While related in meaning, "inaccurate" and "misleading" are not the same words as "untrue" and "incorrect". A quote is meant to be exact. Otherwise it is paraphrasing. No doubt those are Carr's words. But the Bloomberg article quotes the court.
I understand the difference in the words; I also understand that the uk press in particular wouldn't use words like inaccurate & misleading when untrue & incorrect packs more punch. I don't think we'll know exactly who said what until a full transcript of the session is made available - if it ever will be.
Your comments on baffoons; not bad points there - it is the legal system though so you should expect nonsense to slip through where common sense should prevail.
As to the question of what apple should do, sit there & watch what they see as ip theft; this goes deeper than that - the old chestnut of the USPTO & some of the approved patents / trademarks, the obviousness of the mobile industry in that all players rip each other off at some point; why should apple be excluded from what's gone on in the industry for years? Apple themselves are definitely not squeaky clean when it comes to innovation & taking ideas from others. To an extent you could say apple should be grateful for spotting the opportunity to grab as much from the established mobile market place as they did in the early years. But, to then try to retain that by attempting to close out anyone else from the market is a nonsense; especially when you take into consideration some of the patents issued. I've never been interested in legal matters in this market so have no comment to make on Nokia litigation etc.. It's only through apple press that I'm now kind of hooked on seeing what's going on to further line the lawyers pockets with gold. Makes me think through hindsight that a legal degree would have made perfect sense
Fantastic. Two words, devoid of any context, in separate quotation marks are entirely valid examples as the unworthiness of the court. Your standards for "exact" are very low.
Two exact words are as exact as a full sentence. The full sentence provides context.
Find me a proper attributed quote and we can argue the point. Until then, it's just a couple of words in a sentence.
Besides which, I think it's been quite clearly established that Apple's claim that a German court had found it infringing is not true because the finding was invalid (an invalid finding being no finding at all), and the claim about the US court was at best misleading, because the Galaxy Tab was not included in the judgement, and could reasonably be called incorrect given the context it was displayed in.
So either way, you're wrong. But I'm sure you'll find a new argument to shift to now, that seems to be the way you operate.
It was not found to be invalid. The UK courts decision takes precedence but it did not invalidate the German decision. It made it unenforceable.
Again, it was a statement of fact. There is no way to weasel out of that. Facts are facts.
As to the question of what apple should do, sit there & watch what they see as ip theft; this goes deeper than that - the old chestnut of the USPTO & some of the approved patents / trademarks, the obviousness of the mobile industry in that all players rip each other off at some point; why should apple be excluded from what's gone on in the industry for years? Apple themselves are definitely not squeaky clean when it comes to innovation & taking ideas from others. To an extent you could say apple should be grateful for spotting the opportunity to grab as much from the established mobile market place as they did in the early years. But, to then try to retain that by attempting to close out anyone else from the market is a nonsense; especially when you take into consideration some of the patents issued. I've never been interested in legal matters in this market so have no comment to make on Nokia litigation etc.. It's only through apple press that I'm now kind of hooked on seeing what's going on to further line the lawyers pockets with gold. Makes me thing through hindsight that a legal degree would have made perfect sense
Why should apple be excluded? Ok, then why should Apple also be excluded from taking part in the whole mess? That's the point. The mobile industry is lawsuit happy, yet only Apple gets singled out as the bad guy for getting in on the fun.
Why should apple be excluded? Ok, then why should Apple also be excluded from taking part in the whole mess? That's the point. The mobile industry is lawsuit happy, yet only Apple gets singled out as the bad guy for getting in on the fun.
Does anyone have any figures to show how many mobile cases are ongoing? I would genuinely be interested to see if apple top that list (as aggressors) or to see if it's actually the press that have singled them out. Can't really argue with press picking up on some of the apple cases or comments used in cases though; scroll to bounce, shape of phone, trying to trademark app store, claiming people buy other brands thinking they are apple, claiming frand for non frand patents (there are examples out there where apple believe some techs should be frand but which aren't), apple themselves taking steps with ITC ref Samsung payment demands yet wanting samsung to pay huge amounts to cross licence their patents and so on. Plus with them being the rich boys they will be singled out. Read an interesting article comparing apple to other massive companies who get to a point where they simply can't keep ahead of the multitude of competition and as a result proceed on aggressive & ultimately unfruitful (no pun intended) legal cases.
I don't believe for a second that some of the cases brought by apple should ever get off the fag packet; they look like idiots. As a matter of interest, what dumb ass cases have samsung instigated against apple?
It was not found to be invalid. The UK courts decision takes precedence but it did not invalidate the German decision. It made it unenforceable.
Again, it was a statement of fact. There is no way to weasel out of that. Facts are facts.
Hello semantics my old friend. Invalid or unenforcable, either makes it irrelevant. An irrevelant fact is a pretty flimsy springboard to base your objection on, and any weaselling is in the "but it's a fact" position.
Hello semantics my old friend. Invalid or unenforcable, either makes it irrelevant. An irrevelant fact is a pretty flimsy springboard to base your objection on, and any weaselling is in the "but it's a fact" position.
Relevancy, in this case is your opinion.
meanwhile, sticking to the facts, the ruling happened. It is a matter of documented fact. Nothing changes it from having actually happened. How is claiming a fact as a fact, in anyway, weaseling?
Does anyone have any figures to show how many mobile cases are ongoing? I would genuinely be interested to see if apple top that list (as aggressors) or to see if it's actually the press that have singled them out. Can't really argue with press picking up on some of the apple cases or comments used in cases though; scroll to bounce, shape of phone, trying to trademark app store, claiming people buy other brands thinking they are apple, claiming frand for non frand patents (there are examples out there where apple believe some techs should be frand but which aren't), apple themselves taking steps with ITC ref Samsung payment demands yet wanting samsung to pay huge amounts to cross licence their patents and so on. Plus with them being the rich boys they will be singled out. Read an interesting article comparing apple to other massive companies who get to a point where they simply can't keep ahead of the multitude of competition and as a result proceed on aggressive & ultimately unfruitful (no pun intended) legal cases.
I don't believe for a second that some of the cases brought by apple should ever get off the fag packet; they look like idiots. As a matter of interest, what dumb ass cases have samsung instigated against apple?
Any and all cases they have brought using FRAND patents are dumb ass. They can't and won't win those, nor should they.
Whether the patents are FRAND or not is not a matter of opinion. The fact is that for them to be considered fact, the owners must make declarations to multiple bodies that they will license them under FRAND terms. They would not allowed into the various standards if they did not. I would be very interested in seeing these where Apple is saying a patent is FRAND when it is not. On the other hand, google has gone on record as saying that Apple's patents should made available to all, even though Apple did not make them FRAND licensable, because they have become common through other parties using them to the point of being defacto standards.
You mention Apple demanding higher royalties when discussing cross licensing with Samsung. And so they should. Their patents are private, nonFRAND. They have no obligation to sell them cheaply. Samsungs are FRAND. They have legal obligations to not discriminate against Apple by seeking unreasonably high rates. So blaming Apple for seeking to benefit from their patents, which they never agreed to make FRAND licensable, is odd.
MS is a big company too. As are Moto/Google and Samsung. When was the last time you saw major, daily, continuous coverage of their multitude of lawsuits that don't involve Apple?
I'd love to see that full sentence. Still waiting.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tulkas
What Apple wrote was
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tulkas
untrue
I'd love to as well. Guess we'll have to wait until the courts release their records (assuming they document everything said during the proceedings) or for a journalist that was present to further detail the discussions.
Originally Posted by Tulkas On the other hand, google has gone on record as saying that Apple's patents should made available to all, even though Apple did not make them FRAND licensable, because they have become common through other parties using them to the point of being defacto standards.
Um... no they didn't. Apple wasn't even mentioned by Google in that regard. That was put to rest months ago when it first came up here.
Um... no they didn't. Apple wasn't even mentioned by Google in that regard. That was put to rest months ago when it first came up here.
ummm, it was mentioned in a letter to the Senate Judiciary Committee that was looking into google behavior with regard to Apple and MS and SEP/FRAND patents that Google is attacking them with. They specifically argue that standards should be standard even if not ratified or approved by a standard body but because they have become common.
Quote:
While collaborative [Standards Setting Organizations (SSOs)] play an important part in the overall standard setting system, and are particularly prominent in industries such as telecommunications, they are not the only source of standards. Indeed, many of the same interoperability benefits that the FTC and others have touted in the SSO context also occur when one firm publishes information about an otherwise proprietary standard and other firms then independently decide (whether by choice or of necessity) to make complementary investments to support that standard in their products. … Because proprietary or de facto standards can have just as important effects on consumer welfare, the Committee’s concern regarding the abuse of SEPs should encompass them as well.
They may not have mentioned Apple by name, but they didn't have to. The subject of the hearings was Google's abuses of their patents with Apple and MS. Their comment on that subject, presumably, was related that subject. Whether they named Apple or not, they are arguing to be able to use other people work just because customers like it. They want companies that develop popular ideas to be forced to license those as SEP, under FRAND terms, in the same way a company that actually declared they would with their patents (in order to get them into standards). That is just sneaky, dirty shit.
Mind if I come and take your car and house? I sort of like it. Some people give their cars and houses away, so I'd like to take yours.
The subject of Google's mention was Microsoft IP like their FAT patent, properly considered a "de-facto standard" IMHO, that's being asserted against Android vendors to force them into license agreements. You need to understand the context to properly understand some of the arguments.
The subject of Google's mention was Microsoft IP like their FAT patent, properly considered a "de-facto standard IMHO, that's being asserted against Android vendors to force them into license agreements. You need to understand the context to properly understand some of the arguments.
MS or Apple (neither mentioned by name, so either is an assumption) the concept is the same. Once you have popularized it, they want the government to force you to let them use it as though you promised to do so. That is wrong. Companies that obligate themselves to do something should have higher standards of behavior, with regard to those properties, than companies that never promised to do the same with theirs. I wonder, would the be willing to let any and all license their search algorithms. Certainly they are sort of popular in search, so shouldn't everyone be able to offer the same? The government really should step in and force them to license their work, else they ought to seize the patents and make them public domain. Ridiculous, no?
Tellingly Apple and MS both pledged, unconditionally, to honour their FRAND commitments and not block any licensing of those patents. Google was not willing to make the same pledge without conditions that included "good faith negotiations". They have demonstrated what they mean by that with the Motorola arm, by demanding insane royalties amount, just from Apple. Their definition of good faith is a joke.
Unbelievable that people scream and shout about Apple, when the best you can claim is their activities are unwise, questionable and maybe unethical. Meanwhile Google is breaking their pledges, not honouring their commitments, and is under government investigation in the EU, by the DOJ and the FTC, for their behaviors with their monbile patents and their activities with their search monopoly.
I wonder, would the be willing to let any and all license their search algorithms. Certainly they are sort of popular in search, so shouldn't everyone be able to offer the same? The government really should step in and force them to license their work, else they ought to seize the patents and make them public domain. Ridiculous, no?
The difference being either:
A: Google's search patents are not essential nor even "de-facto essential" since there's no dearth of search engines without Google licensing to the patents, or
B. There are competitors with possible infringement of Google IP, but Google doesn't typically sue competitors.
Neither of these would apply to Microsoft's overt use of the FAT patent, impossible to work around for all intents, to force a licensing agreement. . . at just a few dollars per device of course. If it's essentially impossible to work around wouldn't you agree it's the definition of "de-facto essential"?
A: Google's search patents are not essential nor even "de-facto essential" since there's no dearth of search engines without Google licensing to the patents, or
B. There are competitors with possible infringement of Google IP, but Google doesn't typically sue competitors.
Neither of these would apply to Microsoft's overt use of the FAT patent, impossible to work around for all intents, to force a licensing agreement. . . at just a few dollars per device of course. If it's essentially impossible to work around wouldn't you agree it's the definition of "de-facto essential"?
There are many, many alternative file systems companies could use. But FAT has become common. Google search is common too. I would disagree with any government action that forced either to effectively open up their IP to any and all. Just because they have successfully marketed their IP or otherwise made it popular does not mean the government should be able to dictate how they use their property or how much they can charge. If, however, they legally pledge to do so, then the ought to held to the fire to honour those commitments.
There are many, many alternative file systems companies could use.
Which ones don't fall under the Microsoft FAT claims, at least according to Microsoft? If you can't find "many, many" would you agree that FAT licensing is essential to nearly every modern OS based on Microsoft legal claims, tho it's clear you'd prefer not to?
The stuff that Apple wrote in the statement may have been true but it was completely irrelevant to the purpose of the statement that the UK courts wanted Apple to make. . The problem is the UK court wanted Apple to CLEARLY make the point that Samsung did not infringe on their patents. Instead they decided to bury that point in four paragraphs of text, which people may or may not have the patience to read through completely. If you think that it's okay for Apple to put whatever they want in the statement as long as it's true, then they could have rambled on for several more paragraphs about Grass being Green, the sky being blue, and clouds being white, or any other irrelevant topic by your argument as long as they have that one sentence buried somewhere in there that Samsung didn't infringe.
Comments
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tulkas
While related in meaning, "inaccurate" and "misleading" are not the same words as "untrue" and "incorrect". A quote is meant to be exact. Otherwise it is paraphrasing. No doubt those are Carr's words. But the Bloomberg article quotes the court.
I understand the difference in the words; I also understand that the uk press in particular wouldn't use words like inaccurate & misleading when untrue & incorrect packs more punch. I don't think we'll know exactly who said what until a full transcript of the session is made available - if it ever will be.
Your comments on baffoons; not bad points there - it is the legal system though so you should expect nonsense to slip through where common sense should prevail.
As to the question of what apple should do, sit there & watch what they see as ip theft; this goes deeper than that - the old chestnut of the USPTO & some of the approved patents / trademarks, the obviousness of the mobile industry in that all players rip each other off at some point; why should apple be excluded from what's gone on in the industry for years? Apple themselves are definitely not squeaky clean when it comes to innovation & taking ideas from others. To an extent you could say apple should be grateful for spotting the opportunity to grab as much from the established mobile market place as they did in the early years. But, to then try to retain that by attempting to close out anyone else from the market is a nonsense; especially when you take into consideration some of the patents issued. I've never been interested in legal matters in this market so have no comment to make on Nokia litigation etc.. It's only through apple press that I'm now kind of hooked on seeing what's going on to further line the lawyers pockets with gold. Makes me think through hindsight that a legal degree would have made perfect sense
Quote:
Originally Posted by Crowley
Two exact words are as exact as a full sentence. The full sentence provides context.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Crowley
Find me a proper attributed quote and we can argue the point. Until then, it's just a couple of words in a sentence.
Besides which, I think it's been quite clearly established that Apple's claim that a German court had found it infringing is not true because the finding was invalid (an invalid finding being no finding at all), and the claim about the US court was at best misleading, because the Galaxy Tab was not included in the judgement, and could reasonably be called incorrect given the context it was displayed in.
So either way, you're wrong. But I'm sure you'll find a new argument to shift to now, that seems to be the way you operate.
It was not found to be invalid. The UK courts decision takes precedence but it did not invalidate the German decision. It made it unenforceable.
Again, it was a statement of fact. There is no way to weasel out of that. Facts are facts.
Quote:
Originally Posted by whatever71
As to the question of what apple should do, sit there & watch what they see as ip theft; this goes deeper than that - the old chestnut of the USPTO & some of the approved patents / trademarks, the obviousness of the mobile industry in that all players rip each other off at some point; why should apple be excluded from what's gone on in the industry for years? Apple themselves are definitely not squeaky clean when it comes to innovation & taking ideas from others. To an extent you could say apple should be grateful for spotting the opportunity to grab as much from the established mobile market place as they did in the early years. But, to then try to retain that by attempting to close out anyone else from the market is a nonsense; especially when you take into consideration some of the patents issued. I've never been interested in legal matters in this market so have no comment to make on Nokia litigation etc.. It's only through apple press that I'm now kind of hooked on seeing what's going on to further line the lawyers pockets with gold. Makes me thing through hindsight that a legal degree would have made perfect sense
Why should apple be excluded? Ok, then why should Apple also be excluded from taking part in the whole mess? That's the point. The mobile industry is lawsuit happy, yet only Apple gets singled out as the bad guy for getting in on the fun.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tulkas
Why should apple be excluded? Ok, then why should Apple also be excluded from taking part in the whole mess? That's the point. The mobile industry is lawsuit happy, yet only Apple gets singled out as the bad guy for getting in on the fun.
Does anyone have any figures to show how many mobile cases are ongoing? I would genuinely be interested to see if apple top that list (as aggressors) or to see if it's actually the press that have singled them out. Can't really argue with press picking up on some of the apple cases or comments used in cases though; scroll to bounce, shape of phone, trying to trademark app store, claiming people buy other brands thinking they are apple, claiming frand for non frand patents (there are examples out there where apple believe some techs should be frand but which aren't), apple themselves taking steps with ITC ref Samsung payment demands yet wanting samsung to pay huge amounts to cross licence their patents and so on. Plus with them being the rich boys they will be singled out. Read an interesting article comparing apple to other massive companies who get to a point where they simply can't keep ahead of the multitude of competition and as a result proceed on aggressive & ultimately unfruitful (no pun intended) legal cases.
I don't believe for a second that some of the cases brought by apple should ever get off the fag packet; they look like idiots. As a matter of interest, what dumb ass cases have samsung instigated against apple?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tulkas
It was not found to be invalid. The UK courts decision takes precedence but it did not invalidate the German decision. It made it unenforceable.
Again, it was a statement of fact. There is no way to weasel out of that. Facts are facts.
Hello semantics my old friend. Invalid or unenforcable, either makes it irrelevant. An irrevelant fact is a pretty flimsy springboard to base your objection on, and any weaselling is in the "but it's a fact" position.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tulkas
Two exact words are as exact as a full sentence. The full sentence provides context.
I'd love to see that full sentence. Still waiting.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tulkas
What Apple wrote was
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tulkas
untrue
Quote:
Originally Posted by Crowley
Hello semantics my old friend. Invalid or unenforcable, either makes it irrelevant. An irrevelant fact is a pretty flimsy springboard to base your objection on, and any weaselling is in the "but it's a fact" position.
Relevancy, in this case is your opinion.
meanwhile, sticking to the facts, the ruling happened. It is a matter of documented fact. Nothing changes it from having actually happened. How is claiming a fact as a fact, in anyway, weaseling?
Quote:
Originally Posted by whatever71
Does anyone have any figures to show how many mobile cases are ongoing? I would genuinely be interested to see if apple top that list (as aggressors) or to see if it's actually the press that have singled them out. Can't really argue with press picking up on some of the apple cases or comments used in cases though; scroll to bounce, shape of phone, trying to trademark app store, claiming people buy other brands thinking they are apple, claiming frand for non frand patents (there are examples out there where apple believe some techs should be frand but which aren't), apple themselves taking steps with ITC ref Samsung payment demands yet wanting samsung to pay huge amounts to cross licence their patents and so on. Plus with them being the rich boys they will be singled out. Read an interesting article comparing apple to other massive companies who get to a point where they simply can't keep ahead of the multitude of competition and as a result proceed on aggressive & ultimately unfruitful (no pun intended) legal cases.
I don't believe for a second that some of the cases brought by apple should ever get off the fag packet; they look like idiots. As a matter of interest, what dumb ass cases have samsung instigated against apple?
Any and all cases they have brought using FRAND patents are dumb ass. They can't and won't win those, nor should they.
Whether the patents are FRAND or not is not a matter of opinion. The fact is that for them to be considered fact, the owners must make declarations to multiple bodies that they will license them under FRAND terms. They would not allowed into the various standards if they did not. I would be very interested in seeing these where Apple is saying a patent is FRAND when it is not. On the other hand, google has gone on record as saying that Apple's patents should made available to all, even though Apple did not make them FRAND licensable, because they have become common through other parties using them to the point of being defacto standards.
You mention Apple demanding higher royalties when discussing cross licensing with Samsung. And so they should. Their patents are private, nonFRAND. They have no obligation to sell them cheaply. Samsungs are FRAND. They have legal obligations to not discriminate against Apple by seeking unreasonably high rates. So blaming Apple for seeking to benefit from their patents, which they never agreed to make FRAND licensable, is odd.
MS is a big company too. As are Moto/Google and Samsung. When was the last time you saw major, daily, continuous coverage of their multitude of lawsuits that don't involve Apple?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Crowley
I'd love to see that full sentence. Still waiting.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tulkas
What Apple wrote was
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tulkas
untrue
I'd love to as well. Guess we'll have to wait until the courts release their records (assuming they document everything said during the proceedings) or for a journalist that was present to further detail the discussions.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tulkas
Um... no they didn't. Apple wasn't even mentioned by Google in that regard. That was put to rest months ago when it first came up here.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy
Um... no they didn't. Apple wasn't even mentioned by Google in that regard. That was put to rest months ago when it first came up here.
ummm, it was mentioned in a letter to the Senate Judiciary Committee that was looking into google behavior with regard to Apple and MS and SEP/FRAND patents that Google is attacking them with. They specifically argue that standards should be standard even if not ratified or approved by a standard body but because they have become common.
Quote:
While collaborative [Standards Setting Organizations (SSOs)] play an important part in the overall standard setting system, and are particularly prominent in industries such as telecommunications, they are not the only source of standards. Indeed, many of the same interoperability benefits that the FTC and others have touted in the SSO context also occur when one firm publishes information about an otherwise proprietary standard and other firms then independently decide (whether by choice or of necessity) to make complementary investments to support that standard in their products. … Because proprietary or de facto standards can have just as important effects on consumer welfare, the Committee’s concern regarding the abuse of SEPs should encompass them as well.
They may not have mentioned Apple by name, but they didn't have to. The subject of the hearings was Google's abuses of their patents with Apple and MS. Their comment on that subject, presumably, was related that subject. Whether they named Apple or not, they are arguing to be able to use other people work just because customers like it. They want companies that develop popular ideas to be forced to license those as SEP, under FRAND terms, in the same way a company that actually declared they would with their patents (in order to get them into standards). That is just sneaky, dirty shit.
Mind if I come and take your car and house? I sort of like it. Some people give their cars and houses away, so I'd like to take yours.
The subject of Google's mention was Microsoft IP like their FAT patent, properly considered a "de-facto standard" IMHO, that's being asserted against Android vendors to force them into license agreements. You need to understand the context to properly understand some of the arguments.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tulkas
Mind if I come and take your car and house? I sort of like it. Some people give their cars and houses away, so I'd like to take yours.
If it's essential to public progress and improvements I believe they can do just that to me. No one's arguing that it should be free to use of course.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy
The subject of Google's mention was Microsoft IP like their FAT patent, properly considered a "de-facto standard IMHO, that's being asserted against Android vendors to force them into license agreements. You need to understand the context to properly understand some of the arguments.
MS or Apple (neither mentioned by name, so either is an assumption) the concept is the same. Once you have popularized it, they want the government to force you to let them use it as though you promised to do so. That is wrong. Companies that obligate themselves to do something should have higher standards of behavior, with regard to those properties, than companies that never promised to do the same with theirs. I wonder, would the be willing to let any and all license their search algorithms. Certainly they are sort of popular in search, so shouldn't everyone be able to offer the same? The government really should step in and force them to license their work, else they ought to seize the patents and make them public domain. Ridiculous, no?
Tellingly Apple and MS both pledged, unconditionally, to honour their FRAND commitments and not block any licensing of those patents. Google was not willing to make the same pledge without conditions that included "good faith negotiations". They have demonstrated what they mean by that with the Motorola arm, by demanding insane royalties amount, just from Apple. Their definition of good faith is a joke.
Unbelievable that people scream and shout about Apple, when the best you can claim is their activities are unwise, questionable and maybe unethical. Meanwhile Google is breaking their pledges, not honouring their commitments, and is under government investigation in the EU, by the DOJ and the FTC, for their behaviors with their monbile patents and their activities with their search monopoly.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy
If it's essential to public progress and improvements I believe they can do just that to me. No one's arguing that it should be free to use of course.
Once it's a standard, entirely different different expectations are set as to how much one can charge.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tulkas
I wonder, would the be willing to let any and all license their search algorithms. Certainly they are sort of popular in search, so shouldn't everyone be able to offer the same? The government really should step in and force them to license their work, else they ought to seize the patents and make them public domain. Ridiculous, no?
The difference being either:
A: Google's search patents are not essential nor even "de-facto essential" since there's no dearth of search engines without Google licensing to the patents, or
B. There are competitors with possible infringement of Google IP, but Google doesn't typically sue competitors.
Neither of these would apply to Microsoft's overt use of the FAT patent, impossible to work around for all intents, to force a licensing agreement. . . at just a few dollars per device of course. If it's essentially impossible to work around wouldn't you agree it's the definition of "de-facto essential"?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy
The difference being either:
A: Google's search patents are not essential nor even "de-facto essential" since there's no dearth of search engines without Google licensing to the patents, or
B. There are competitors with possible infringement of Google IP, but Google doesn't typically sue competitors.
Neither of these would apply to Microsoft's overt use of the FAT patent, impossible to work around for all intents, to force a licensing agreement. . . at just a few dollars per device of course. If it's essentially impossible to work around wouldn't you agree it's the definition of "de-facto essential"?
There are many, many alternative file systems companies could use. But FAT has become common. Google search is common too. I would disagree with any government action that forced either to effectively open up their IP to any and all. Just because they have successfully marketed their IP or otherwise made it popular does not mean the government should be able to dictate how they use their property or how much they can charge. If, however, they legally pledge to do so, then the ought to held to the fire to honour those commitments.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tulkas
There are many, many alternative file systems companies could use.
Which ones don't fall under the Microsoft FAT claims, at least according to Microsoft? If you can't find "many, many" would you agree that FAT licensing is essential to nearly every modern OS based on Microsoft legal claims, tho it's clear you'd prefer not to?
The stuff that Apple wrote in the statement may have been true but it was completely irrelevant to the purpose of the statement that the UK courts wanted Apple to make. . The problem is the UK court wanted Apple to CLEARLY make the point that Samsung did not infringe on their patents. Instead they decided to bury that point in four paragraphs of text, which people may or may not have the patience to read through completely. If you think that it's okay for Apple to put whatever they want in the statement as long as it's true, then they could have rambled on for several more paragraphs about Grass being Green, the sky being blue, and clouds being white, or any other irrelevant topic by your argument as long as they have that one sentence buried somewhere in there that Samsung didn't infringe.