Connect with us

Science & Tech

White House Fails To Act: Apple Watch Ban Unchallenged As Deadline Passes

Published

on

Clear Facts

  • The White House has declined to veto a government ban on the imports of the latest version of the Apple Watch, limiting the product’s availability in the U.S.
  • The U.S. International Trade Commission’s (ITC) order to restrict the import of the Apple Watch 9 and the Apple Watch Ultra 2 goes into effect on Tuesday.
  • Apple’s next option will be to appeal the import ban in the U. S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in Washington, D.C.

The White House has decided not to veto a government ban on the imports of the latest version of the Apple Watch, thereby limiting the product’s availability. The U. S. International Trade Commission’s (ITC) order to restrict the import of the Apple Watch 9 and the Apple Watch Ultra 2 is set to go into effect on Tuesday.

U.S. trade representative Katherine Tai, after consultations, also decided not to reverse the ban, according to Reuters. This decision leaves Apple unable to bring in additional models of the devices, and it limits the company’s ability to sell new watches in the United States.

Apple now has the option to appeal the import ban in the U. S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in Washington, D.C. However, the ITC declined Apple’s request to pause the ban during the appeal process.

Last week, Apple announced that it was pausing the sales of the Series 9 and the Ultra 2 in anticipation of the ITC ban. The product was initially banned due to a patent dispute between Apple and the medical technology company Masimo over Apple’s implementation of a blood oxygen tracker into the device. The commission ruled in favor of Masimo, leading to the ban.

The current patents only apply to blood oxygen trackers in Series 6, 7, 8, and 9 of Apple Watches and the Ultra models. The Apple Watch SE, which does not have the tracker, will still be available.

According to an internal memo, users who bring Apple Watches into Apple Stores will be unable to get them replaced or repaired.

Clear Thoughts (op-ed)

The White House’s refusal to veto the ban on the latest Apple Watches is a clear indication of a fundamental lack of understanding of the importance of innovation and technological advancement.

It’s a decision that not only limits consumer choice but also hampers the growth of a leading American company.

What’s more, it sets a worrying precedent for other tech giants who may now fear similar punitive action.

Advertisement

Instead of stifling innovation, the government should be fostering an environment that encourages it.

The White House’s decision is a disappointing setback for the tech industry, and a blow to the principle of free trade.

It’s yet another example of government overreach and interference in the private sector.

In the end, it’s the American consumer who pays the price.

Let us know what you think, please share your thoughts in the comments below.

Source

Advertisement
6 Comments

6 Comments

  1. MIKE

    December 30, 2023 at 6:49 pm

    WHAT ARE YOU AN IDIOT. DOES NOT MATTER HOW BIG YOU ARE YOU CANT STEAL SOMEONE ELSES TECHNOLOGY WITHOUT
    AN AGREEMENT AND PAYMENT OF AGREED UPON ROYALTIES. INNOVATION ALWAYS COMES FROM THE SMALL INDEPENDANT THINKERS.

    • Elizabeth

      December 31, 2023 at 12:18 pm

      Absolutely right!!!!!!!!

  2. Lou

    December 30, 2023 at 7:53 pm

    The writer is parading a Trojan horse as if it is a toy. Ownership of technology is protected as is here. Court decision will follow as per law. Obviously Apple walked aa fence and appears to have fallen on the wrong side. What American advocates no following legal procedures to settle disputes?

  3. Jack Jones

    December 30, 2023 at 10:14 pm

    Apparently writer Christian Ramirez doesn’t understand patent law. Apple, after all, is the one that sued Samsung for using Apple’s “patented” round corners on their cell phones and WON.
    That’s a lot less important tech than a Blood oxygen tracker.

  4. Jeff

    January 14, 2024 at 7:34 pm

    Yes indeed. It sounds like a sensible patent law decision.

  5. Filmaker

    January 15, 2024 at 8:16 am

    How loud would Apple be screaming if someone put some of their patented items in another device?

    What’s sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *