|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, December 12 2012 @ 05:40 PM EST |
That was pretty convincing evidence...
Whatever you said...[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
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 | # ]
|
- Still not listing a single verifiable fact! Still avoiding answering! - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, December 12 2012 @ 07:31 PM EST
- Still not listing a single verifiable fact! Still avoiding answering! - Authored by: PJ on Wednesday, December 12 2012 @ 07:38 PM EST
- Still not listing a single verifiable fact! Still avoiding answering! - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, December 12 2012 @ 08:03 PM EST
- Still not listing a single verifiable fact! Still avoiding answering! - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, December 12 2012 @ 10:06 PM EST
- Still not listing a single verifiable fact! Still avoiding answering! - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, December 12 2012 @ 10:50 PM EST
- when an legal, aka monetary, remedy, would suffice - Authored by: Wol on Thursday, December 13 2012 @ 10:32 AM EST
- when an legal, aka monetary, remedy, would suffice - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, December 13 2012 @ 10:56 AM EST
- when an legal, aka monetary, remedy, would suffice - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, December 13 2012 @ 11:15 AM EST
- when an legal, aka monetary, remedy, would suffice - Authored by: Wol on Thursday, December 13 2012 @ 06:22 PM EST
- when an legal, aka monetary, remedy, would suffice - Authored by: yacc on Friday, December 14 2012 @ 08:19 AM EST
- Still not listing a single verifiable fact! Still avoiding answering! - Authored by: ukjaybrat on Thursday, December 13 2012 @ 01:32 PM EST
- Still not listing a single verifiable fact! Still avoiding answering! - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, December 13 2012 @ 09:56 AM EST
|
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.
RAS[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
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 | # ]
|
|
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
|
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 | # ]
|
|
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 | # ]
|
|
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
that.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|