Obama administration overrules Apple import ban

FILE - In this May 27, 2011, file photo, a salesperson at a mobile phone shop displays an Apple iPhone 4 to a customer in New Delhi. U.S. President Obama?s trade representative on Saturday, Aug. 3, 2013, vetoed a ban on imports of the iPhone 4 and some variations of the iPad 2, reversing a ruling in favor of rival South Korean electronics company Samsung. (AP Photo/Manish Swarup, File)

FILE - In this May 27, 2011, file photo, a salesperson at a mobile phone shop displays an Apple iPhone 4 to a customer in New Delhi. U.S. President Obama?s trade representative on Saturday, Aug. 3, 2013, vetoed a ban on imports of the iPhone 4 and some variations of the iPad 2, reversing a ruling in favor of rival South Korean electronics company Samsung. (AP Photo/Manish Swarup, File)

President Obama's trade representative on Saturday vetoed a ban on imports of some Apple iPads and older iPhones, dealing a setback to rival South Korean electronics company Samsung.

U.S. Trade Representative Michael Froman overruled a June decision by the U.S. International Trade Commission, which had banned imports of the iPhone 4 and some variations of the iPad 2. The commission ruled that the Chinese-made Apple devices violated a patent held by Samsung and couldn't be imported. The ban never went into effect, though, because the Obama administration had 60 days to decide if it would uphold the commission.

Obama is against import bans on the basis of the type of patent at issue in the Samsung case. The White House has recommended that Congress limit the ITC's ability to impose import bans in these cases.

Samsung and Apple are in a global legal battle over smartphones. Apple argues Samsung's Android phones copy vital iPhone features. Samsung is fighting back with its own complaints.

In an email, Apple spokeswoman Kristin Huguet said the company applauded the administration "for standing up for innovation." A message seeking comment from Samsung was not returned.

Froman wrote in a letter to the commission that he has concerns about patent holders getting too much leverage over competitors that use their technology under licenses.

Companies license patented technology to competitors so the devices can communicate as part of an industry standard for cellphones. Under the "standards-essential patent" legal theory prevailing in federal courts, holders of such patents are obligated to license them to all comers on "fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory" terms.

U.S. courts have ruled that such patents cannot be the basis for import bans. The International Trade Commission follows a different standard than the courts, but the Obama administration wants it to adhere to the same principles.

Froman wrote that he shares the Obama administration's concerns that the holders of standards-essential patents could get "undue leverage" over their competitors.

Last year, a federal court ruled that Samsung owed Apple $1 billion in damages for infringing on non-essential Apple patents. But the judge refused to impose an import ban on Samsung phones and later struck $450 million from the verdict, saying the jurors miscalculated. The case is set for a rematch in appeals court.

Samsung is the world's largest maker of smartphones. Analysts estimate it outsold Apple nearly 2 to 1 in the first three months of the year. However, Apple's smartphone business is more profitable

The iPhone 4 was launched in 2010 and is the oldest iPhone still sold by Apple. The ITC ruling applied only to the AT&T version of the phone. Apple is likely to retire the model.

Apple launched the iPad 2 in 2011. The ruling applies only to the version equipped with a cellular modem for AT&T's network.

The ruling also applies to older iPhones, though these are no longer sold by Apple.

Associated Press

Source: http://hosted2.ap.org/APDEFAULT/3d281c11a96b4ad082fe88aa0db04305/Article_2013-08-03-Samsung-Apple-Import%20Ban/id-f00a1412de4a45d1a9c1445f3e541ca4

andrew lloyd webber obscura grok cirque du freak pope joan pope joan strawberry festival

What others say: Late-term abortion ban is a worthy GOP goal

Sen. Larry Taylor, R-Friendswood, speaks as Texas Senate debates abortion bill HB2, Friday, July 12, 2013, in Austin, Texas. The bill would require doctors to have admitting privileges at nearby hospitals, only allow abortions in surgical centers, dictate when abortion pills are taken and ban abortions after 20 weeks. (AP Photo/Eric Gay)

Eric Gay, AP

Enlarge photo?

In a poll done by Gallup earlier this year, the biggest complaint lodged against the Republican Party was "inability to compromise."

When I read the daily headlines, I see this theme continue. Republicans, particularly tea party Republicans, are portrayed as obstructionist, extreme, unreasonable and unwilling to compromise.

But let's get perspective.

If we are talking about trying to decide what day of the week to collect garbage, and one wants Mondays and one wants Fridays, the side that refuses to compromise on Wednesdays might be considered unreasonable.

But this isn't the kind of national discussion we are having today.

Some things are simply true and some things false. Some things are simply right and some wrong.

This kind of discussion does not lend to splitting things down the middle.

Few today would look back on the horrible national dispute about slavery and claim that the problem was inability to compromise.

As Abraham Lincoln put it so clearly in his second inaugural address, delivered while the Civil War still raged: "Both (sides) read the same Bible and pray to the same God, and each invokes His aid against the other."

Sometimes, worldviews clash and resolution can come only from drawing the line in the sand and one view prevailing over the other.

Today we are having a battle for the soul of our nation. A number of key areas of our national debate are about principle, about right and wrong, and do not lend themselves to compromise. This is about which worldview will prevail.

One of these issues is most certainly abortion.

The trial of abortion doctor Kermit Gosnell, now a convicted murderer, delivered a wakeup call. It did for our national consciousness what ultrasound images provoke in a pregnant woman. Graphic pictures of a live child in the womb purge any sense that it is possible to be casual about abortion.

Unfortunately, the abortion issue - and, specifically, the question about when life begins - is often left to dry and abstract argument.

But in the case of late-term abortion, as with ultrasound pictures, the truth is graphically clear. We're talking about destruction of a live, feeling human being. The Gosnell trial showed the nation that in American today, we have abortion factories where live children are being killed.

The fact that a child of 21 weeks may still be in the womb does not make that child any less alive.

But clear as this may be to some, it is not clear to all - just as in 1860 it was not clear to all that this nation could not tolerate slavery.

The current fight to ban late-term abortion - at 20 weeks, or five months, after conception - is by and large a partisan battle of Republicans against Democrats.

The Republican House has passed legislation to ban abortion after 20 weeks, with qualifications for the life and health of the mother. Now this critical issue must be put to a vote in the Democrat-controlled Senate.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid has called this a "fringe" issue. Murder a fringe issue? Can there be any doubt that we are dealing with a clash in worldviews?

Republicans must carry this bill aggressively into the Senate. Pressure must be put especially on Senate Democrats up for re-election in states that lean pro-life, such as Mary Landrieu from Louisiana, Mark Pryor from Arkansas and Kay Hagan from North Carolina.

Perhaps this is a good time to recall George Washington's words "that virtue or morality is a necessary spring of popular government."

No, this is not a time for compromise. The nation is confused, far adrift from its moral moorings. Republicans must grab the reins aggressively and provide, without compromise, the moral leadership needed so badly.

Star Parker is an author and president of CURE, Coalition on Urban Renewal and Education. Contact her at www.urbancure.org.

Source: http://www.deseretnews.com/article/865584007/What-others-say--Late-term-abortion-ban-is-a-worthy-GOP-goal.html

adam scott venezuela xbox live aurora borealis Psy Cat Zingano DMX

Understanding the Repercussions of Florida's No-Fault Auto ...

July 31, 2013 /24-7PressRelease/ ? The Florida legislature recently made changes to the state?s no-fault auto insurance laws that took affect this past January. The changes are significant and increase limitations on insurance coverage.

In the state of Florida, every driver purchasing auto insurance must purchase a minimum of $10,000 in Personal Injury Protection, or PIP, protection. This protection essentially pays for expenses like medical bills and lost wages, to an individual injured in an auto accident, regardless of fault.

However, amid the legislature?s actions, PIP coverage and other areas of Florida?s no-fault auto law today are much more restrictive.

Benefits contingent on 14-day treatment timeframe

One new change involves a 14 day contingency on payment of PIP medical expenses.

Before January of this year, anyone injured in a car accident in the state of Florida could receive the PIP benefits as stipulated under his or her insurance policy.

However, as of January 1, 2013, anyone injured in a car accident in the state of Florida is entitled to these PIP benefits only if they have sought treatment for the injuries sustained within 14 days of the accident.

If they fail to seek treatment during this time frame, all expenses under PIP must be paid out of pocket.

Emergency medical condition diagnosis

Another change to Florida?s no-fault insurance laws includes the ?emergency medical condition? requirement.

This essentially means that before anyone injured in an auto accident can collect the full $10,000 in allowable PIP benefits, he or she must first be diagnosed with an ?emergency medical condition? by a licensed medical professional. If that person is not, he or she is only entitled to $2500 in PIP benefits.

An emergency medical condition is essentially a condition that requires immediate medical attention due to the seriousness of the condition or injury.

Prohibition against message therapy, acupuncture benefits

Another change to the law includes a prohibition on benefits for message or acupuncture treatments.

Individuals injured in an auto accident after January 2013 must now pay for these expenses out of pocket, even if prescribed by a physician or chiropractor.

Ramifications

Opponents of the changes argue that there?s a long list of problems with these new restrictions on auto insurance coverage for policyholders in Florida. One Judicial Circuit Court judge stated that the new limitations on the Florida no-fault auto insurance system is an inadequate alternative to the tort system and issued an injunction to stop the law from being implemented. On appeal, however, a stay was granted and the law went back into effect.

Since the changes are seemingly here to stay, seeking the help of an accident attorney as soon as possible after the auto accident today is more vital than ever.

A lawyer knowledgeable in the specifics of the changes and other intricate areas of Florida?s no-fault auto law can make sure rights are protected and seek the maximum amount of benefits available under the law.

As seen on 24-7 Press Release

Source: http://www.injurysolutions.com/news/understanding-the-repercussions-of-floridas-no-fault-auto-insurance-law-changes/

apple earnings report john l smith apple earnings the glass castle jennifer hudson trial north korea threat brandon jacobs

Trans Americans Twice As Likely to Serve in Military, Study Reveals

While transgender people are twice as likely to serve in the military as is the general population, they still face discrimination during their service and after they separate, according to the largest study to date surveying trans and gender non-conforming people.

Transgender Americans are twice as likely as their cisgender (non-trans) peers to serve in the Armed Forces, according to a study's findings released today by the Williams Institute at the University of California Los Angeles' School of Law. Twenty percent of trans people surveyed have served in the military, compared with just 10% of cisgender people. Nearly 30% of trans women reported serving in the military, while nine percent of all trans veterans surveyed said they were discharged for reasons relating to their gender identity.

"Despite the repeal of 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell,' this study highlights the ongoing discrimination faced by transgender people who serve in the military," said lead researcher Jody L. Herman in a statement.?

While the 2011 repeal of DADT removed the congressional block to open service by gay, lesbian, and bisexual soldiers, it had no impact on the service of transgender Americans, who are prohibited from serving openly by a set of military regulations that declare any condition or treatment relating to gender dysphoria a disqualifying mental illness.

The study also revealed that trans and gender non-conforming veterans were more likely than their cisgender peers to have lost a job, due to anti-transgender bias, with 36% reporting they were fired because of their gender identity, and 53% reporting they were not hired by a prospective employer because of their trans status.?

The National Transgender Discrimination Survey was conducted by the National Center for Transgender Equality and the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force, and over a six-month period in 2008, interviewed almost 6,500 trans and gender non-conforming people in the United States ? the largest study to date featuring people who identify as a gender different than that which they were assigned at birth.

Read the full report here.?

Source: http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/AdvocatecomDailyNews/~3/rSQxgVludKc/trans-americans-twice-likely-serve-military-study-reveals

oikos kentucky wildcats oakland school shooting nike nfl jerseys katie couric barista university of kentucky