|
Authored by: vidstudent on Friday, January 04 2013 @ 11:54 AM EST |
http://www.litigationandtrial.com/2013/01/articles/series/special-comment/corbet
t-antitrust-ncaa/
Not the most relevant to software, certainly, but the debate in the article's
comments is a treat I imagine one normally has to go to a law school to hear.
---
Nicholas Eckert
vidstudent[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: SilverWave on Friday, January 04 2013 @ 01:26 PM EST |
Nelson
- ha
ha!
Google looks to have only agreed to do stuff they
already do
D'oh!
While Google made some voluntary changes to satisfy
regulators, they weren't part of a binding legal settlement.
That drew a
stinging dissent from FTC Commissioner J. Thomas
Rosch, who didn't advocate
suing Google, but said that in
principle the FTC should require legally binding
consent
decrees if problems are found. "After promising an elephant
more than
a year ago, the Commission instead has brought
forth a couple of mice," Mr.
Rosch said.#
Google Dodges Antitrust Hit FTC
Extracts Limited Concessions, Clears Web
Giant of
'Search Bias' After Probe--- RMS: The 4
Freedoms
0 run the program for any purpose
1 study the source code and change it
2 make copies and distribute them
3 publish modified versions
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: DMP on Friday, January 04 2013 @ 02:43 PM EST |
I'm flabbergasted reading the Google FTC article by Dan Lyons. After the SCO episodes, it seems that he
is now writing non-biased articles.
Could it be that the SCO episodes were
biased because of an unknown paymaster contributor?[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: SilverWave on Friday, January 04 2013 @ 03:15 PM EST |
Quote from the Register comments by Paul Shirley:
"unreported detail of the SEP injunction ruling
Details are now emerging that the FTC *did not* forbid
seeking injunctions on Googles standards essential patents.
What they actually did was require a 6months negotiation
window *before* seeking injunctions. Paradoxically that may
actually be massively helpful to Google. I can understand
why the usual sources of PR sent to the Reg might not want
to highlight this...
One problem with FRAND licensing is it rarely sets time
limits on the negotiation or acquisition of licenses. That
makes companies cautious about going to court because courts
tend to refuse to deal with cases till far more than 6months
of failed negotiation has passed. Motorola waited several
years before even asking for injunctions against Apple for
example.
Companies (and Google specifically) now have a good argument
that 6 months is an appropriate delay. They can now initiate
negotiations and if, like Apple, the other side stonewalls
for 6 months they have a much improved chance of getting an
injunction quickly. Getting it while the products are still
selling. Getting it years quicker.
The other aspect is that injunctions on FRAND patents where
the other side showed willingness and good faith negotiation
were already being consistently denied by the courts, the
FTC changed nothing there. However many observers believe
some higher US courts are swinging alarmingly to outright
banning these injunctions even with bad faith from potential
licensees, this FTC decision might just bring them back to a
more balanced position.
Bear in mind this was kicked off by Motorola finally losing
patience with Apple over negotiating a FRAND rate. After
several years. Apple's refusal to negotiate means this FTC
ruling doesn't apply. The licence manoeuvres that led to
Apple needing a licence are a different issue that the FTC
doesn't seem interested in."
Spot on
---
RMS: The 4 Freedoms
0 run the program for any purpose
1 study the source code and change it
2 make copies and distribute them
3 publish modified versions
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: IMANAL_TOO on Friday, January 04 2013 @ 05:10 PM EST |
In light of previous discussions here on patents, what are
the taxations on
patents?
According to many they do represent a worth oa lot of money.
At least when they can wrest someone into obedience.
Here is a new take on
taxes - Swiss banks handing out hidden
money!
Do you think this means we are at least one step closer to
internationally eradicate all the hidden money, perhaps even
in non-taxed
patents?!
So, how much tax have Microsoft and Apple payed for all
those thousands of patents they have bought the last
decade?!
I
guess they must have payed the Federal Government hundreds
of millions of
dollars; at least, if considering the numbers
many have claimed their worths to
be.
Does anyone have any numbers on what, e.g. Apple has
payed in
taxes for the worth of their patents?
--- ______
IMANAL
. [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: SilverWave on Friday, January 04 2013 @ 08:12 PM EST |
<a href="http://www.wired.com/insights/2013/01/ftc-and-
google-no-market-no-foul/?">FTC and Google: No Market, No
Foul</a>
Is this by the same "Doug Miller" as named in this article:
http://readwrite.com/2013/01/03/googles-ftc-settlement-is-
an-epic-fail-for-microsoft
Quote:
"The SafeGov 'Grassroots' Campaign
More recently, as Google started trying to sell Google Apps
to government agencies - competing against Microsoft Office
by offering much lower prices - Microsoft helped create a
new group called SafeGov.org, another so-called “grassroots”
organization whose mission supposedly is to discuss issues
around government computing policies, but really ends up
being just another front for bashing Google.
SafeGov’s "experts" include Doug Miller of Milltech
Consulting, who used to work at Microsoft doing “competitive
strategy,” and earlier this year disclosed a consulting
relationship with Microsoft."
---
RMS: The 4 Freedoms
0 run the program for any purpose
1 study the source code and change it
2 make copies and distribute them
3 publish modified versions
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, January 04 2013 @ 08:27 PM EST |
Link
My take:
I'm sorry.
Google can write a Windows Phone version
of Maps only if Microsoft writes a Linux version of Excel, Word, and an Outlook
client. I have yet to see a fully functional Linux mail client that works with
the Exchange Mail server. And even Microsoft Web Mail is a second class next to
unusable experience on Firefox as Microsoft attempts to maintain monopoly in
browser. (Try searching for an email on Firefox Microsoft Web Mail that is 4
weeks old. You can only do it by manual exhaustive binary search. Brain
dead!) Fortunately they have lost that browser war judging by the raw
Wikimedia numbers (not fudged by consultants paid by Microsoft), and they
(Microsoft) have also lost the search war and fortunately they have lost the
phone war.
So I have no sympathy for Microsoft -- they Locked down their
standards essential versions of software (Word and Excel) to try and coerce the
user to purchase Windows and Word and Excel. If your going to exchange a
document for business, you cannot afford not to purchase Word or Excel, because
who knows what the other side will see when they open it up.
A pox on
Microsoft's house and any one stupid enough to use Windows phone is supporting
their monopoly tie-in practices.
To the people who wasted their dollars on
Windows phone, I suggest breaking contract or turning it back in as defective by
design.
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, January 05 2013 @ 02:04 AM EST |
Behind Google's Antitrust Escape/WSJ
[Google] said it
would allow rivals to opt out of having their content
appear on some Google
websites.
Seems like some will never learn to be careful what they
ask for.
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|