|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, December 12 2012 @ 01:36 PM EST |
And how is samsung abusing their FRAND patents. People on
Apple's side keep saying this, however everything I have seen
shows them using them as they should. [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, December 12 2012 @ 01:48 PM EST |
Don't just claim it as others have lately - please produce actual
evidence.
And I don't refer to statements by FM as your evidence. I
refer to actual facts that have come to light in Court Filings.
In other
words: if all you have is heresay, you'll need to do better then
that.
I'm willing to accept Samsung is abusing their patents - but not
without proof. So evidence please!
RAS[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
- Please produce evidence of Samsung's abuse - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, December 12 2012 @ 03:24 PM EST
- How is Samsung related to RealTek? - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, December 12 2012 @ 03:52 PM EST
- 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
- Please produce evidence of Samsung's abuse - Authored by: PJ on Wednesday, December 12 2012 @ 08:26 PM EST
- If all you have is heresy - Authored by: Wol on Wednesday, December 12 2012 @ 04:47 PM EST
- I think he has a misconception. - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, December 13 2012 @ 12:22 AM EST
|
Authored by: mupi on Wednesday, December 12 2012 @ 01:59 PM EST |
You also state as if it's a fact that Samsung violated Apple's patents (they
"leveraged ...Apple's look and feel"). This is very much in dispute,
and not just in this case. In THIS case, a jury who was swayed by an incorrect
argument (prior art must be interoperable) which is nowhere a standard of patent
law, determined that Samsung had violated apples patents. But in lots of other
cases (notably, a case in the UK) Samsung was found not to have infringed.
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, December 12 2012 @ 02:06 PM EST |
"Google (and the manufacturers) have engaged in much worse
behavior regarding their patents"
Wow, what talking points are you reading from? Can you
provide some examples of Google (not a manufacturer by the
way) engaging in "much worse behavior regarding their
patents"? I'd really like to see that.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: BJ on Wednesday, December 12 2012 @ 02:32 PM EST |
If you want to gain folks towards
your viewpoint, maybe you should
back up what you assert.
I for one was only minding my own
business when Apple came out some
time ago and started a patent offensive.
I took offensive and here we are.
Nothing to do with a priori likes or
dislikes. The one who gets carried
away in those seems to be
your very self.
bjd
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Gringo_ on Wednesday, December 12 2012 @ 02:46 PM EST |
Your opening comment immediately
struck me as potentially a troll post,
but was just enough to indicate that you
might not be a troll, but rather,may
have a refreshingly different point of
view to contribute.
I gave you a respectful reply, then you
let me down by showing yourself
to be just a common, ugly troll. All your
arguments have been said by
other trolls before you, and more
intelligently and elegantly.
All your arguments have been defeated
long ago, if you had been
keeping up on the topic.
You should really post this on Slashdot,
where troll.posts are valued,
even when shot down a 100 times over
they will get you mod points
from the other like-minded folks there
who got moderation privileges
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: PJ on Wednesday, December 12 2012 @ 02:47 PM EST |
Here's what we are rooting for: a fair trial,
which is what Samsugn did not get. You should
root for that too. Don't you think?[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, December 12 2012 @ 05:37 PM EST |
Thank you for that steaming pile of expertly non-supported nonsense.
Poor poor Apple being abused by FRAND negotiations they refuse to participate
in, while having their intellectual innovations like round corners stolen right
and left.
That's why their lawsuits are doing so well in the rest of the world, while the
US is shutting them out... oh... well, something like that...
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|