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.

Your response was a big disappointment | 264 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
bad analogy
Authored by: ukjaybrat on Wednesday, December 12 2012 @ 03:49 PM EST
Try to analogize it to property. Think of it in terms of 30 different ways to get across a river. One person says, "Hey, if you use my bridge, I'll let everyone pass for a low toll. Promise." So everyone says this is a good idea, and the bridge owner gets a steady stream of income, and everyone's happy, and the other 29 bridges get dynamited. 10 years later, the bridge owner then says, "Hey, my bridge is the MOST valuable because without it, no one can cross the river."
Standards are not formed by 1 of 30 people saying "i will charge a low fee if you use my stuff" and the other 29 going away.
Standards are set so that the 29 others go away purposefully and there is only 1 way of doing things. It's sole purpose is for interoperability between tech.
The low fee is only there so that the original inventor of the standard can not financially prevent others from using his standard. but HE IS ALLOWED to charge that fee.


[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

  • bad analogy - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, December 12 2012 @ 03:53 PM EST
Supporting Samsung (In this case)
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, December 12 2012 @ 03:50 PM EST
Of course Samsung would throw Android under a bus if it was profitable to do so,
that doesn't mean we shouldn't support there side in this case though. In this
specific case we are talking about is largely Samsung defending Android and
other things based on good principles (ie arguing against the 'tap to zoom'
patent which hurts everyone and is a obvious idea). So in this case we should
support them. Which is all we are really doing here.

Also even if we weren't supporting Samsung because they are arguing the side we
like here, we should still be supporting them against this extremely unfair and
biased trial. Which is really what that part of this article was about.

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

Your response was a big disappointment
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, December 12 2012 @ 05:03 PM EST

Quote: Here it is in a nutshell- a lot of what we love about tech is built on the shoulders of giants.

You took the above quote from Microsoft, sadly that's where I stop reading, I do not have any respect for anyone who come her to preach the Microsoft doctrine.

- C

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

Your response was a big disappointment
Authored by: cjk fossman on Wednesday, December 12 2012 @ 05:31 PM EST
Samsung will throw Android under the bus as soon as it is profitable to do so. My guess is it won't be too long.


Samsung has this huge army of elves, secretly laboring under a mountain to create a brand new OS and thousands of applications for their new app store.

All this because they are eager to walk away from a free (as in beer) OS, the huge catalog of apps that runs on that OS and all those Java developers who can write even more apps.

Oh, wait, maybe that's wrong. Maybe they're ready to join Nokia on the Windows 8 rocket.

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

Your response was a big disappointment
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, December 12 2012 @ 10:57 PM EST
you make bad assumptions. You assume, somehow, that these
FRAND patents are being used offensively, but that is like
saying someone who was being attacked offensively shot the

These are defensive uses of FRAND.

Even still there is nothing against using FRAND offensively,
and if people find the FRAND too expensive they can always use
their own standards.

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

Your response was a big disappointment
Authored by: PJ on Thursday, December 13 2012 @ 06:55 AM EST
You misunderstand our interest in the case.
I could explain, but why bother?

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

Your response was a big disappointment
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, December 14 2012 @ 05:02 AM EST
I'm glad you came up with the bridge analogy as bridges must be something about which you know a lot.

[ 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 )