or Connect
New Posts  All Forums:

Posts by anonymouse

  If you objectively look at all the facts in this case, which includes Amazon's monopoly position in the eBook market, and near monopoly position in physical books, at the time all of this happened, you are left with only 2 possible explanations:   1. The lawyers at DoJ are utterly stupid and unable to see the effects this would have on the publishing industry if they prevail.   2. Someone at DoJ controlling this process is completely corrupt and either paid off by...
Apple will appeal, this will be thrown out, and the end result will be another investigation of Samsung for abusing SEP/FRAND patents.
  They are selling at a loss to gain control of the publishing industry. They subsidize this with the gross profits from other categories of merchandise.   In other words, they are leveraging their dominance as an online retailer to eliminate competition in the publishing industry with the goal of achieving complete vertical control of that industry.   This action by the DoJ serves no purpose but to consolidate that control. Regardless of whatever other opinions you may...
  Great, now we've got DoJ lawyers signing up to post. Sorry, it doesn't sound any more convincing in this repetition.
  If that quote is their strongest "evidence", and it appears to be, from a quick perusal, the DoJ doesn't have even half a case. The judge, however, seems to have already reached conclusions before the trial, so, no doubt it's going to be a long drawn out process with appeals, etc.   Apple's "crime" here, was to bust the Amazon eBook monopoly, something that DoJ should have done themselves.
  More nonsense from the usual purveyors of falsehood. Google/Samsung's entire strategy has to date been based on abuse of FRAND patents, and there's nothing different about that here.
  It's funny how one week GG will be on here bashing Mueller and the next citing him. 
  And you're another one. And, no, the difference for SEP is that to implement the standard, you must use the patented "invention". That's the point, and we all know that all these "controversies" are from companies like Samsung and Google trying to either "double-dip" or violating their FRAND obligations. No one, including Apple, is refusing to license these patents under FRAND terms, but FRAND terms, in violation of the commitments made, aren't being offered by these...
  The problem with propaganda is that, even though it's nine parts lies, with a dash of truth thrown in to make it seem plausible, if it isn't countered, people start to believe it, simply from repetition. So, yes, although it would be nice to be able to just ignore this nonsense, and actually be able to have meaningful discussions, as long as people are paid to come here (along with the many, transient fools who stop by from time to time) and spread disinformation, the...
  Classic attempt at disinformation from GG. You can't be "guilty of infringement" in a meaningful sense with SE/FRAND patents. Of course anyone following the standard will be using the "inventions" described in these patents, that's more or less a tautology. The issues are a) can SE/FRAND patents be used to enjoin products in any instance, and b) if they can, was FRAND licensing actually offered and refused. Those are the issues here. Not whether, "Apple is likely guilty...
New Posts  All Forums: