or Connect
New Posts  All Forums:

Posts by Tulkas

ummm, it was mentioned in a letter to the Senate Judiciary Committee that was looking into google behavior with regard to Apple and MS and SEP/FRAND patents that Google is attacking them with. They specifically argue that standards should be standard even if not ratified or approved by a standard body but because they have become common.       They may not have mentioned Apple by name, but they didn't have to. The subject of the hearings was Google's abuses of their...
I'd love to as well. Guess we'll have to wait until the courts release their records (assuming they document everything said during the proceedings) or for a journalist that was present to further detail the discussions.
Any and all cases they have brought using FRAND patents are dumb ass. They can't and won't win those, nor should they.    Whether the patents are FRAND or not is not a matter of opinion. The fact is that for them to be considered fact, the owners must make declarations to multiple bodies that they will license them under FRAND terms. They would not allowed into the various standards if they did not. I would be very interested in seeing these where Apple is saying a patent...
Relevancy, in this case is your opinion.    meanwhile, sticking to the facts, the ruling happened. It is a matter of documented fact. Nothing changes it from having actually happened. How is claiming a fact as a fact, in anyway, weaseling? 
Why should apple be excluded? Ok, then why should Apple also be excluded from taking part in the whole mess? That's the point. The mobile industry is lawsuit happy, yet only Apple gets singled out as the bad guy for getting in on the fun.
It was not found to be invalid. The UK courts decision takes precedence but it did not invalidate the German decision. It made it unenforceable.    Again, it was a statement of fact. There is no way to weasel out of that. Facts are facts. 
Two exact words are as exact as a full sentence. The full sentence provides context.
What Apple wrote was true. In no way was it untrue or incorrect. That's not parsing. It was a statement of fact. No parsing required.   No double standards on my part. I look at facts. They work better than fiction, fantasy, parsing and weaseling. 
While related in meaning, "inaccurate" and "misleading" are not the same words as "untrue" and "incorrect". A quote is meant to be exact. Otherwise it is paraphrasing. No doubt those are Carr's words. But the Bloomberg article quotes the court.
How can you know understand it is attributed to the court? "Apple Inc. (AAPL) was criticized by U.K. judges for posting a notice on its website about a lawsuit with Samsung Electronics Co. (005930) that was “untrue” and “incorrect.”"   Otherwise they could have saved themselves the effort and just left off the quotes. There is only one subject in the sentence to which those quotes could be attributed.     But I guess it has come down to parsing and semantics. Always a...
New Posts  All Forums: