Oh wonderful. Here's a group of people who get even less done than those hard working civil servants we have in Washington. Not to mention the simple fact they have zero jurisdiction.  

The UN has no jurisdiction over these issues whatsoever. Last time I checked, the US is a sovereign nation. Who the hell do they think they are?

Quote:

Originally Posted by hill60 

Google and their FRAND abusing cronies need to be brought to heel.
Their hypocritical stance regarding standards essential patents has to stop.
Steve Jobs was quite clear, stop copying, innovate your own stuff and there is no need for legal action.
A lot of these actions started a year or more ago, various legal systems are so slow the "escalation" is only coming to light now.

This will all be settled in the courts. It's none of the UN's business.... at all!

The US needs to stop funding the UN. What a bloody joke.

The UN is disgusting and the US should definitely withdraw from that joke of an organization. How those corrupt and filthy totalitarian bastards are allowed to have their headquarters in this country is mind blogging. The UN has been trying to take control of the internet for a while now, and they are a threat to freedom, a threat to the US and they are an enemy entity as far as I am concerned.

Get the UN’s hands off the Internet 

http://www.nydailynews.com/opinion/hands-internet-article-1.1108624

A huge percentage (> 70%) of the articles on AI's front page involves some kind of legal dispute or issue. It's very depressing. I've slowed my visits to AI because instead of Apple new about upcoming hardware, reviews of apps or software, we're treated to this legal shit.

I'm an Apple fan about it's products, period. 

Quote:

Originally Posted by SpamSandwich 

.... Last time I checked, the US is a sovereign nation. ...

This part is not completely true.

The US and other signatories to the WTO/GATT voluntarily gave up some of their sovereignty so that unelected, unaccountable persons could adjudicate trade disputes.

This troubles me more than any ineffectual UN grandstanding.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sensi 

@ Apple ][

 

You are such a joke and a caricature of the ignorant, reactionary, far-right conditioned nutjob on nearly every topic that it is well beyond the pale. Go back enlightening you with your tabloids gutter-level drivels, lol.

Dumb and ignorant ad-hominem attacks will get you nowhere. If you disagree with anything that I write or claim, then feel free to argue it, if you have any counter arguments at all to make.

Whatever the rights and wrongs of each case, clearly the current patent system is broken. The only people winning are the lawyers.

I wish the ITU well but I don't see any mood for compromise just yet. I would have thought WIPO should be the one taking more of a lead on this issue.

Quote:

Originally Posted by quinney 

This part is not completely true.

The US and other signatories to the WTO/GATT voluntarily gave up some of their sovereignty so that unelected, unaccountable persons could adjudicate trade disputes.

This troubles me more than any ineffectual UN grandstanding.

WTF?!?

What has the UN got to do with the WTO? Am I the one who's been taking crazy pills here?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Shaun, UK 

 

I wouldn't waste your energy. He posts these ridiculous comments in every thread. Just ignore him like the rest of us do.

He just got blocked by me... ah... sweet relief.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Shaun, UK 

 

I wouldn't waste your energy. He posts these ridiculous comments in every thread. Just ignore him like the rest of us do.

I get that a few people don't like me here. I'm ok with that, because I'm outspoken and I tell it like I see it, and that may offend a few Fandroids and various peasants, but there's no reason for you to lie. 

As a matter of fact, I have the #1 top rated post for the past seven days. Your little lie doesn't jive too well with reality.

And I still wish for a reverse-ignore switch on this forum, because there are certain posters whom I would block from ever reading my posts.

Quote:

Originally Posted by aaarrrgggh 


I would argue that the majority of folks here question your sense of reality that much more given using NY Daily News as a source.
The issues here cross national boundaries. We have already seen the mess that is created by spreading all the lawsuits across jurisdictions. Specifically for FRAND, where standards have global implications, it makes sense to have an independent body preside.
Would you rather have the IEEE be responsible for it?! How about MPEG-LA?

The UN? Where in their charter does it say they are responsible for negotiating patent disputes? That's outrageous! It's a matter for the WTO and/or the companies involved to solve in court. What the hell is wrong with this picture?

Quote:

Originally Posted by SpamSandwich 

 

He just got blocked by me... ah... sweet relief.

The person who gave your post a thumbs up in this thread was me. I certainly regret that now, and I wish that I could take that back.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Shaun, UK 

Whatever the rights and wrongs of each case, clearly the current patent system is broken. The only people winning are the lawyers.

 

I wish the ITU well but I don't see any mood for compromise just yet. I would have thought WIPO should be the one taking more of a lead on this issue.

The system is working! Conflicts get sorted out in court, not by politicians. This is strictly a business matter, FFS.

The lawyers are the only ones winning? Where does this nonsense come from?

Next thing you know, the world court will be running America. Screw that!

Quote:

Originally Posted by SpamSandwich 

 

The system is working! Conflicts get sorted out in court, not by politicians. This is strictly a business matter, FFS.

 

The lawyers are the only ones winning? Where does this nonsense come from?

 

Next thing you know, the world court will be running America. Screw that!

Might be better off considering the US economy is in the toilet...

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chris_CA 

(I gave a thumps up for your response)

Thanks!

People may not always agree with what I write, but I don't run away from any arguments, and I'm usually always willing to debate anybody who disagrees.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Apple ][ 

I get that a few people don't like me here. I'm ok with that, because I'm outspoken and I tell it like I see it, and that may offend a few Fandroids and various peasants, but there's no reason for you to lie. 

 

As a matter of fact, I have the #1 top rated post for the past seven days. Your little lie doesn't jive too well with reality.

 

And I still wish for an anti-ignore switch on this forum, because there are certain posters whom I would block from ever reading my posts.

That's a good idea. I think most people would happily never read another one of your posts ever again.

I can certainly believe you have the #1 most annoying post. In fact you probably hold positions 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 ,7, 8, 9 and 10 as well.

I can live with outspoken but not ignorant, rude, racist and down right nasty. The fact that you call people "peasants" says it all really.

Quote:

Originally Posted by SpamSandwich 

 

The system is working! Conflicts get sorted out in court, not by politicians. This is strictly a business matter, FFS.

 

The lawyers are the only ones winning? Where does this nonsense come from?

 

Next thing you know, the world court will be running America. Screw that!

All that means is judges decide these issues rather than politicians. Not sure how that helps anyone.

How much have Apple spent on lawyers in the past few years on these cases? And they've still had many of their requests dismissed.

Patents are worldwide not just in the US. We need some form of international control otherwise Apple would have to sue in every single country they sell their goods. How does that make any sense?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Shaun, UK 

The only people winning are the lawyers.

Apple's lawyers saved the company SIX HUNDRED AND FIFTY MILLION DOLLARS by getting an East Texas patent trolling decision overturned.

This single decision paid for their costs many times over.

The point is that it should probably never have made it to court in the first place.

I consider the United Nations getting involved a good thing.

It may bring positive results and, if it doesn't, it'll raise awareness of the issue, and is unlikely to affect Apple anyway.

Quote:

Originally Posted by GTR 

I consider the United Nations getting involved a good thing.

 

You are of course entitled to your opinion, but are you aware that some of the countries that are most in favor of the UN getting more involved in the internet are some of the worst and most restrictive countries on the face of the planet? It's no surprise that censor happy and not free countries like China and Russia are in favor of the UN gaining more control of the internet and countries like the US are very much opposed to it. The more the UN is involved in something, the more restrictions will happen. Dictators and murderers all over the world are wishing for the UN to take over the internet, as they will be the ones who benefit the most from it.

http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2012-06-01/is-the-un-the-next-big-threat-to-internet-freedom

Quote:

Originally Posted by Apple ][ 

 

You are of course entitled to your opinion, but are you aware that some of the countries that are most in favor of the UN getting more involved in the internet are some of the worst and most restrictive countries on the face of the planet? It's no surprise that censor happy and not free countries like China and Russia are in favor of the UN gaining more control of the internet and countries like the US are very much opposed to it. The more the UN is involved in something, the more restrictions will happen. Dictators and murderers all over the world are wishing for the UN to take over the internet, as they will be the ones who benefit the most from it.

 

http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2012-06-01/is-the-un-the-next-big-threat-to-internet-freedom

That's an interesting article, and did make me aware of some issues that I wasn't aware of.

Maybe if they keep their business to the topic of "innovation-stifling use of intellectual property" only, and keep their grubby little international hands off anything else, I can't see the harm.

I guess we'll wait and see what happens...

Quote:

Originally Posted by GTR 

Maybe if they keep their business to the topic of "innovation-stifling use of intellectual property" only, and keep their grubby little international hands off anything else, I can't see the harm.

 

Perhaps, but for some reason, I don't really see them as being trustworthy, impartial or being able to do a good job. But as you said, we'll see what happens. :)

Quote:

Originally Posted by SpamSandwich 

Quote:

Originally Posted by quinney 

This part is not completely true.

The US and other signatories to the WTO/GATT voluntarily gave up some of their sovereignty so that unelected, unaccountable persons could adjudicate trade disputes.

This troubles me more than any ineffectual UN grandstanding.

 

WTF?!?

 

What has the UN got to do with the WTO? Am I the one who's been taking crazy pills here?

If you read my post, I was addressing your misconception that the US was sovereign, not making any connection between the UN and WTO. I don't know what kind of pills you take, but I have observed similar effects of learning about our lack of sovereignty on people who suffer from the free trade/small government syndrome.  When confronted with the reality that our laws can be superseded by rulings from some faceless, possibly non-American, corporate lackey, they sometimes experience anxiety.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sensi 

Hopefully US judges like Posner could also push for a cleanup of the US mess over patents.

 

It's about time that out-of-touch 70+ year old idiot Posner retired or croaked it IMO.

The UN can jog on as well.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Apple ][ 

 

You are of course entitled to your opinion, but are you aware that some of the countries that are most in favor of the UN getting more involved in the internet are some of the worst and most restrictive countries on the face of the planet? It's no surprise that censor happy and not free countries like China and Russia are in favor of the UN gaining more control of the internet and countries like the US are very much opposed to it. The more the UN is involved in something, the more restrictions will happen. Dictators and murderers all over the world are wishing for the UN to take over the internet, as they will be the ones who benefit the most from it.

 

http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2012-06-01/is-the-un-the-next-big-threat-to-internet-freedom

 

Precisely.

 http://www.everythingisaremix.info/

No one should claim to own their invention 100%. Where is the recognition of the help society gave you. Nor should it be a super long term thing. 5, 10 years is a long time today.

But direct copying, plagiarism, misleading trading, that's wrong too.

The UN DOES have jurisdiction in the EU. Typical ignorant American thinking they're the only country in the world.

Quote:

Originally Posted by SpamSandwich 

The UN has no jurisdiction over these issues whatsoever. Last time I checked, the US is a sovereign nation. Who the hell do they think they are?

Quote:

Originally Posted by pragmatous 

The UN DOES have jurisdiction in the EU. Typical ignorant American thinking they're the only country in the world.

 

That's a shame for typical ignorant Europeans. The US will never allow itself to get played or to be dictated to by the moronic UN, which represents the greatest threat to world peace and freedom currently in existence. The US won't bail you guys out again and save your asses after it's too late, like we have done in the past.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tallest Skil 


But we will keep giving money to every single other country in the world, despite their political alignment or need for the money during our own economic hardship… for no reason, apparently.

Yes, I can't disagree with you on that, unfortunately.

Reposted here, the more appropriate thread:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacepower 


I think your missing the order of events here...
A patent cannot be essential to a standard unless it is already/or will be pledged to a standard. By this it means that the patent owner willingly puts forth its patents under the assumption of FRAND, willing to license to anyone.
By definition, a patent can't be "essential" to a standard if it is not part of a standard. If it is part of a standard then it has be to licensed on frand terms, according to the ITU, ISO, and IEEE. 

From ETSI:

"For the avoidance of doubt in exceptional cases where a STANDARD can only be implemented by technical solutions, all of which are infringements of IPRs, all such IPRs shall be considered ESSENTIAL."

Going further than that despite Microsoft's loud and long protests to the EU, they were ordered to not only license their server tech including appropriate patents, but told it would be on FRAND terms, available to all competitors.

From MS:  "The Commission also held that Microsoft violated EU competition law by failing to disclose to competitors some of its most innovative technologies relating to “server” operating systems (i.e., back-office computers that help run networks). The Commission reached this conclusion despite the fact that many of the world’s most powerful IT companies, such as IBM, Sun Microsystems, Hewlett-Packard, Novell, and Red Hat, compete vigorously in the supply of server operating systems. The Commission ordered Microsoft to create extensive documents describing its complex and innovative technologies – many of which are protected by patents and trade secrets – and to license these technologies to competitors. In recent months, the Commission has broadened the scope of this compulsory license considerably by holding that Microsoft: (i) must license these technologies even outside Europe; (ii) must license these technologies royalty-free; and (iii) cannot prevent licensees from disclosing Microsoft trade secrets in their source code."

http://www.microsoft.com/presspass/legal/european/EU_Competition_Overview.mspx

As for your comments on Mr. Mueller, if you spent much time here you might know that FOSSPatents is one of my three go-to sources on patent litigation, the other two being PatentlyO and Groklaw. In the case of Mr. Mueller, he almost always has the facts he chooses to use correct, which is admirable and a good reason for my daily visits to his blog. He just doesn't mention any that might not be beneficial to Microsoft's goals (nor Oracle's now). You never found it odd that there's not even one article at FOSSPatents criticising Microsoft? 

Motorola isn't saying "that's the way it should work". On the contrary it's the way it does work, and there's little doubt Mr. Mueller is well aware of that. Since it doesn't advance Microsoft's arguments to have a mention by Mueller that MS partner Nokia reportedly wants 2.5% of a finished consumer-ready device cost for a single patent, up to 5% for 10 or more, he's not going to say a word about it. Qualcomm wants 3.5% of a completed device price not just a chipset, but don't expect FOSSPatents to mention it since it's an inconvenient fact. And those are just the two of the bigger ones. According to the ETSI, companies from Ericsson to Alcatel, and ZTE to Huawei receive royalty payments based on a percentage of a finished consumer device's price. It's not the rarity that "someone" apparently convinced you it is. 

http://www.ecommercetimes.com/story/56757.html

I believe Microsoft's goal, Apple's as well, is to isolate Motorola as a rogue patent claimant, basing royalties on the "ridiculous notion" of a finished device. Pointing out that it's a common royalty basis for FRAND royalties in the telecom industry would not support his client's claims would it? How else to explain his failure to mention it while portraying Moto as an outlier. I believe this is all about competition and holding an advantage, and less about belief by any of the parties that it's "unfair" or unusual.

So contrary to what you might think, yes I do read every single article that's posted at FOSSPatents. I also read the Twitter links he offers to better understand his sources and views. But I don't trust him to tell me the whole story. He's paid to offer support to his clients, Oracle and Microsoft among others, and IMO that support appears to extend into his personal blogs, evidenced by the total lack of any concerns or criticisms written about them. He's great with the facts. Just realize he'll dole out only those that aren't at odds with his clients gameplans as far as I can see.

Would I go so far as to say Motorola or Samsung's use of SEP's to seek injunctions is proper? No sir. Nor do I necessarily agree with a device BOM being the proper royalty basis in all cases but at the same time that's been seen as proper, even by Microsoft, for a long time. Neither Apple nor Microsoft should be able to avoid paying the same royalties requested from other licensees (with credit for patents granted back in return, ie cross-licensing) and there should be consequences. I don't see any obvious reason those penalties could not be determined by a court, altho they should seldom get that far IMO. I don't support injunctions as a proper cure except in the possible case that an infringer absolutely refuses to pay royalties under any circumstance and in opposition to court rulings..