or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPhone › President Obama vetoes Samsung ban on Apple, Inc. iPhones, iPads
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

President Obama vetoes Samsung ban on Apple, Inc. iPhones, iPads - Page 4

post #121 of 262
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

LOL. Since the trade representative made it clear that SEP injunctions might be appropriate in certain circumstances and the number one thing he wanted the ITC to pay attention to in future rulings was the public interest concerns and then noting his press quote cited the same public interest concerns too it's pretty obvious sir. The fact you have problems seeing it isn't terribly surprising to me. Perhaps you could ask a mathematician for a formula that might lead you to the answer. 1rolleyes.gif

EDIT: If you have a good understanding of English you won't even need a mathematician to show you how to arrive at the right answer. Just peruse the letter AI linked for you in the article itself. Page three, paragraph three if you're not a great reader or simply impatient.

Hmmmm. . .

"This decision is based on... the effect on competitive conditions in the U.S. economy and the effect on U.S. consumers". Huh. Public interest concerns just as I said.

Egregious trolling isn't a great start for you on a Sunday morning. Maybe you could tone it down at least one day a week.

Public interest concerns is just a result of SEP abuse. Same thing.
post #122 of 262
Quote:
Originally Posted by patsu View Post



Google already went back against their words in Net Neutrality

How so? Perhaps you might be confused about what "net neutrality" is? If not please explain.
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #123 of 262
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

How so? Perhaps you might be confused about what "net neutrality" is? If not please explain.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/07/31/google-net-neutrality_n_3683023.html
post #124 of 262
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post

I guess if you're paid by Google and Samsung to misread everything that opposes you, you might read it that way.

The decision was based IN PART on public interest concerns - including the public interest in not having a bully misuse SEP patents. It is clear from the formal letter that the largest part of their concern is to prevent SEP abuse.

Of course, if you want to consider that 'public interest concerns', feel free. However, that paints your employers in a bad light.

Really? Where in the legal letter did the rep say "in part"? I'll wait. I must have missed it. The only "in part" comment I'm aware of is in his spoken comment to the press, not the written legal explanation he supplied. You sound like a legal expert. Which carries more weight, the written ruling or a press statement? Pretty sure based on the evidence at hand that the ITC was overruled on primarily public interest grounds.
Edited by Gatorguy - 8/14/13 at 5:11am
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #125 of 262
Quote:
Originally Posted by GTR View Post

It's about time.

I've been waiting for some fool to play the racist card
What does his post have to do with racism?
post #126 of 262
Quote:
Originally Posted by digitalclips View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by architecton View Post

I was... and I had been a member there since 2004!! I think the whole forum section of that site is run by Google / Samsung.

...on the up side I discovered AI! ...and boy am I glad I did!! 1biggrin.gif

Welcome 1smile.gif I almost never go to MR these days for all the reasons given above, but many moons ago it was my site of choice too.

I wear my (short i should add) MR ban as a badge of honor. 1biggrin.gif

What's MacRumors?
post #127 of 262

No, what do you understand net neutrality to be and how is Google acting against that. I suspect you don't really see how the article you linked might be mischaracterizing it too.

Here's a discussion and clarification of what Google means in it's Google Fiber TOS.
http://productforums.google.com/forum/#!msg/fiber/-ixejP9yHj4/lGJ6iPAXoe0J
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #128 of 262
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stevel View Post

what a shameful act of injustice. If you can't beat them with innovation in the market place, and if you can't beat them with litigation in the courtroom, then go running to your President for the hope you paid him enough to do the deed. What about the price fixing Apple? You think Obama will help you out with that as well? Pathetic. Guaranteed to have some backlash with markets outside of the US.

A hollow threat of "backlash" from one frustrated Apple hater. Bring it. Less talk, more backlash.

"Apple should pull the plug on the iPhone."

John C. Dvorak, 2007
Reply

"Apple should pull the plug on the iPhone."

John C. Dvorak, 2007
Reply
post #129 of 262
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

Which carries more weight, the written ruling or a press statement?

Actually, both likely carry the same amount of weight for a public official (unless they put out a press correction afterwards).
post #130 of 262
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

Really? Where in the legal letter did the rep say "in part"? I'll wait. I must have missed it. The only "in part" comment I'm aware of is in his spoken comment to the press, not the written legal explanation he supplied. You sound like a legal expert. Which carries more weight, the written ruling or a press statement? Pretty sure based on the evidence at hand that the ITC was overruled on primarily public interest grounds. Give up on this one. Even trying to "shoot the messenger" doesn't change what the trade rep cited for his reason to overturn.

Same thing.

If said patent is not an SEP, Obama has no reason to step in.
post #131 of 262
Quote:
Originally Posted by patsu View Post

Same thing.

If said patent is not an SEP, Obama has no reason to step in.
He can always step in when the ITC issues an import ban. SEP's aren't required.
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #132 of 262
Quote:
Originally Posted by architecton View Post

 

I was... and I had been a member there since 2004!! I think the whole forum section of that site is run by Google / Samsung.

 

...on the up side I discovered AI! ...and boy am I glad I did!! 1biggrin.gif

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by architecton View Post


Yet another Sameshit loving Fandroid... lol.gif

 

hint: Go to macrumors! That site seems to be crawling with fandroids...

Agreed. 

 

I used to be on Macrumors myself. It is the armpit of Apple forums. Then I discovered far more intelligent reporting and discussion on AI, and never made another forum post on MR again. 

I occasionally have a look, and it is more riddled with trolls and paid posters than it ever was. The moderators are a bunch of assholes as well!

post #133 of 262
Quote:
Originally Posted by herbapou View Post

Due to the political nature of this news, there are restrictions on other Apple sites regarding comments. So some trolls came here.

We have restrictions thereon, too. 1tongue.gif Thing is, if it's Apple news proper, there's really nothing wrong with talking about it anyway. If you can't keep your personal politics in your pants for something as simple as an Apple article, I mean really.

Originally Posted by Marvin

The only thing more insecure than Android’s OS is its userbase.
Reply

Originally Posted by Marvin

The only thing more insecure than Android’s OS is its userbase.
Reply
post #134 of 262
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by patsu View Post

Same thing.

If said patent is not an SEP, Obama has no reason to step in.
He can always step in when the ITC issues an import ban. SEP's aren't required.

'Can' is not the same as 'does'.

What happened yesterday rarely happens. The last time was in 1987, under Reagan (ironically, protecting Samsung in semiconductors).
post #135 of 262
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

He can always step in when the ITC issues an import ban. SEP's aren't required.

Yes, but if said patent is not an SEP, he won't have a solid public interest reason to come in.
post #136 of 262
Quote:
Originally Posted by anantksundaram View Post

Actually, both likely carry the same amount of weight for a public official (unless they put out a press correction afterwards).

Despite the fact that his public statement was not at odds with the written judgement ( "in part" is certainly true and doesn't make it a minimal part in any event;) it's pretty plain what grounds he used to overrule the ITC. He stated it quite well and in clear English, making it the primary reason even if it might not be the only reason. Why all the effort from some AI members to imagine some other hidden unstated reason that carried more weight than the public interest concerns he said he based it on?

If some of you would put as much time and effort in researching and reading for yourselves instead of working so hard at claiming I might, maybe, perhaps be wrong you'd probably have a much better understanding of some issues.
Edited by Gatorguy - 8/4/13 at 9:33am
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #137 of 262
Quote:
Originally Posted by tribalogical View Post

Cnet forums are pretty much owned by fandroids and Samsung trolls anymore… Samsung has made it a central suppository (sic) for their "paid shill" marketing.

No, no. Didn't you hear? The paid shills have to sound "organic." lol.gif

"Apple should pull the plug on the iPhone."

John C. Dvorak, 2007
Reply

"Apple should pull the plug on the iPhone."

John C. Dvorak, 2007
Reply
post #138 of 262
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

No, what do you understand net neutrality to be and how is Google acting against that. I suspect you don't really see how the article you linked might be mischaracterizing it too.

Here's a discussion and clarification of what Google means in it's Google Fiber TOS.
http://productforums.google.com/forum/#!msg/fiber/-ixejP9yHj4/lGJ6iPAXoe0J

Of course I read that article. The Wired one elaborates on the details:
http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2013/07/google-neutrality/

Google simply gave a boilerplate response. Some services such as peer-to-peer ones may serve both commercial and home interest.
post #139 of 262
Quote:
Originally Posted by patsu View Post

Yes, but if said patent is not an SEP, he won't have a solid public interest reason to come in.

Huh?
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #140 of 262
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by anantksundaram View Post

Actually, both likely carry the same amount of weight for a public official (unless they put out a press correction afterwards).

Despite the fact that his public statement was not at odds with the written judgement ( "in part" is certainly true and doesn't make it a minimal part in any event;) it's pretty plain what grounds he used to overrule the ITC. He stated it quite well and in clear English, making it the primary reason even if it might not be the only reason. Why all the effort from some AI members to imagine some other hidden unstated reason that carried more weight than the public interest concerns he said he based it on?

If some of you would put as much time and effort in researching and reading for yourselves instead of working so hard at claiming I might, maybe, perhaps be wrong you'd probably have a much better understanding of some issues.

Huh?
post #141 of 262
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

Huh?

Huh what ? Using SEP to ban competition's import is against public interest. The standard bodies adopt these patents because they were (and are) promised to be neutral in principle. If this set a precedence, all standards are potentially threatened.
post #142 of 262
Quote:
Originally Posted by patsu View Post

Of course I read that article. The Wired one elaborates on the details:
http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2013/07/google-neutrality/

Google simply gave a boilerplate response. Some services such as peer-to-peer ones may serve both commercial and home interest.

You apparently didn't read the discussion link I offered you then? Pretty sure peer-to-peer is OK as long as it's not a commercial operation. So how is Google working against net neutrality by restricting some commercial server services from running over their consumer lines? It seems as tho it's clear in your mind.
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #143 of 262
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

You apparently didn't read the discussion link I offered you then? Pretty sure peer-to-peer is OK as long as it's not a commercial operation. So how is Google working against net neutrality by restricting some commercial server services from running over their consumer lines? It seems as tho it's clear in your mind.

You are "pretty sure" but Google may not be. ^_^

It's your own interpretation.

I'm pretty sure it's case by case. 8^)

People won't express concern if it's clear cut neutral.
post #144 of 262
Quote:
Originally Posted by patsu View Post

Huh what ? Using SEP to ban competition's import is against public interest. The standard bodies adopt these patents because they were (and are) promised to be neutral in principle. If this set a precedence, all standards are potentially threatened.

And that's the only reason that an ITC injunction can ever be overturned? SEP's have to be involved? You should do a little research before coming to that conclusion.
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #145 of 262
Quote:
Originally Posted by patsu View Post

You are "pretty sure" but Google may not be. ^_^

It's your own interpretation.

I'm pretty sure it's case by case. 8^)

People won't express concern if it's clear cut neutral.

You're still not reading it are you?1hmm.gif
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #146 of 262
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

And that's the only reason that an ITC injunction can ever be overturned? SEP's have to be involved? You should do a little research before coming to that conclusion.

Given that this is the first time since a long time ago, and SEP is the central issue highlighted by Apple, Microsoft, Intel, Oracle and others. Yes (this time):
http://betanews.com/2013/07/30/microsoft-oracle-and-others-side-with-apple-over-us-iphone-4-ban/
Edited by patsu - 8/4/13 at 10:00am
post #147 of 262
edit
Edited by Gatorguy - 8/14/13 at 5:10am
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #148 of 262
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

You're still not reading it are you?1hmm.gif

Read it and it doesn't address the issue. Only case by case.

They said they will post more details when the service is rolled out.
Perhaps by then, they will consider and finalize our feedback.
post #149 of 262
Quote:
Originally Posted by patsu View Post

Read it and it doesn't address the issue. Only case by case.

They said they will post more details when the service is rolled out.
Perhaps by then, they will consider and finalize our feedback.

So now you're not as certain of your claim as you thought you were that Google has gone anti-net neutrality. Fair enough for me. You're right, we should wait until the service actually rolls out before tossing accusations around.
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #150 of 262
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

So now you're not as certain of your claim as you thought you were that Google has gone anti-net neutrality. Fair enough for me. You're right, we should wait until the service actually rolls out before tossing accusations around.

As the Wired article put it, their Net Neutrality stance has weakened to become like the people they fought years ago:

"In its response, Google defended its sweeping ban by citing the very ISPs it opposed through the years-long fight for rules that require broadband providers to treat all packets equally."

That's going back against their words.

Since they have stated that they will clarify when the service is rolled out, we should wait for more info. For now, they have gone back against their previous stance.
post #151 of 262
Quote:
Originally Posted by Suddenly Newton View Post

No, no. Didn't you hear? The paid shills have to sound "organic." lol.gif

Hey, it's organic.

EDIT: Where's my video?
Edited by Tallest Skil - 8/4/13 at 10:45am

Originally Posted by Marvin

The only thing more insecure than Android’s OS is its userbase.
Reply

Originally Posted by Marvin

The only thing more insecure than Android’s OS is its userbase.
Reply
post #152 of 262
Quote:
Originally Posted by patsu View Post

As the Wired article put it, their Net Neutrality stance has weakened to become like the people they fought years ago:

"In its response, Google defended its sweeping ban by citing the very ISPs it opposed through the years-long fight for rules that require broadband providers to treat all packets equally."

That's going back against their words.

Since they have stated that they will clarify when the service is rolled out, we should wait for more info. For now, they have gone back against their previous stance.

I still don't think you get it. Yes, a packet is a packet. They've not indicated they intend to restrict content or sources. Realistically there are limits to band-width, a fact which is not the same thing as working against net neutrality. I agree you should wait to toss stones. There will be plenty of time and AI will be an ideal grandstand to do it from.
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #153 of 262
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

I still don't think you get it. Yes, a packet is a packet. They've not indicated they intend to restrict content or sources. Realistically there are limits to band-width, a fact which is not the same thing as working against net neutrality. I agree you should wait to toss stones. There will be plenty of time and AI will be an ideal grandstand to do it from.

It doesn't really matter if you think I get it or not. You have no say in Google's policies especially when you agree with them.

The thing is People have raised questions, and pointed out that Google has gone against their previous stance. Google has agreed to clarify when the service is rolled out.
post #154 of 262
Quote:
Originally Posted by patsu View Post

It doesn't really matter if you think I get it or not. You have no say in Google's policies especially when you agree with them.

The thing is People have raised questions, and pointed out that Google has gone against their previous stance. Google has agreed to clarify when the service is rolled out.

Now you get it! They haven't actually gone against net neutrality at all then. Going forward they may not either. We have to wait and see what they actually do. Perfect, as we now agree.for the most part.
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #155 of 262
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post


Hey, it's organic.

 

LOL.

"Apple should pull the plug on the iPhone."

John C. Dvorak, 2007
Reply

"Apple should pull the plug on the iPhone."

John C. Dvorak, 2007
Reply
post #156 of 262
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

Now you get it! They haven't actually gone against net neutrality at all then. Going forward they may not either. We have to wait and see what they actually do. Perfect, as we now agree.for the most part.

Nope. It just means It's too early to say whether we agree or not.

By the TOS they put out and the response they gave so far, they have gone against their previous stance of Net Neutrality (where Google and I used to agree). It has nothing to do with you and your agreement, or approval.

Google is asking for more time to think it through, and explain properly.
post #157 of 262
Quote:
Originally Posted by patsu View Post

Nope. It just means It's too early to say whether we agree or not.

By the TOS they put out and the response they gave so far, they have gone against their previous stance of Net Neutrality (where Google and I used to agree). It has nothing to do with you and your words.

Google is asking for more time to think it through, and explain properly.

Then you'll have to explain how limiting excessive use of bandwidth for commercial purposes on a shared consumer-centric network connection is somehow against net-neutrality. I don't see it. IMO you're trying to insist there's a juicy story right now where none yet exists. I think we've strayed from the topic long enough and far enough already. Let's wait to see what really happens before claiming it already has.

As we were. . .
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #158 of 262
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post


I still don't think you get it. Yes, a packet is a packet. They've not indicated they intend to restrict content or sources. Realistically there are limits to band-width, a fact which is not the same thing as working against net neutrality. I agree you should wait to toss stones. There will be plenty of time and AI will be an ideal grandstand to do it from.

 

Google's whole Net Neutrality stance was a political ploy to grow their footprint into the ISP business. Once firmly entrenched, they won't give a rat's ass about it.

post #159 of 262
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

Then you'll have to explain how limiting excessive use of bandwidth for commercial purposes on a shared consumer-centric network connection is somehow against net-neutrality. I don't see it. IMO you're trying to insist there's a juicy story right now where none yet exists. I think we've strayed from the topic long enough and far enough already. Let's wait to see what really happens before claiming it already has.

As we were. . .

It doesn't concern me that you don't see it (I expected it based on your previous posts). As long as Google has agreed to clarify, I am willing to wait for their official policy response. For now, it's like what the Wired article mentioned. Something's changed at their end.

This thread is about President Obama's ban anyway.
post #160 of 262
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

Really? Where in the legal letter did the rep say "in part"? I'll wait. I must have missed it. The only "in part" comment I'm aware of is in his spoken comment to the press, not the written legal explanation he supplied. You sound like a legal expert. Which carries more weight, the written ruling or a press statement? Pretty sure based on the evidence at hand that the ITC was overruled on primarily public interest grounds. Give up on this one. Even trying to "shoot the messenger" doesn't change what the trade rep cited for his reason to overturn.


And the part you keep intentionally missing is that "public interest grounds" is not the political nonsense you are pretending that it is.

The statement from the ITC is quite clear. The ban was overturned because it should never have been issued for an SEP patent. Period. The fact that they went further and stated that it's in the public interest not to ban something over an SEP patent doesn't change that.
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: iPhone
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPhone › President Obama vetoes Samsung ban on Apple, Inc. iPhones, iPads