National Non-Ferrous Metals Import & Export Corporation, and an investment group led by Sextant Group, Inc. acquire Magnequench and establish Magnequench International, Inc

"Notice : In the United States of America and Canada, you may use Sintered Neodymium-Iron-Boron Permanet Magnets, as the piece part magnet or as it's assembly, manufactured by the [above] licensees ONLY. Use of Sintered Neodymium-Iron-Boron Permanent Magnets made by non-licensee is prohibited by the Patent Law of the United States of America and Canada."

The ITC (or any other international trade group: UNCITRAL ) doesn't appreciate dumping, so any price change must be justified by cost, to a point. Granted, Sony would never be able to pull of the PS2 if they had to sell it for $700, but the price is roughly the same everywhere. Anyway...