|
Authored by: cjk fossman on Wednesday, December 12 2012 @ 05:05 PM EST |
They always seemed, as do you, to stumble on the bit about
specificity.
Since you've done all this research you must have some links
to share. Why not post them?[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, December 12 2012 @ 05:10 PM EST |
The new question:
What theories?
I'm aware of FRAND patent owners
like Samsung and Motorola attempting to enter negotiations with a new player
(Apple) in the market in order to license said technology. If you claim this is
wrong, How is this wrong? FRAND - after all - does not equate to free! The F
represents Fair.
I'm aware of FRAND patent owners suddenly being attacked
by said new player (Apple vs Motorola) because said new player does not want to
enter negotiations on fair terms and at least one of said cases was dismissed
because said new player made it clear to the Court that if the Court found for
more then 1$ per device, said new player would not honor the Court's
findings. If you claim Motorola is wrong in this picture: How?
You've
avoided providing anything specific beyond a claim and a future prediction. You
seem to recognize I obviously have no idea what you're talking about even though
I'm quite familiar with a few of the cases (not the Realtek one) and some of the
facts in those cases. I'm obviously not putting together your conclusion with
my available knowledge base.
And yet you still choose to not provide any
specifics.
You still provide plenty of claims of
wrong-doing:
The theories that, inter alia, Samsung is using to
weaponize their FRAND patents are (IMO) an abuse.
Yet again: no
actual evidence or even a single stated fact that can be verified. Just a
general claim of wrong doing as though that claim is in-and-of-itself the
evidence. Please present a fact that can be verified via the
means:
Identifying a specific "theory of weaponization" that you feel is
wrong pointing to the specific location in Samsung's filings where Samsung has
clearly outlined that theory!
I'm sorry sir, but unless you provide some
verifiable fact - as opposed to continuing to be evasive - I'll have to conculde
you are attempting to provide nothing more then FUD. I won't be responding any
further in such an instance given this will be my third request for verifiable
facts and your third refusal - the third strike with regards providing a single
verifiable fact to support your conclusions/claims.
RAS[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
- Still not listing a single verifiable fact! Still avoiding answering! - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, December 12 2012 @ 05:23 PM EST
- Ummmm, yeah... - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, December 12 2012 @ 05:40 PM EST
- Still not listing a single verifiable fact! Still avoiding answering! - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, December 12 2012 @ 05:44 PM EST
- 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
- Given you quoted Posner: do you consider the standard Judicial process extreme? - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, December 12 2012 @ 07:36 PM EST
- Still not listing a single verifiable fact! Still avoiding answering! - Authored by: PJ on Wednesday, December 12 2012 @ 07:43 PM EST
- my take on it - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, December 12 2012 @ 07:54 PM EST
- 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
- ... that you are an idiot - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, December 12 2012 @ 09:03 PM EST
- Still not listing a single verifiable fact! Still avoiding answering! - Authored by: cjk fossman on Wednesday, December 12 2012 @ 09:53 PM EST
- Investigation != evience - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, December 13 2012 @ 04:49 AM EST
|
Authored by: jjs on Wednesday, December 12 2012 @ 07:25 PM EST |
"They have done this in many other cases"
List, please. You make the accusation, you back it up with proof.
---
(Note IANAL, I don't play one on TV, etc, consult a practicing attorney, etc,
etc)
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: PJ on Wednesday, December 12 2012 @ 07:44 PM EST |
Hey. You need to read our comments policy. No
insulting comments. If you continue, I'll block
you.
Yup. [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|