decoration decoration

When you want to know more...
For layout only
Site Map
About Groklaw
Legal Research
ApplevSamsung p.2
Cast: Lawyers
Comes v. MS
Gordon v MS
IV v. Google
Legal Docs
MS Litigations
News Picks
Novell v. MS
Novell-MS Deal
OOXML Appeals
Quote Database
Red Hat v SCO
Salus Book
SCEA v Hotz
SCO Appeals
SCO Bankruptcy
SCO Financials
SCO Overview
SCO v Novell
Sean Daly
Software Patents
Switch to Linux
Unix Books
Your contributions keep Groklaw going.
To donate to Groklaw 2.0:

Groklaw Gear

Click here to send an email to the editor of this weblog.

Contact PJ

Click here to email PJ. You won't find me on Facebook Donate Paypal

User Functions



Don't have an account yet? Sign up as a New User

No Legal Advice

The information on Groklaw is not intended to constitute legal advice. While Mark is a lawyer and he has asked other lawyers and law students to contribute articles, all of these articles are offered to help educate, not to provide specific legal advice. They are not your lawyers.

Here's Groklaw's comments policy.

What's New

No new stories

COMMENTS last 48 hrs
No new comments


hosted by ibiblio

On servers donated to ibiblio by AMD.

Still not listing a single verifiable fact! Still avoiding answering! | 264 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
Ummmm, yeah...
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, December 12 2012 @ 05:40 PM EST
That was pretty convincing evidence...

Whatever you said...

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

Still not listing a single verifiable fact! Still avoiding answering!
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, December 12 2012 @ 05:44 PM EST
You don't need to ELI5 this, but you do need to actually form an argument,
preferably with citations. You cannot get away with hand waving, which is still
what you are doing.

There is a saying about what happens when you assume. The fact that you keep
trying is commendable, I guess? But I don't know if you are just really bad at
this, time constrained, or a really dedicated troll.

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

Given you quoted Posner: do you consider the standard Judicial process extreme?
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, December 12 2012 @ 07:36 PM EST

I know I said I wouldn't respond again because you've had your third strike. This response isn't meant for you.

This is for other readers who are going to read through the thread and may not be as familiar with the normal Groklaw membership comments and the level of support for one's arguments that we have come to expect.

This is so they can see that the citations I requested are not somehow extreme or outside the norm of Civilized Societal processes.

I requested a citation. An actual identification of the facts supporting a particular claim as well as a clear reference of where to find that citation.

An example of what was expected is in the case of Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175 (1981). We see plenty of citations within the Syllabus:

Held: Respondents' claims recited subject matter that was eligible for patent protection under 101. Pp. 450 U. S. 181-193*.

(a) For purposes of 101, a "process" is

"an act, or a series of acts, performed upon the subject matter to be transformed and reduced to a different state or thing. If new and useful, it is just as patentable as is a piece of machinery. . . . The machinery pointed out as suitable to perform the process may or may not be new or patentable." Cochrane v. Deener, 94 U. S. 780*, 94 U. S. 788*. Industrial processes such as respondents' claims for transforming raw, uncured synthetic rubber into a different state or thing are the types which have historically been eligible to receive patent law protection. Pp. 450 U. S. 181-184*.
* : Going to the link, you will see that each of the designated citations are further links to actual Case information.

The links were not provided stand alone - they were provided along with actual quotations from the sources of the links.

The Legal system is not alone in requiring citations. Education systems in my day also required such citations - although perhaps today they no longer require that. When asked to do essays, I was required to cite the sources of my research as well as identify what points belonged to those sources.

The scientific process contains much the same requirement for citations whether those citations be in the form of previous work by others or by providing the actual research from the one presenting the opinions/conclusions.

I conclude: Requiring actual supporting citations to back what someone is presenting - especially when we live in a society that is supposed to be based on "innocent until proven guilty" and the claim is one of guilt - is not an unreasonable request.

To take the message with a huge grain of salt that an entity presents when they absolutely refuse to provide citations is also reasonable. It's reasonable because some hard questions about why the entity refuses to back their claims must be raised.


[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

Still not listing a single verifiable fact! Still avoiding answering!
Authored by: PJ on Wednesday, December 12 2012 @ 07:43 PM EST
Dude. One of the purposes of Groklaw is
educating tech people about the law. If
you claim special knowledge you'd like to
share, do so. Waving your arms around
doesn't impress anyone at Groklaw.

There is an issue about FRAND, which I've
linked to on Groklaw. And there are issues
with patents, period. You'd be hard pressed
to find anyone here who doesn't despise patents
on standards. FRAND included.

Also FRAND isn't compatible with the GPL,
which is the most used license in the FOSS
community, so FRAND isn't a solution that
anyone here would posit as a great thing.

So, I hope you can see that your assumptions
about what are the opinions held here are
totally wrong.

Groklaw wins awards, journalistic and legal.
Just saying.

If you don't like it, your remedy is to leave.

And by the way, don't assume that no one here
has any deep knowledge of patents. Mark runs
Peer to Patent, dude. So take your insults
and either put up some urls (since one can
always learn based on new evidence), or cut it
out. You are insulting.

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

my take on it
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, December 12 2012 @ 07:54 PM EST

My understanding of FRAND licensing in the past does seem to differ from yours.

As I understand it, injunctions from Standard Essential patents were always a possibility. It is just that most companies were negotiating in good faith and such extreme recourse were rarely needed. Companies preferred to run their negotiation privately, some would even say secretly, rather than (ab)using the court system to reach a deal.

It is only recently that new entrants in the phone market have contested the established protocols, as they are heavily slanted against them (markets with heavy patent protection are ALWAYS slanted against new entrants, this is a design feature, as patents, even on FRAND terms, are used as barrier to entry. This is not particularly unfair either, as research for those patents can be expensive too and it allows the companies doing the actual research to reap some benefits).

Apple is a particularly egregious case, as they have publicly refused to agree to a rate defined by a 3rd party (US judge) if higher than they wished for ($1/phone). This proves bad faith, as FRAND does not mean they get to pick the rate, just that the rate is the same for all. We will have a definite answer about FRAND and Motorola rates through their case against Microsoft. Although this will probably be lengthy (expect appeals, lots of them).

In the case of Google/Motorola Vs Microsoft, the facts so far (from court documents) seem to point to Microsoft using Motorola's patents for years (xbox360 was released in 2005) for no payment. This does not seem fair either, but requesting an injunction after 7 YEARS of infringement hardly seems abusive...

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

  • my take on it - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, December 12 2012 @ 08:43 PM EST
    • my take on it - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, December 13 2012 @ 09:17 AM EST
      • my take on it - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, December 13 2012 @ 11:03 AM EST
        • my take on it - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, December 13 2012 @ 12:44 PM EST
... that you are an idiot
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, December 12 2012 @ 09:03 PM EST
  • No facts.
  • Baseless bluster.
  • Evasiveness.
  • Ad hominems.

Hey - you've got me convinced!

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

Still not listing a single verifiable fact! Still avoiding answering!
Authored by: cjk fossman on Wednesday, December 12 2012 @ 09:53 PM EST
Could you be a little more patronizing?

That always convinces people.

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

Investigation != evience
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, December 13 2012 @ 04:49 AM EST
"I would assume that the never-before started investigations by *every
major* anti-trust authority in the world would be some sort of evidence."

So if the police decided to come round to your house and start going through
everything with a fine-toothed comb because of a tip from someone who doesn't
like you, you must be guilty of something, yes?

The act of an investigation proves nothing. Only the results of one can do

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

Groklaw © Copyright 2003-2013 Pamela Jones.
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners.
Comments are owned by the individual posters.

PJ's articles are licensed under a Creative Commons License. ( Details )