Except that the ITC ruled that Samsung in fact did NOT fail its FRAND obligations. Please read the original ruling before spreading things that simply are not t

Except that the ITC ruled that Samsung in fact did NOT fail its FRAND obligations. Please read the original ruling before spreading things that simply are not true. On top of that, the ITC raised considerable doubt about whether or not the patent was even a SEP to begin with. Quite ironically, when Samsung submitted the patent in question to SETI because it "may" be essential, Apple itself argued that the patent was NOT essential (page 50 of the ITC ruling). http://essentialpatentblog.com/2013/07/itc-releases-public-version-of-the-commission-opinion-and-dissent-in-samsung-apple-case-337-ta-794/ http://essentialpatentblog.com/2013/07/itc-releases-public-v... This is a protectionist move by Obama, nothing more, nothing less. Had the tables been reversed - an ITC ban on a Samsung product with the exact same ruling - Obama would not have stepped in. Anyone who has read the ITC ruling knows what's really going on.