Do I smell xenophobia here? Of course, I'm certain the US court will not find Apple, the American company, to be in its right... No way that could happen. I mean, of course the refueling planes the US Army will use for the next 80 years are the more appropriate, better built Airbus, and not the Boeing ones that did not meet the requirements. Oh... oh, wait.
I think it's pretty much a balanced judgment that Korean Court issued, given the complexity of the matter, not to mention the political ramifications.
Foss says:
"It would mean that foreign companies would either have to bow to Samsung's and LG's demands and, among other things, give up their own non-standard-essential intellectual property or stop selling in Korea."
THE high-profile Android case has led to pressure from the judge to disclose paid bloggers. Google named nobody, whereas Oracle named two .
Now it turns out that “Apple has retained Florian Mueller as a consultant,” which is a known way of passing a bribe (it’s the business model, as Microsoft privately calls it). “So GROKLAW keeps catching FM showing bias while publicly holding himself up to be an expert on FLOSS patent violations and the like, and a blogger/journalist,” writes Pogson, who adds: “The guy really is in “Technology Evangelism Mode”. He even sent me an e-mail about Oracle v Google, unsolicited. I reported it to PJ at GROKLAW as did others so she has been on FM’s case for a while.”
“They use the same tactics of misinforming journalists en masse. That’s their service.”Groklaw continues investigating this case and remarks from bloggers are telling: “So, the guy is clearly not an expert on FLOSS patents and is an advocate for those who pay him, not just a “consultant”.
"It would mean that foreign companies would either have to bow to Samsung's and LG's demands and, among other things, give up their own non-standard-essential intellectual property or stop selling in Korea."
As to whether Samsung violated the Fair, Reasonable and Non- Discriminatory (FRAND) terms, the Seoul court ruled that it was hard to find the South Korean company did not follow the terms, saying that Apple failed to ask for a licensing agreement or consult on the use of standard-essential patents with Samsung before using the related patents.
The court noted that Apple seemed to have the intent to avoid the claims of Samsung to stop infringing on its standard patents rather than make a sincere negotiation, saying that Apple seemed to overly undervalue the standard patents for telecommunications technology.
The FRAND is a legal term used to describe patent licensing terms. According to the FRAND, companies can manufacture products by using the standard-essential patents, and then negotiate with the patent holders about how much to pay for the usage of the patents.
You are obviously new around here. All the pro-Android camp loved Mueller until he started to say things they didn't like.
When was he ever pro-Android?? It's been years since he blogged anything that disfavored Microsoft, which almost by definition means all things Google are bad. Ask yourself why, when Nokia demanded an import and sales injunction on Apple products over FRAND-pledged IP, it didn't get any complaints from him. They used the threat to force Apple into a cross-license agreement on top of ongoing royalty payments and Apple blinked. After all that he still considered Nokia "one of the good guys" (his words). Yet Samsung or Motorola doing the same gets an impassioned article on how unfair, unreasonable and plainly ridiculous it is.
His agenda is pretty clear unless someone here can explain why Nokia going after Apple injunctions on SEP's is different from Samsung going after Apple injunctions on SEP's. Neither was right IMO, but Mr. Mueller only has a problem with an Android-licensee doing so.
When was he ever pro-Android?? It's been years since he blogged anything that disfavored Microsoft, which almost by definition means all things Google are bad.
And, yet, you were praising him as an unbiased, qualified expert when he was saying things that you liked. In particular, he argued that all software patents should be disallowed which would put Google in a position of being able to copy Apple's iOS with impunity. You were fully supporting everything he said at that time.
Now that he's saying that Samsung has grossly overstepped its bounds, he's suddenly a paid hack. /s
And, yet, you were praising him as an unbiased, qualified expert when he was saying things that you liked. In particular, he argued that all software patents should be disallowed which would put Google in a position of being able to copy Apple's iOS with impunity. You were fully supporting everything he said at that time.
Now that he's saying that Samsung has grossly overstepped its bounds, he's suddenly a paid hack. /s
Oh, geesh. Another accusation without proof or links or examples. Who woulda thunk you'd continue your tradition of making claims without merit (some might call it lying, as you accused another member of this morning). Try coming back with even a teensy bit of evidence that I've ever claimed Mueller to be unbiased (tho he is an expert IMO).
So apparently you don't have an explanation for why Nokia and Samsung should be treated differently by Mueller, but figured you had to say something anyway that had nothing to do with proving or disproving what I said.
I think this is the part where you jump back in with an insult since you already know your statement wasn't true when you wrote it, but you gotta save face somehow, right? I don't think the late Dr. Rhodin would be impressed.
And, yet, you were praising him as an unbiased, qualified expert when he was saying things that you liked. In particular, he argued that all software patents should be disallowed which would put Google in a position of being able to copy Apple's iOS with impunity. You were fully supporting everything he said at that time.
Now that he's saying that Samsung has grossly overstepped its bounds, he's suddenly a paid hack. /s
Yup. I remember it well. Surely he can remember what he himself has posted in the past...
Take it up with googleguy. He thinks Foss is a great reference.
BTW, even if he is paid by Oracle, how does that refute what he said? Please point out the errors in his blog.
It sounded like he was responding to your posted reference to Foss. What does googleguy have anything to do with it?
The problem with Mueller's articles is that they usually start with a small factual tidbit that is then followed up with massive amounts of biased conjecture. That 'conjecture' is what usually gets plastered all around here and taken as some sort of 'authoritative' analysis. The fact remains that Florian Mueller is nothing more than a demonstrated paid shill, and should be treated as such.
Then again, you do like to cite random user comments from the Internet to back your positions, so expecting you to vet other citations may have been expecting too much...
Yup. I remember it well. Surely he can remember what he himself has posted in the past...
I once believed in Santa too. Then one day. . .
Well-reasoned does not equal unbiased. Florian always posts long well-supported articles with lots of facts and links, and on the surface often seem quite reasonable. He's absolutely one of my go-to sources for patent news and I often agree with points he makes. Yet he still manages to leave out specific facts that might put Microsoft in a bad light, and I've not ever seen an article boosting Google. Is it by pure chance that he never misses those that might seem bad for Android licensees or Google?
Oh, geesh. Another accusation without proof or links or examples. Who woulda thunk you'd continue your tradition of making claims without merit (some might call it lying, as you accused another member of this morning). Try coming back with even a teensy bit of evidence that I've ever claimed Mueller to be unbiased (tho he is an expert IMO).
So apparently you don't have an explanation for why Nokia and Samsung should be treated differently by Mueller, but figured you had to say something anyway that had nothing to do with proving or disproving what I said.
I think this is the part where you jump back in with an insult since you already know your statement wasn't true when you wrote it, but you gotta save face somehow, right? I don't think the late Dr. Rhodin would be impressed.
Well, GG, I remember you frequently linking to Mueller's posts when they supported your points, and then turning around and bashing him when they didn't. (And, no, I'm not going to spend hours digging through the archives trying to find them, we all remember that it happened.) So, the criticism is entirely to the point.
How about a little honesty from you before you start impugning that of others with your disingenuous deflections. No? I didn't think so.
Well-reasoned does not equal unbiased. Florian always posts long well-supported articles with lots of facts and links, and on the surface often seem quite reasonable. He's absolutely one of my go-to sources for patent news. Yet he still manages to leave out specific facts that might put Microsoft in a bad light, and I've not ever seen an article boosting Google. Is it by pure chance that he never misses those that might seem bad for Android licensees or Google?
Sounds a lot like a poster here, oh, who is it... oh, right, you. Except that your "links" never seem to actually support your arguments, whereas his do.
This court ruling is simply an instance of the corrupt South Korean legal system allowing Samsung to save face. It would have been a too egregious example of that country's deeply embedded corruption to simply ignore Samsung's blatant copying, so they chose this disingenuous tu quoque verdict as the best way to do nothing to harm Samsung but maintain some level of credibility themselves.
While it maintains a facade of honour, their is no honour in this pretense of justice.
Take it up with googleguy. He thinks Foss is a great reference.
BTW, even if he is paid by Oracle, how does that refute what he said? Please point out the errors in his blog.
I'm starting to warm up to GoogleGuy. Gives an air of knowledgeable authority, as tho those that use it aren't familiar with both sides of the issues and relying on me to fill them in.
Anyway, the errors aren't in what he said. He's correct in the facts he states way more often than he's wrong. The bias shows in what he left out.
Nokia wanted the same thing, an injunction, and over the same type of FRAND-pledged standards-essential patents, and claimed Apple wouldn't take a license from them either. Apple also made their same claims as they make against Samsung, that Nokia was being unreasonable in it's royalty demands. If you relied only on FOSSPatents for a viewpoint on this ruling you'd think Apple hadn't already dealt with a nearly identical situation already and established a precedent of cross-licensing and royalty payments when pushed hard enough.
Comments
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pendergast
And who's payroll are you on...?
I'm wondering if anyone's on the payroll of anyone right here. Does anyone but us Appleinsider commenters read them forums?
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta
Take it up with googleguy. He thinks Foss is a great reference.
Really?
Show me some link.
He is a heavy anti-Google/anti-Android/anti-Samsung guy.
I can not trust your comment.
http://9to5google.com/2011/10/14/patent-analyst-accused-of-anti-google-stance-funded-by-microsoft/#idc-cover
http://thedroidguy.com/2012/05/florian-mueller-is-a-fraud/
Foss says:
"It would mean that foreign companies would either have to bow to Samsung's and LG's demands and, among other things, give up their own non-standard-essential intellectual property or stop selling in Korea."
http://www.fosspatents.com/2012/08/apple-samsung-ruling-suggests-south.html?m=1
Sounds very fair and balanced...
THE high-profile Android case has led to pressure from the judge to disclose paid bloggers. Google named nobody, whereas Oracle named two .
Now it turns out that “Apple has retained Florian Mueller as a consultant,” which is a known way of passing a bribe (it’s the business model, as Microsoft privately calls it). “So GROKLAW keeps catching FM showing bias while publicly holding himself up to be an expert on FLOSS patent violations and the like, and a blogger/journalist,” writes Pogson, who adds: “The guy really is in “Technology Evangelism Mode”. He even sent me an e-mail about Oracle v Google, unsolicited. I reported it to PJ at GROKLAW as did others so she has been on FM’s case for a while.”
“They use the same tactics of misinforming journalists en masse. That’s their service.”Groklaw continues investigating this case and remarks from bloggers are telling: “So, the guy is clearly not an expert on FLOSS patents and is an advocate for those who pay him, not just a “consultant”.
http://techrights.org/2012/08/23/spamming-the-web/
You are obviously new around here. All the pro-Android camp loved Mueller until he started to say things they didn't like.
Quote:
Originally Posted by sennen
Foss says:
"It would mean that foreign companies would either have to bow to Samsung's and LG's demands and, among other things, give up their own non-standard-essential intellectual property or stop selling in Korea."
http://www.fosspatents.com/2012/08/apple-samsung-ruling-suggests-south.html?m=1
Sounds very fair and balanced...
NOT VIOLATING FRAND
As to whether Samsung violated the Fair, Reasonable and Non- Discriminatory (FRAND) terms, the Seoul court ruled that it was hard to find the South Korean company did not follow the terms, saying that Apple failed to ask for a licensing agreement or consult on the use of standard-essential patents with Samsung before using the related patents.
The court noted that Apple seemed to have the intent to avoid the claims of Samsung to stop infringing on its standard patents rather than make a sincere negotiation, saying that Apple seemed to overly undervalue the standard patents for telecommunications technology.
The FRAND is a legal term used to describe patent licensing terms. According to the FRAND, companies can manufacture products by using the standard-essential patents, and then negotiate with the patent holders about how much to pay for the usage of the patents.
http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/business/2012-08/24/c_131805787.htm
Quote:
Originally Posted by geoadm
Rubber banding is a good patent to have hold of. Using any android phone without it seems cheaper and nastier than the rest of them
The good thing is if Samsung and all other Android phones are required to remove it, a simple app from the market will restore it.
A South Korean court? Ok.
So what?
Quote:
Originally Posted by sennen
You are obviously new around here. All the pro-Android camp loved Mueller until he started to say things they didn't like.
When was he ever pro-Android?? It's been years since he blogged anything that disfavored Microsoft, which almost by definition means all things Google are bad. Ask yourself why, when Nokia demanded an import and sales injunction on Apple products over FRAND-pledged IP, it didn't get any complaints from him. They used the threat to force Apple into a cross-license agreement on top of ongoing royalty payments and Apple blinked. After all that he still considered Nokia "one of the good guys" (his words). Yet Samsung or Motorola doing the same gets an impassioned article on how unfair, unreasonable and plainly ridiculous it is.
His agenda is pretty clear unless someone here can explain why Nokia going after Apple injunctions on SEP's is different from Samsung going after Apple injunctions on SEP's. Neither was right IMO, but Mr. Mueller only has a problem with an Android-licensee doing so.
And, yet, you were praising him as an unbiased, qualified expert when he was saying things that you liked. In particular, he argued that all software patents should be disallowed which would put Google in a position of being able to copy Apple's iOS with impunity. You were fully supporting everything he said at that time.
Now that he's saying that Samsung has grossly overstepped its bounds, he's suddenly a paid hack. /s
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta
And, yet, you were praising him as an unbiased, qualified expert when he was saying things that you liked. In particular, he argued that all software patents should be disallowed which would put Google in a position of being able to copy Apple's iOS with impunity. You were fully supporting everything he said at that time.
Now that he's saying that Samsung has grossly overstepped its bounds, he's suddenly a paid hack. /s
Oh, geesh. Another accusation without proof or links or examples. Who woulda thunk you'd continue your tradition of making claims without merit (some might call it lying, as you accused another member of this morning). Try coming back with even a teensy bit of evidence that I've ever claimed Mueller to be unbiased (tho he is an expert IMO).
So apparently you don't have an explanation for why Nokia and Samsung should be treated differently by Mueller, but figured you had to say something anyway that had nothing to do with proving or disproving what I said.
I think this is the part where you jump back in with an insult since you already know your statement wasn't true when you wrote it, but you gotta save face somehow, right? I don't think the late Dr. Rhodin would be impressed.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta
And, yet, you were praising him as an unbiased, qualified expert when he was saying things that you liked. In particular, he argued that all software patents should be disallowed which would put Google in a position of being able to copy Apple's iOS with impunity. You were fully supporting everything he said at that time.
Now that he's saying that Samsung has grossly overstepped its bounds, he's suddenly a paid hack. /s
Yup. I remember it well. Surely he can remember what he himself has posted in the past...
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta
Take it up with googleguy. He thinks Foss is a great reference.
BTW, even if he is paid by Oracle, how does that refute what he said? Please point out the errors in his blog.
It sounded like he was responding to your posted reference to Foss. What does googleguy have anything to do with it?
The problem with Mueller's articles is that they usually start with a small factual tidbit that is then followed up with massive amounts of biased conjecture. That 'conjecture' is what usually gets plastered all around here and taken as some sort of 'authoritative' analysis. The fact remains that Florian Mueller is nothing more than a demonstrated paid shill, and should be treated as such.
Then again, you do like to cite random user comments from the Internet to back your positions, so expecting you to vet other citations may have been expecting too much...
Quote:
Originally Posted by sennen
Yup. I remember it well. Surely he can remember what he himself has posted in the past...
I once believed in Santa too. Then one day. . .
Well-reasoned does not equal unbiased. Florian always posts long well-supported articles with lots of facts and links, and on the surface often seem quite reasonable. He's absolutely one of my go-to sources for patent news and I often agree with points he makes. Yet he still manages to leave out specific facts that might put Microsoft in a bad light, and I've not ever seen an article boosting Google. Is it by pure chance that he never misses those that might seem bad for Android licensees or Google?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy
Oh, geesh. Another accusation without proof or links or examples. Who woulda thunk you'd continue your tradition of making claims without merit (some might call it lying, as you accused another member of this morning). Try coming back with even a teensy bit of evidence that I've ever claimed Mueller to be unbiased (tho he is an expert IMO).
So apparently you don't have an explanation for why Nokia and Samsung should be treated differently by Mueller, but figured you had to say something anyway that had nothing to do with proving or disproving what I said.
I think this is the part where you jump back in with an insult since you already know your statement wasn't true when you wrote it, but you gotta save face somehow, right? I don't think the late Dr. Rhodin would be impressed.
Well, GG, I remember you frequently linking to Mueller's posts when they supported your points, and then turning around and bashing him when they didn't. (And, no, I'm not going to spend hours digging through the archives trying to find them, we all remember that it happened.) So, the criticism is entirely to the point.
How about a little honesty from you before you start impugning that of others with your disingenuous deflections. No? I didn't think so.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy
I once believed in Santa too. Then one day. . .
Well-reasoned does not equal unbiased. Florian always posts long well-supported articles with lots of facts and links, and on the surface often seem quite reasonable. He's absolutely one of my go-to sources for patent news. Yet he still manages to leave out specific facts that might put Microsoft in a bad light, and I've not ever seen an article boosting Google. Is it by pure chance that he never misses those that might seem bad for Android licensees or Google?
Sounds a lot like a poster here, oh, who is it... oh, right, you. Except that your "links" never seem to actually support your arguments, whereas his do.
Quote:
Originally Posted by e_veritas
... What does googleguy have anything to do with it? ...
I like how everyone now refers to Gatorguy as googleguy.
This court ruling is simply an instance of the corrupt South Korean legal system allowing Samsung to save face. It would have been a too egregious example of that country's deeply embedded corruption to simply ignore Samsung's blatant copying, so they chose this disingenuous tu quoque verdict as the best way to do nothing to harm Samsung but maintain some level of credibility themselves.
While it maintains a facade of honour, their is no honour in this pretense of justice.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta
Take it up with googleguy. He thinks Foss is a great reference.
BTW, even if he is paid by Oracle, how does that refute what he said? Please point out the errors in his blog.
I'm starting to warm up to GoogleGuy. Gives an air of knowledgeable authority, as tho those that use it aren't familiar with both sides of the issues and relying on me to fill them in.
Anyway, the errors aren't in what he said. He's correct in the facts he states way more often than he's wrong. The bias shows in what he left out.
Nokia wanted the same thing, an injunction, and over the same type of FRAND-pledged standards-essential patents, and claimed Apple wouldn't take a license from them either. Apple also made their same claims as they make against Samsung, that Nokia was being unreasonable in it's royalty demands. If you relied only on FOSSPatents for a viewpoint on this ruling you'd think Apple hadn't already dealt with a nearly identical situation already and established a precedent of cross-licensing and royalty payments when pushed hard enough.