I prefer to read all sources too.
As for the FOSS link, it's an article somewhere on the blog where he criticizes Nokia. He mentions watching live internet streaming of the UN ITU open sessions and then rightfully complains that the ITU was holding a day or 2 of closed doors sessions. Those close door sessions favored private companies rather than the world population, which the UN ITU is supposed represent.
I'll post again on the Moto FRAND arguement but their first 2.4% offer is ridiculous. Will Moto ask Airbus or Boeing for $2.4 million for each $100 million aircraft that has an entertainment system that plays back interlaced h.264? Maybe an additional $2.4 for each $100 million aircraft that also includes wifi?
Does Moto deserve anywhere near $4.8 million for each of these $100 million aircraft.
If you subscribe to Groklaw and PJ's thinking, the answer is yes.
That's the fanboy world view I wand to avoid.
GG, I enjoy your thoughtful input, sometimes we agree, sometimes not, but good discussion.
I know exactly what article you're referring to, having read it when he first put it up. I don't believe he ever named Nokia, tho it was plain to me they were one of the companies he was "disappointed with" having already read their position statement (among others) filed in advance of the meetings.
EDIT: I believe this is the article you refer to. Reading thru it I see him loudly call out Motorola. He complains about Google policy at length. Of course he goes on about Android (which has nothing to do with the proceedings in any way). Strangely Nokia, Qualcomm. Ericsson, General Electric, Proctor&Gamble and others submitting the same general opinion to the UN on SEP's and injunctions aren't named at all, even tho he's aware of them and refers to them anonymously as just "companies".
Edited by Gatorguy - 12/8/12 at 6:37am