The Justice Department and the Patent Office are against imposing product-sales bans for IP...

The Justice Department and the Patent Office are against imposing product-sales bans for IP infringements except in very rare cases, the agencies said yesterday. They also appealed to the ITC to give the public interest - i.e. that "exclusion orders are inappropriate" - the top priority when deciding sanctions for patent breaches. The comments come against a background of the global IP war between the top mobile phone players.

From other sites
Comments (12)
  • Simont
    , contributor
    Comments (986) | Send Message
    Without exclusion order authority the ITC is useless and superfluous. Either abolish it or leave its authority alone.
    9 Jan 2013, 04:04 AM Reply Like
  • RDSwindells
    , contributor
    Comments (20) | Send Message
    It is in the public interest to have patents protected. Without limited (in time) patent protection there will be no innivation as inventors will have no economic incentive.
    9 Jan 2013, 04:57 AM Reply Like
  • css1971
    , contributor
    Comments (871) | Send Message
    The exact opposite is true. Innovations are rapidly disseminated and built upon.
    If computer software had been patentable in the early stages of operating systems we would all still be using MS-DOS and such things as the Internet, the world wide web and Google would simply not exist.
    9 Jan 2013, 03:03 PM Reply Like
  • PhilipJD
    , contributor
    Comments (2) | Send Message
    @RDSwindells: that was true but then companies started patenting rounded corners and swiping your finger from left to right.
    The patent frenzy has gone too far and it's smothering small innovative businesses with expensive law suits over issues that are hardly technology breakthroughs.
    9 Jan 2013, 07:13 AM Reply Like
  • chabig
    , contributor
    Comments (656) | Send Message
    Fortunately, round corners and the act of swiping a finger are unpatentable, so you comment is really moot.
    9 Jan 2013, 10:28 AM Reply Like
  • Tomyork
    , contributor
    Comment (1) | Send Message
    The current philosophy in Washington is to re distribute to the many, at the expense of the few. Individual sacrifice and success is to be punished and mediocrity is to be rewarded. Tihis is the way for the government to expands its control. It does not happen all at ounce they implement this stratagy one crisis at at a time. Before you know it we as Americans will be dependent on the federal government for our entire existence. Intellectual property and patents are just one more example. Unfortunately any student of history knows just how poorly this out for those who embrace it in the end.
    9 Jan 2013, 07:25 AM Reply Like
  • hooridian
    , contributor
    Comments (14) | Send Message
    Right on! Much of what has been pushed by the Obama White House fits this mold. Obamacare is not about healthcare or the costs involved, it is about control. Since parts of it have met resistance it is now important for them to remove private guns, (politicians fear retaliation).
    9 Jan 2013, 12:34 PM Reply Like
  • BE94566
    , contributor
    Comments (4) | Send Message
    Patent protection IS a legal artifice created by the federal government. The federal government controls it without exception. To claim that an adjustment in the approach to patent protection is an expansion of federal control makes no sense. In my opinion, the marketplace should decide, not the federal government who are the winners and losers. And, since everyone seems to advocate a "free marketplace" I suggest we do away with patent protection entirely!
    9 Jan 2013, 03:12 PM Reply Like
  • TimMc
    , contributor
    Comments (21) | Send Message
    It is not always in public interest to have patent protection. I read a news like 10+ years ago a company patented online sales. Can you imagine a company enforcing every e-commerce sites to pay him for their online sales. The cost will have been passed to online buyers.
    9 Jan 2013, 07:48 AM Reply Like
    , contributor
    Comments (166) | Send Message
    Well before reading the article, I thought it was a green light rip off other people's ideas. however, the article is only speaking about standards essential patents. The whole idea seems to be to encourage reasonable license fees and discourage superfluous lawsuits which would benefit everyone.
    9 Jan 2013, 07:54 AM Reply Like
  • jasaggie
    , contributor
    Comments (78) | Send Message
    How about if you didn't invent/innovate/create something, you can't use it without the permission of the person/organization that did invent/innovate/create something?
    9 Jan 2013, 09:12 AM Reply Like
  • pocohonta
    , contributor
    Comments (661) | Send Message
    This article did not convey the whole story: the White House's position paper refers to the FRAND (industry standard setting patents that must be shared and allowed for fair use) and and discourages banning of FRAND related patents.
    9 Jan 2013, 01:54 PM Reply Like
DJIA (DIA) S&P 500 (SPY)
ETF Screener: Search and filter by asset class, strategy, theme, performance, yield, and much more
ETF Performance: View ETF performance across key asset classes and investing themes
ETF Investing Guide: Learn how to build and manage a well-diversified, low cost ETF portfolio
ETF Selector: An explanation of how to select and use ETFs