Originally Posted by PhilBoogie
Then there are Europeans with a different view, probably because they're Europeans, and look differently at why things are the way they are. I'm not saying you don't understand, but you have to admit that 'petty parochialism'
likely raises some European eyebrows.
1. Would it be possible for companies to infringe without knowing? Could Apple have bought 3G radio chips for their phones from a company expecting procured products to be infringe-free?
2. Copyright violation:
Google Found Guilty In Belgium For Newspapers' Copyright Infringement link
3. Patent infringement:
A San Francisco jury ruled that Google violated copyright law in an action brought by Oracle. The jury did not decide on the secondary issue of whether using an API is fair use. link
4. Mondovino copyright law breach, Paris court fines Google for copyright breaches:1
Well, it certainly is petty parochialism. When the EU formulates systemwide laws, and the various countries constantly violate those laws, then that term certainly applies.
Perhaps you remember what happened to Apple there a few years ago regarding the various national iTunes stores? Apple was accused of charging different prices in each country, which supposedly goes against the fair competition laws the EU had put in place. They went to investigate Apple, and perhaps fine them. But it turned out that Apple had no choice, because each country, in violation of the EU laws, was forcing Apple to deal with their own royalty collection agencies, and required Apple to set different prices in each country.
So what happened? The EU commissioner apologized to Apple, and acknowledged that they were being forced to do this by the individual countries, despite it being a violation of the EU laws regarding those types of stores and products. What happened after that? Did the EU force the countries to retract their laws and follow the EU law and allow Apple to have one store, with one price across the entire EU? No, they whined about the countries not following the laws, and dropped the entire matter.
This is typically how the EU operates.
The EU law about budget deficits for each country are that they may not exceed 3%. If they do, the country is fined a good deal of money. That worked for small countries, who would get fined when that happened. But when both France and Germany went over the 3%, they warned the finance commission not to dare to fine them, and they didn't.
Again, a typical way problems are handled over there.
As far as the specifics you mentioned, yes, that's what happened.
But it's actually worse. Both Motorola and Samsung are unethical. Both approached Broadcom and Qualcomm about that chip licensing. Now it must be remembered that there are two principles at work here. The first is that the chip manufacturers license the microcode from the companies who have the patents. The second it the right of first sale.
The first means that both Broadcom and Qualcomm already paid the licensing fees for that tech. The second it that licensing fees die at that point, and purchAsers of those chips done need to pay the fees. In addition, both Motorola and Samsung had signed contracts specifically stating that purchAsers of the chips, and downstream users of said equipment had no license fees to pay because they were already paid by the manufacturers of the chips.
But both Motorola and Samsung wanted Broadcom and Qualcomm to allow them to rewrite the contracts to specifically eliminate Apple from ability of buyi g the chips and not paying licensing. Both Broadcom and Qualcomm released public statements saying that they refused and that it was improper to expect that they would agree. The possibility of action in court over this by Motorola and Samsung was ended.
Both Motorola and Samsung have been acting very unethically in all of this, everywhere around the world. From asking up to 1,000 times the worth of a FRAND patent, to suing over matters that they must have known were improper. They have had no real serious IP to sue Apple over. Motorola even stated that the reason they sued Apple in this case was because they were sure that Apple would sue them, so they wanted to do it first. That makes no sense. It took Apple a bit of time to respond. If they were planning on suing, it would have happened faster, because they would have been in the process of maki ghtir case ready.
It's felt that at that time, Google and Motorola were in negotiations, and so Motorola sued Apple as a front for Google. This supposedly, would make Google's case for buying the at the outrageous price they paid more meaningful.
As Motorola was failing before the purchase, and is failing more rapidly now, along with the worthless cases they fired at Apple, I'm pretty sure that at some point, Google will need to write off most of the $12.5 billion purchase.
I can't wait!