基本上專利法跟其他智財法背後主原則都是 — 貫徹專利權保護才是維護公眾利益，除非有例外情形發生。ITC的下的Office of Unfair Import Investigations表示：
“With respect to non-party Google’s arguments, OUII first notes that the question is not whether an exclusion order would ‘advance’ the public interest (see Google Comments at 1); rather, the statute states that the Commission ‘shall’ issue an exclusion order ‘unless’ the public interest dictates otherwise. 19 U.S.C. § 1337(d)(1).”
Moreover, Google’s contention that the patents are not ‘inventive’ and are easily designed around, even if true, actually shows the lack of impact on the public interest – once Samsung designs around the patents, then its products will no longer be subject to exclusion.
Google’s arguments concerning the lack of competition in the marketplace (see Google Comments at 3-4) are contradicted by both the publicly-available information cited above and the Commission’s findings in other recent investigations involving similar products.
“I’m the developer of the Texts From Last Night app for the iPhone. Anyway, I received an e-mail yesterday from someone at Google claiming to be in their Android Advocacy Group. He basically said that he wanted to open a line of communication with me in case I chose to port the app to Android, and he offered to ship me a free Nexus One to play around with.
“It shows that Google is actively recruiting developers to their platform, using the enticements of free hardware and open communication.
“Contrast with Apple’s approach: it took us about three months of resubmitting our app to Apple before they stopped rejecting it for inappropriate content. And even now (after we peaked at the No. 7 paid app), we still have no relationship with anyone there. Huge difference in approaches between the two companies.”