|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, December 12 2012 @ 03:52 PM EST |
You stated:
Samsung is abusing their FRAND
patents in a much
worse way
I asked for evidence to support that and you pointed me
to the "Realtek Semi v. LSI" case and your summary conclusion of how the future
will play out.
I'm sorry, but your expectation of the future does not
prove wrong-doing today. I asked for evidence of wrong-doing today as you
claimed. As a result, you pointed to a case that does not seem to involve
Samsung. You didn't event point to any specific behavior within that case that
you view to be incorrect.
So - given your evidence of wrong doing by
Samsung with regards abusing Samsung's FRAND patents appears to be non-existent,
some further questions:
What is Samsung's relationship to
Realtek?
What is it that Realtek has done that you believe to be
wrong?
You can choose to continue not to be explicit if you really want to.
But you'll not sell most here on your point of view without getting into
explicit details so we can judge for ourselves.
RAS[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
- How is Samsung related to RealTek? - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, December 12 2012 @ 04:03 PM EST
- SCO had this problem, too - Authored by: cjk fossman on Wednesday, December 12 2012 @ 05:05 PM EST
- Still not listing a single verifiable fact! Still avoiding answering! - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, December 12 2012 @ 05:10 PM EST
- 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
- How is Samsung related to RealTek? - Authored by: jjs on Wednesday, December 12 2012 @ 07:25 PM EST
- How is Samsung related to RealTek? - Authored by: PJ on Wednesday, December 12 2012 @ 07:44 PM EST
|
Authored by: PJ on Wednesday, December 12 2012 @ 08:26 PM EST |
You know, the Realtek case (cases) is stayed
while the ITC does its thing. So there is zero
proof of anything
yet. The Realtek v. LSI case, 2012 WL 4845628 (N.D. Cal., Oct. 10, 2012) was
dismissed by the
judge.
If you read this
document, a powerpoint by Kirkland & Ellis, it gives a run down of all
the RAND cases that have been going on. And what you will see is that there is
an issue with FRAND, in that there have been a lot of complaints to regulatory
bodies, but sometimes a lot of complaints means there is a plot afoot and
Microsoft and its running dogs are filing complaints just to cause trouble for
competition. What I discern is those who don't have FRAND patents to shake a
stick at, like Microsoft, wish to disarm those who do, like Motorola, using
strategies cooked up from earlier cases. That's why they all claim more or less
the same things. What a coincidence.
So is there FRAND abuse? Or are
entities like Motorola
trying to defend themselves from patent infringement
attacks by using what they have? Since both Microsoft and Apple sued instead of
negotiating a price, and later Apple's case against motorola in Wisc. was thrown
out when Apple revealed it wasn't planning to abide by the royalty set by the
judge unless it met their approval, one might
assume that this is just a legal
strategy, not sincere claims of abuse. [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|