or Connect
New Posts  All Forums:

Posts by Rob55

  Actually, Sony and Samesung entered into a cross-licensing deal back in '04. http://www.sony.net/SonyInfo/News/Press_Archive/200412/04-1214E/   It may have resulted from them seeing "the writing on the wall" and making the decision to avoid something like what Apple and Samesung are now mired in.
  It is beyond idiotic. It is greed, plain and simple.
  I meant to link to this too in my earlier comment (#16). Wholeheartedly agree, it should be required reading.
  And they wouldn't even disclose any evidence to support the exorbitant rates they are trying to get out of Apple.
  I'm certainly no expert either, but I imagine Samesung may be due some royalties if it is decided that Apple didn't already pay licensing when they bought the chips from Infineon. Also, as is clearly evident in the Teksler-Kim letter from April 30th of last year, Apple was more than willing to license the patent on FRAND terms, but Samesung flatly refused. They later made a verbal offer that Apple then had no choice but to refuse as it was obviously unfair and...
  Maybe you should catch up with the facts before calling anyone a scumbag. Samesung making a verbal offer to license the '384 patent with the added requirement that Apple license some of their non-essential patents does not equate to a fair and reasonable offer. Apple made a clear and reasonable offer but Samesung refused. So, if Samesung doesn't get a dime, it'll be their own fault.
  If you are referring to the '384 patent, then the only obvious move is to actually offer a fair and reasonable licensing deal. On the other hand, if the "infringing" devices get EOL'ed with the new refresh, then I guess it'll be a moot point.
  I am amazed that the only "negotiating" Samesung did was in the form of an oral offer tied to cross-licensing of some of Apple's non-essential patents. As Pinkert points out in his dissension, "Although licenses to non-FRAND-encumbered patents may certainly be included in a consensual resolution of a dispute over a FRAND-encumbered patent, it is neither fair nor non-discriminatory for the holder of the FRAND-encumbered patent to require licenses to non-FRAND-encumbercd...
  Sounds like the DOJ in the eBook case.  
  I think it's based on a presumption that Amazon did it, so they only way to fight that is to play dirty too. Not saying I agree, but that's what it feels like had happened.
New Posts  All Forums: