<It was a Policy decision influenced by Political pressures based in part on Domestic economic considerations and International trade ramifications.>
Wrong again.
If you thoroughly read the Presidents letter you whould have taken note that he referred to the case as a FRAND-encumbered SEP case. And he is critical of the ITC in not fleshing out whether this was a case of patent hold up or reverse patent hold up. Being an SEP, Samsung has committed to license the technology on a FRAND baisis to all. Obviously, there was not enough in the ITC decision that indicated whether Samsung made fair and reasonable offers to Apple, or that Apple was being unreasonable.
If the above is accurate, I believe the President's decision was guided entirely by policy. Unless the potential licensee is acting in bad faith (apparently not shown) the burden is on the SEP. And that is the way it should be with an SEP.
But you see Politics and International Trade guiding his decision. I must have read a different letter than you.
Opty
