Those strongly liking globalization and isolationists might have different views, but probably already knew the thing exists. Those litigating intellectual property matters involving importing high-tech stuff into the US likely already know of it.
Most others probably are clueless about USITC, as I was, but I learned something from the latest 2010 wind turbine news involving the agency's decision making. This Google News link. Also, this Google.
The news is ahead of the USITC page, on the wind turbine story. (USITC's latest web homepage trade-related entry is Jan 4, before this decision became news.)
Business Week, here, has an extensive report, this excerpt [with a cite indicating a Bloomberg feed]:
GE Loses Decision in Mitsubishi Fight Over Turbines (Update2)
January 08, 2010, 05:51 PM EST - By Susan Decker and Rachel Layne
General Electric Co., the biggest maker of wind turbines in the U.S., lost its bid to keep rival Mitsubishi Heavy Industries Ltd. from expanding in GE’s home market.
The U.S. International Trade Commission in Washington today overturned an ITC judge’s findings that Mitsubishi Heavy violated GE’s patent rights. Had the commission found in GE’s favor, it could have banned imports of Mitsubishi Heavy wind turbines. The commission said it would issue the reason for its findings later. Fairfield, Connecticut-based GE can appeal to a U.S. court that specializes in patent law.
GE contended that Tokyo-based Mitsubishi Heavy is infringing its patents and thus shouldn’t be allowed to enter the U.S. The market for wind turbines is now dominated by GE and Denmark’s Vestas Wind Systems A/S. GE said it was “extremely disappointed” in today’s decision and will “explore all of its legal options.”
“GE believes that protecting intellectual property rights is essential to the health and development of clean energy technology,” Dan Nelson, a GE spokesman, said. “Strong intellectual property rights promote investment, foster innovation, and encourage commercial deployment of technology.”
Mitsubishi Heavy had challenged both the validity of the patents and GE’s contention that they were infringed.
“Mitsubishi has always firmly believed they weren’t violating these patents,” said Mitsubishi lawyer Roger Taylor of Finnegan Henderson in Atlanta. “They are gratified at the decision. We don’t have any of the details, so I don’t know that the underlying findings are.”
[It's not experimental or hypothetical - it's big - and it's not chump-change on the table]
Wind turbines accounted for 42 percent of new generating capacity in the U.S. in 2008, almost matching the additions of natural gas-fueled plants, the American Wind Energy Association, an industry trade group, said in April.
Wind speeds change all the time, so the turbines must be built to provide a constant source of power.
The three GE patents, issued in 1992, 2005 and 2008, are related to variable-speed turbines that adjust to ensure that a consistent amount of power is supplied to the grid without damaging the machines, and that deal with periods when voltage on the grid is low, such as during an outage.
GE also filed a civil suit against Mitsubishi Heavy, seeking cash compensation for past infringement. That case was put on hold until the ITC could complete its investigation.
Politicians from both sides have weighed in on the case, basing their arguments on whether GE or Mitsubishi has business in their states. U.S. senators from Florida, New York, South Carolina and Wyoming, where GE has facilities, said in letters to the ITC that protecting GE’s intellectual property rights would help protects thousands of American jobs.
Arkansas congressmen, as well as the governor, wrote to the commission to say that a loss for Mitsubishi would interfere with a plan to build a turbine assembly plant in Fort Smith that would create 400 jobs.
The ITC case is In the Matter of Certain Variable Speed Wind Turbines and Components Thereof, 337-641, U.S. International Trade Commission (Washington). The civil case is General Electric Co. v. Mitsubishi Heavy Industries Ltd., 09cv229, U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas (Corpus Christi).
Reuters carried the news, here, adding:
The ITC is a popular venue for patent lawsuits because it can bar the importation of devices made with infringing technology. If the ITC orders an import ban, that order would go into full effect only after a standard 60-day executive branch review. The executive branch rarely overturns the ITC's decisions.
During this review period, the banned goods can be imported but only if the importer posts a bond equal to 100 percent of the value of the imports.
ABC carried an AP feed, this link.