|
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, November 05 2012 @ 09:29 PM EST |
And wasting precious leadership efforts on this nonsense, instead of
making the products better.
Let your opponents destroy each other...then you can be victorious...
This is the circumstatial case for levers being pulled by Redmond...
(Christenson)
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
- Maybe - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, November 05 2012 @ 09:57 PM EST
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, November 05 2012 @ 10:55 PM EST |
if 2-2.25% is considered fair by everyone else yet apple seems to think 0.15% is
fair. they won't be seen as doing it in good faith. Which means apple can face
FTC sales ban, and for a company that gets 90+% of its profits from the ipad3
and iphone 5 which both are effected apple has a TON more to lose in this case.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: DieterWasDriving on Monday, November 05 2012 @ 11:00 PM EST |
I'm generally against FRAND, as it's an easy way to exclude Free Software and
lock out new and potentially innovative competitors from a market. When
combined with patent pools, it's easy for the established suppliers to make it
economically infeasible for new competitors to enter the market. They can
impose high license fees, while their own costs are essentially zero by virtue
of being in the patent pool.
But this isn't a good case to challenge FRAND. Apple is not a new and
innovative competitor. They are using their own patents to block competitors,
while simultaneously insisting that the same competitors must license their
essential patents at low rates.
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|