or Connect
New Posts  All Forums:

Posts by Gatorguy

As opposed to a real View-master.http://www.geek.com/news/the-new-view-master-is-a-30-google-cardboard-headset-1615735/
Based on a recent ruling at the ITC it doesn't appear Apple is standing on firm ground at the moment. Have a read thru this ITC judge's ruling and EssentialPatentBlog's explanation of what it means in an eerily similar SEP case concerning Nokia and Interdigital standard-essential IP.http://www.essentialpatentblog.com/2015/05/public-version-of-judge-essex-itc-decision-that-nokia-phones-infringe-interdigitals-3gpp-patents-337-ta-613/Of course Apple is much more...
I don't think so. The rate is probably the same or very close to it, 1.5% of the end product price. The amount of money involved is higher because of Apple's much greater revenues attributable to the products using the technology.FWIW they've had the same rate for quite awhile as best I read, and even Apple's previous and recently expired contract with Ericsson was almost certainly based on that same publicly stated 1.5%. They would rather not pay it again, irrespective of...
A Google spokesperson said that it is “sorry for this inappropriate user-created content; we’re working to remove it quickly” and that “the vast majority of users who edit our maps provide great contributions.”The company also said that “we also learn from these issues, and we’re constantly improving how we detect, prevent and handle bad listings".The end result is that they've removed the user-edit option altogether as of a few days ago and it will stay gone until they...
Nope. Can you help out with a link to where Google said Apple never invented anything?
Thanks. I kinda remember that but not the details. Appreciate the link.So that's not exactly what they said. That was the authors opined translation of it.I do get their point in a way tho as I'm sure you would if it were a different company. Note that Qualcomm, Nokia and Ericcson are among the companies that now say they'll not be licensing wi-fi patents under the IEEE's newly decided standards-essential licensing terms. Going forward they'll do the contracts as...
Dunno, you tell me. It was your claim.
They really said that??
Not claiming it's FUD but where did they say that and what specifically did they say?With that out of the way of course a "fundamental patent" would by definition be one that is essential for anyone wishing to offer a similar product with the technology, correct? Just checking on how you're defining the terms.EDIT: Somewhat surprisingly IMHO the idea of "compulsory licensing" while already an element of IP law in some countries is now being mentioned here in US...
It made for a good sound bite. A lot of the statements lawyers make to the press are meant to serve that purpose. Accuracy is less important than seeing it repeated by the media.
New Posts  All Forums: