|
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, July 27 2012 @ 10:21 AM EDT |
We are outraged over that. (or at least feel that they decided to pay the
danegeld)
But that's a seperate issue.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, July 27 2012 @ 10:31 AM EDT |
When faced with several bullies it pays to take care of them one at a time.
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: PJ on Friday, July 27 2012 @ 10:40 AM EDT |
What does Google have to do with Samsung and Microsoft
entering into an agreement? What right would Google
have to interfere?
Maybe Microsoft was doing research, but it has, to my
knowledge, no FRAND patents in this field. For one
thing, it's only recently that it even started to
file for patents in any number. It used to be opposed.
So it wasn't involved, to my knowledge, in developing
the standards that Samsung was involved in, since 1991.
Personally, I think that's why it did the deal with
Nokia, because it needed better, earlier patents in
the mobile space.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: softbear on Friday, July 27 2012 @ 10:55 AM EDT |
From what I recall of that deal, it sounded more like a contractual IP license
type of thing to me, where Samsung
probably won on the merits but lost in the details.
They likely signed a Floppy FAT license (or FAT32, or USB
drivers, or ...) way back when and Microsoft succeeded in
making it stick on phones. So rather than build phones
banned from connecting to Windows desktop computers (or
using PC compatible flash cards, or ...) they agreed to what
may have been an extension of a former agreement. And since
Microsoft "never" lets anyone know the particulars of any
deal if they can help it, we will probably never know that
is is a penny a piece or less.
---
IANAL, etc.
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
- s/is is/it is/ - Authored by: softbear on Friday, July 27 2012 @ 10:57 AM EDT
- Really? - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, July 27 2012 @ 11:08 AM EDT
|
|
|
|