Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, June 27 2013 @ 03:27 AM EDT |
Last i checked FRAND patents are still PATENTS. Wanna talk about patent abuse?
You are defending the biggest abusers right now in Apple, they believe they can
abuse the system with their patents then in turn not have to pay when they steal
another's tech.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, June 27 2013 @ 03:27 AM EDT |
So what's your argument besides that you do not agree with groklaw? What answer
do you expect to just saying "you are wrong"?
My answer would be - you are free to disagree but I don't really care.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: jbb on Thursday, June 27 2013 @ 03:40 AM EDT |
While I usually side with Groklaw on many issues, This websites
blindly supports patent abuse if it is done by Google or/and Google
partner.
Apple uses the patented technology. They've been using
it for years. They refuse to pay any licensing fee for it and they even told a
court they'd refuse to pay a court ordered fee if they didn't like it.
How
in the world do you spin that into patent abuse by Samsung?
You claim you
are seeking justice. How is it just for Apple and Microsoft and Oracle to be
able to launch patent attacks against Android while at the same time not have to
pay license fees for the patent they use? That's not just, that's not fair, and
that's not right. Is your idea of justice a world where attacks on Android are
fine but Android is never allowed to fight back? Is your idea of justice a
world where you have to pay billions to use non-essential patents but not one
cent for essential patents?
Patents are bad but a world where one side
gets to launch patent attacks and the other side is not allowed to fight back is
much worse.
BTW: there is a search feature here at Groklaw. If you use it,
you will find coverage of the earlier ITC rulings.
--- Our job is to
remind ourselves that there are more contexts
than the one we’re in now — the one that we think is reality.
-- Alan Kay [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
- Reality check - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, June 27 2013 @ 04:08 AM EDT
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, June 27 2013 @ 04:23 AM EDT |
I too am getting more than a little irked at the nonsense being
paraded thru the courts of justice in these IP cases. I would like
to see a solution that I know the law does not permit, and no
judge would wish. Simply abolish patents, all sorts, design, software,
whatever, for any device that runs software. Let them succeed or fail
on their merits in the marketplace. This would cover everything
from moonshot rockets to self-ordering drink vendor fridges.
And yes this would mean a boatload of lawyers having to find
a real job, like selling used cars ...
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Oliver on Thursday, June 27 2013 @ 05:43 AM EDT |
From the point of view of Groklaw educating me about the
law, then this article is interesting because it shows (at
minimum):
a) Another venue for Patent disputes
b) Another view on how to use the courts to cause disputes
around patents (the reverse hold-up)
So this does have value from the original purpose of Groklaw
(as I understand it). Covering other news in this case may
or may not show the same new information and I leave that
choice to the editors. I also recognise that PJ has her own
opinions and read this site in that knowledge.
As for this particular case, my simplistic understanding of
things makes me think that Apple shouldn't have a leg to
stand on. They are using a patent and refusing to pay so
either stop using it, forced by an injunction if necessary
or pay. The third path is to get the patent declared
invalid, which for pure software patents seems like a
reasonable course.
This article is about what the current state of the law is
regarding SEPs & injunctions, it just so happens that
Samsung seems to be on the side of common sense. I don't
think that PJ would hesitate to have written it the other
way around if Apple had been on the side of common sense.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, June 27 2013 @ 06:18 AM EDT |
A few things:
A common troll tactic here is to claim that you normally agree with PJ, but
disagree on "just this one issue".
Justice is just revenge carried out at a distance so you don't feel like it's
revenge. If we really cared about justice then we wouldn't have prision
sentences include durations, they'd all be "Until Unlikely to
Reoffend" and prisions would be set up to make that as short as possible.
PJ got her reputation for "always calling things right" by *refusing
to comment* until the outcome was actually obvious. That attitude is very much
a rarety in reporting these days, so I appreciate her restraint, but when she
doesn't do that, she's as fallible as the rest of us.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Gringo_ on Thursday, June 27 2013 @ 07:12 AM EDT |
You insult us all here when you say "This websites blindly
supports patent
abuse if it is done by Google or/and Google
partner." and I take offense. We're
anything but blind here!
There can't be a group of folk anywhere on the planet
who
strive to view all sides of any given issue. PJ has been,
for over a
decade now, publishing the actual documents on
both sides of any given legal
action. Her opinions, whether
one agrees with them or disagrees with them does
not trump
the actual facts presented such that reader can make up his
own
mind. How many people go to the lengths we go here to
investigate and seek out
truth?
I want this website to become
better.
What utter nonsense! You couldn't care less about
this
website, other than to have a place to implement your
agenda.
While I usually side with Groklaw on many
issues...
You are just making that up. Typical troll
tactic.
Rational thinking is excluded if it doesn't
favor
your platform of choice?
Another insult. You have no
respect for us here. My
"platform of choice" became such through rational
thinking,
and seeing by their behaviour which companies I respect and
support.
Not the other way around.
Does Samsung have any non FRAND
SEPs to
counterclaim with? Moto had 1 in Germany, Samsung has none
so
far.
What has that got to do with anything? Apple started
a
war against Android/Google/Samsung with their phony patents,
while at the
same time blatantly refusing to respect
Samsungs SEP in this case. Why do you
insist in tying one
arm behind Samsung's back and insist they counter with a
non-SEP?
Don't forget that the first ITC ruling of
this
patent favored Apple. Where were PJs articles then?
PJ
can't possibly cover every development in the world.
However, there were News
Picks posted about every dimension
of the Apple/Samsung conflict. It's not like
PJ is being
selective. At the time, there were far more interesting
things
going on.
I'm not even religious and I'm offended you
brought Jesus into this. This is a law website in regards to
tech companies,
why bring in in Jesus?
I thought that was clever, myself. I
loved it! PJ at
times uses colourful expressions, and that is the joy of it.
It provides a little needed comic relief where otherwise the
injustices in
this world might be just too overwhelming.
This website is no
longer "Digging for Truth"
but digging for the only the truth we want to
see?
This website is the same as it always been, and you
are a
phony pretending to be one of us.
There are so many
intelligent discussions
that this website avoids, that could lead us all to
better
understandings of the issues.
This website
avoids... nothing! All the facts are here,
all the time. The reader is invited
to make up his or her
own mind. You are a very clever troll or shill with an
agenda, but I see right through you.
Maybe having
counterpoint post ( without a
rabid comment section ) to further the
intellectual
discussions of the issues?
Maybe eliminating
trolls like you would make this website
better? [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
- A technicality - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, June 27 2013 @ 09:21 AM EDT
|
Authored by: globularity on Thursday, June 27 2013 @ 07:19 AM EDT |
If you don't like this site you know where to go.
Both sides of the argument were presented in the pdf's despite your assertions
to the contrary. Apple started a war without researching the oppositions weapons
and now tries to avoid the consequences. They don't even pay company tax in the
US yet want the USTR to defend them.
---
Windows vista, a marriage between operating system and trojan horse.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: tiger99 on Thursday, June 27 2013 @ 07:23 AM EDT |
He or she seems to be quite busy today. [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, June 27 2013 @ 08:39 AM EDT |
I've not much to add to the debate. Other users have already
shown the danger of a company using FRAND patents and
refusing to pay for them.
It's not even an Apple vs. Android issue. You're basically
confusing the use of software and silly design patents -
that we always loathe - with FRAND patents, that have *real*
intellectual and original content, and even more so
important that cannot be denied to anyone and should be
awarded by a fair price.
The problem here is that FRAND patents are under attack by
Apple, Microsoft and Oracle trying to voiding their values.
If there are patents that must be guarded, those are FRAND
patents.
Lastly, why do you feel offended just because she said
"Jesus"? It's just colloquial speech. It's not that she
wanted to open a religious debate. Get a hold of yourself.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, June 27 2013 @ 09:07 AM EDT |
"I want this website to become better." . . .
Check out the "Awards" link at the top left of the page, and then tell
us some more about how this site isn't good enough for you.
PJ self-admittedly admires the beauty of Apple's products, while she criticizes
their litigious antics. That doesn't sound like an anti-Apple bias to me, but I
guess you're too busy "improving" Groklaw to notice.
If you can't get past your own blindly pro-Apple bias, then I would suggest one
improvement you could immediately and directly make to the Groklaw project:
depart.
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: hardmath on Thursday, June 27 2013 @ 09:16 AM EDT |
This website is run by PJ. She started it, and while she
welcomes
assistance and contributions from others, the site
is as she defines
it.
Make your own website. Use PJ's experience as a model if
you wish, or
not. But the decade long success of Groklaw
should be a clue that PJ is doing
a lot of things right over
the long haul.
regards,
hardmath
--- Rosser's trick: "For every proof of me, there is a
shorter proof of my negation". [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: PJ on Thursday, June 27 2013 @ 09:21 AM EDT |
Sigh. First, I don't care what you think. Think
whatever you want to. I don't
care because you
are rude.
I also don't care if you are offended. You have
a
simple remedy. Leave. No one forces you to read
Groklaw. I write the way I
feel, and if you don't
like it, stop reading.
Because you were so insulting,
let me inform you
publicly that there is no such thing as "non FRAND SEPs".
Just
so you know your comment made no sense.
Also, my coverage of the Apple v.
Samsung case begins
here
and it continues here
. Where were
you?
The problem in the RAND universe is this: there
are too many allegedly necessary patents issued. No software patents should
ever issue in the first place. So there is a mess. It's a mess across the
entire patent world, not just RAND. In the RAND section, Apple and Microsoft
concocted a scheme to try to create an uneven playing field that would benefit
them. So they both simply refused to pay anything for RAND patents, suing
instead on the claim that the patent owners were charging too much. And that
strategy went down in flames at the ITC, which told Apple that they should have
paid. The ITC did NOT say that Samsung was abusing its RAND obligations. It said
Apple was guilty of reverse patent hold up. So your assumptions do not match
reality here.
You are free to disagree with both me and the ITC. Apple does.
But in my view, Apple is suffering the consequences of a mean and
super-aggressive patent strategy. I notice the lawyer at Apple who was in charge
has now left the company. I would further assume that it is now apparent that
listening to advice from FOSSpatents may not pay off for your company. [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, June 27 2013 @ 09:22 AM EDT |
If you really want to see what patent
holdup and advise is then all you need to
do is look at Nokia's and Microsoft's
tactics of selling SEPs to a licensing
company that hasn't made a FRAND pledge
and seeks injunctions and more money from
their SEP portfolio.
Mueller over at FOSSPatents made nor about
Acacia having acquired parents that are on
2g, 3G, and 4G and are pursuing other
companies for additional money and he said
that HTC will have to deal with them both.
So it just goes to show that Apple's,
Microsoft's, and Nokia's complaints about
FRAND stacking, holdup and abuse are
because they are the ones doing it.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: celtic_hackr on Thursday, June 27 2013 @ 10:11 AM EDT |
I'm sorry, but that is the most prejudicial bologna I've heard spouted on
Groklaw, or anywhere else (although it happens here on a regular basis).
Go away troll, you're full of lies and hate and bigotry.
PJs opinions are her own. She posts all the facts for anyone to make up their
own mind. She was the first one to do this, that I know of, in a very long time.
She started a whole genre of blogging. Others have followed.
She's done boatloads for the World. What have you done to improve the human
condition?
But, if you're serious about wanting a better Groklaw, contribute better posts
and at least indicate a possible solution for what you see is wrong. You might
have heard of this idea, once. It's called "constructive criticism".
Whereas, "[insert X] needs to be better.", contributes nothing to the
useful exchange of ideas. Indeed it is you who seem to be the non-rational one.
The kind of behaviour we often see in school-yard bullies.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: TemporalBeing on Thursday, June 27 2013 @ 02:33 PM EDT |
I think others have generally responded to you well, but I'd just like to point
out that Econ 101 and 102 do not talk about Patents, FRAND or otherwise. They
are typically Micro-Economics and Macro-Economics respectively and talk about
their respective areas of economics at a very general, introductory level.
And honestly, I'm not sure what economics course would actually talk about
patents - they're not economic devices, they're legal devices so you'd really
need to be talking to Law Schools about Patent related Law Classes.
In the end, you got off on entirely the wrong premise and ended up with very
wrong conclusions as a result.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|