or Connect
New Posts  All Forums:

Posts by Gatorguy

You missed the edit then.My quote:Or perhaps you expect solid 18K gold?http://www.bernardwatch.com/International-Watch-Company/Portofino-34/IWC44334 mm / Height: 39 mm / Thickness: 9.5 mm / Lug Width: 18 mm. Price? $3300. If you're willing to nuy that same watch on eBay it can be had for $1800.To put things in an even better perspective how much gold do you think there is in the massive Rolex President?All of these weights are converted to pure gold from the 18K gold used...
http://www.redmondpie.com/swiss-watchmakers-announce-luxury-smartwatches-ahead-of-apple-watch-release/"... two Swiss watch brands – Frederique Constant and Alpina – have teamed up with Fullpower Technologies to add all those smart fitness sensors to their luxury watches. Fullpower Technologies may not be known by many independently, but the company has been involved with the likes of Jawbone, Nike FuelBand and a bunch of other wearables as well, adding all that required...
Not always IMO. In the case of Apple and Samsung there's evidence that Samsung required Apple to offer back a license to their own essential UMTS patents (probably acquired in the Rockstar deal), something I don't think the EU would have issue with, nor did Apple in all likelihood. If it's a requirement to license back non-essential IP to get an SEP license I think I'd agree with you.
And THAT I agree with.
There's been a welcome infection of Polite in the forums today. It's nice for a change.
The EU has already codified circumstances where cross-licensing agreements are illegal, for example when two competing companies enter into a licensing agreement in order to block other companies market access. As a condition of SEP licensing was not one of those AFAIK.Anyway, I do appreciate the time you took to search out sources and the respectful manner in which you offered the results. i wish more here would do their own research as well. Thanks!
Thank you sir. I had already read that particular document as well as another outlining specific circumstances where it could be illegal (and not necessarily with only SEP's). That doc still not say it is not allowed. It instead says it could be potentially be an anti-competitive practice. No where does it say it's not permitted/illegal under any circumstances, at least as far as I can see.
No I don't agree. That's why nearly an hour ago I asked you for a link to where the EU says that. It could well be true but you seem to be unable to prove it with some reliable source for the claim.
You honestly believe Steve Jobs would have listened to accountants and to save a few bucks agreed to license his iPhone patents to a competitor for an SEP license if he didn't have to? As I recall he was dang proud of those patents (boy have we patented it)I can't imagine you believe that. No, It's much more likely it wasn't an illegal Nokia licensing condition in the first place rather than Mr Jobs willingly doing so to save a few dollars. IMO there's no way in hell he...
Apple eventually caved and did in fact license back some of their own IP, even some specific to the iPhone, in agreeing to take a license to Nokia's SEP patent portfolio. That would indicate that the EU did not find it to be illegal wouldn't it? Otherwise why would Apple agree to a cross-licensing agreement offering patents to IP that makes an iPhone an iPhone? I'm quite certain that would not have been Apple's preferred choice.EDIT: For those that don't believe Apple...
New Posts  All Forums: