Work-around veto?

Conventional wisdom suggests a presidential-level veto of an International Trade Commission ruling is a long shot, especially compared to pardons or, say, commutations of prison sentences.
But maybe not in this case. There’s the ITC patent infringement/import ban ruling against Qualcomm Inc. Then there are the politics.
It wasn’t exactly the presidential veto Qualcomm and mobile-phone association CTIA have asked for, but what a hopeful, serendipitous sign less than a week after the ITC ruling when President Bush named high-powered lobbyist Ed Gillespie to replace Dan Bartlett as White House counsel.
Gillespie, expected to come on board officially any day now, has represented Qualcomm and other major telecom companies. But the president himself will not directly make the call on whether to leave intact or overturn the ITC decision, having designated U.S. Trade Representative Susan Schwab to do so. No worries. Schwab can probably empathize with Qualcomm. She once served as director of corporate business development at Motorola Inc. There’s also the federal court option.
Qualcomm has it all over Broadcom in the Washington game. Qualcomm spends tons more on lobbying than does Broadcom. When it comes to campaign donations, Qualcomm is the major leagues, though most political money goes to Democrats. Broadcom plays Class A ball. It’s true: Broadcom does have in its corner a Gillespie-like, big-time Republican lobbyist in Vin Weber, a former Minnesota congressman. But Weber has his hands full as adviser to GOP presidential candidate Mitt Romney.
Perhaps Broadcom, compelled to issue a press release Thursday on potential consequences of an executive branch veto, is feeling less than confident about the situation. “In this case, the administration faces one of the most critical decisions on trade policy in recent years,” said David Dull, senior VP and general counsel for Broadcom. “Overturning the ITC’s remedy for Qualcomm’s patent infringement would ultimately make it more difficult for U.S. companies to defend their I.P. rights and complicate the administration’s I.P. policy initiatives. “
Dull’s warning may indeed have validity. But this is Washington.