|
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, December 13 2012 @ 11:15 AM EST |
You really aren't helping the case you are making.
1) You keep making assertions without actually citing
anything. Telling others to go find evidence doesn't work.
You're the one making the assertions. It's like saying "it's
well known that..." and not citing 1 thing.
2) Claiming others are biased because they don't hold your
view.
3) FRAND doesn't depend on a party agreeing that they are
reasonable. The industry has set the general terms, and they
are supposed to be negotiated. Apple has demonstrated no
desire to negotiate. See Judge Crabb's dismissal in Apple v.
Moto.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Wol on Thursday, December 13 2012 @ 06:22 PM EST |
Let's kill this "Samsung aren't offering FRAND" stone dead.
Samsung said to Apple "our standard rate is 2.5%". What's NOT
"non-discriminatory" about offering EVERYONE the same rate?
What Apple should have done is come back and say "let's negotiate".
What they did do was run screaming to the court and say "they've offered us
the same starting offer they offer everyone else. That's unfair!
WAAAAHHHHH!!!".
At the end of the day, FRAND is all about negotiating. Apple have behaved like a
spoilt brat and refused to negotiate. Any FRAND abuse is by Apple - Samsung
haven't really had any opportunity to be abusive ...
Cheers,
Wol[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: yacc on Friday, December 14 2012 @ 08:19 AM EST |
Well, define FRAND terms. Please consider that all these
players have all kind of patent pools that they cross
license => Basically many if not most patents don't have a
market-going price.
Beyond the FRAND status, one has to look at the patents
involved. FRAND patents tend to be these problematic patents
where even most patent abolitionists admit that they
(might) have merit. Now Apple wants these "serious" patents
for less than $1/device, at the same time expecting double
digit rates for their (mostly) trivial (as in "perfect
examples what is broken with the patent system") patents.
So please define FRAND.
And notice, that as far as the public knows, Apple has
declined to enter serious negotiation about the tons of
patents they are stealing all the time. (GSM, UMTS, MPEG,
LTE, ... are all standards that require patent licenses to
implement.)
Put simply, if you seriously negotiate, than yes,
injunctions are not relevant, but then I don't think that
most courts would allow injunctions if negotiations are in
progress anyway. OTOH, if some newcomer comes to the table
and wants to use your technology and not pay for it, but
instead it will decide itself how much to tip the help, than
it's understandable that the guys that invested heavily in
R&D over decades are pissed. And then the same newcomer
claims that their trivia is much more worth than your decade
old R&D work? That's a behavior that calls for painful
answers, so yes, I think a couple of months of a sale ban of
all iDevices with mobile radios would be helpful to improve
the behavior of the spoilt brat.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|