or Connect
New Posts  All Forums:

Posts by Tulkas

There are many, many alternative file systems companies could use. But FAT has become common. Google search is common too. I would disagree with any government action that forced either to effectively open up their IP to any and all. Just because they have successfully marketed their IP or otherwise made it popular does not mean the government should be able to dictate how they use their property or how much they can charge. If, however, they legally pledge to do so, then...
Once it's a standard, entirely different different expectations are set as to how much one can charge. 
MS or Apple (neither mentioned by name, so either is an assumption) the concept is the same. Once you have popularized it, they want the government to force you to let them use it as though you promised to do so. That is wrong. Companies that obligate themselves to do something should have higher standards of behavior, with regard to those properties, than companies that never promised to do the same with theirs. I wonder, would the be willing to let any and all license...
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.
New Posts  All Forums: