Apple does not dispute stealing Motorola's IP in this matter, they are just refusing to pay.
Shut up or stop lying. It's a pretty simple concept to understand. You already refuse to have an actual e-mail address, meaning you're obviously just someone who we've already banned.
If our new rule suggestions go through, you'll be out faster than you can make new fake accounts.
TS, you need to be more careful of throwing accusations about like that. I don't actually know what you are referring to by "lying". My Email address is an actual address. As a moderator I assume you can see it. You could have tested it if you wanted to do so. As for having been previously banned. That is simply a lie.
I have seen some complaints here in AI about your propensity for abusing your moderator role. This would be a good example.
But I think the more important point is that you simply refuse to address any points of view that don't correspond to your own, and you seem to be steadfastly unwilling to actually read the transcripts and submissions to the courts on litigation issues.
I have said it a couple of times, but it bears repeating. It doesn't matter a hoot what your or my opinion may be on what the parties in a litigation argue before the court or in submissions. What matters ist the judgement, and what finally matters is the final judgement.
In this whole morass of Apple litigations, only one has actually reached the end of the line in the US and the EU, and that is the UK Court of appeals judgement. EVERY other litigation is in preliminary stages or first instance judgements with pending appeals.
It is also mostly a bad idea to confuse allegations/claims/assertions (e.g. Apple KNEW Samsung was copying) with Facts. Facts are what the court decides are facts. Sometimes it is controversial and sometimes they make mistakes ... there are a number of cases where people have been sentenced to death and executed ... and finally cleared and declared innocent.
It is almost ALWAYS the case that attorneys for a party will do their utmost to present their case in the most favourable light for their client. In fact it is their duty to do so, but there are rules and limits insofar as how far they can stretch the truth.
My personal interest is in seeing justice done and not in pursuing a particular agenda. I also place considerable value on ethical behaviour and when I see either injustice being done, or unethical behaviour (like yours as I mentioned above), then I will call it out. It may well be that your view of what is "justice" and my view of the same are completely irreconcilable. It wouldn't surprise me much. You appear to be an american and i am most definitely not (if it matters to you, I am a new zealander living and working in Germany). I don't think that is relevant to anything except to emphasize that my moral and ethical values are quite probably different to yours.
I assume that you, as a moderator, can see the email addresses. You could have tested the address and you would have found that it is in fact a real e-mail address. I call you out for lying on that one.
As to being someone who has already been banned. That is outright nonsense. I call you out for lying on that.
Regarding the "shut up and stop lying". (sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander :-) )
I am not quite sure exactly what you are accusing me of with respect to lying, but I am sure you can be more precise on that if you chose to do so,
Regarding the Apple/Motorola FRAND dispute. The public record (ie, court transcripts, judgements and rulings, and submissions/affadavits of the parties) shows that Apple is not disputing using Motorola FRAND patents without paying. They are not arguing about the usage of the FRAND Patents. They are simply refusing to (a) pay what Motorola suggested (2.5%) (b) enter into negotiations to find a mutually acceptable alternative.
Instead, they immediately sued in Wisconsin, trying to get the court to set license fees, and got their claim tossed. That had already happened in Judge Posner's court, albeit with different reasoning, but the same result ... dismissed with prejudice.
Among other problems you seem to have is a steadfast refusal or perhaps simply the inability to distinguish between assertions/claims in a litigation, and Facts.
In general a party to litigation will naturally attempt to present their case in the best possible light. The opposing party will do the same. The whole point of a court is to adjudicate and to determine (a) the FACTS and (b) what to do in the context of the claims and the facts.
For example: Elswhere you say "Apple KNEW" that Samsung was stealing their IP/Design. Apple didn't "Know". Apple ASSERTED something, which is absolutely not necessarily true or a "Fact", and presented some evidence to support their assertion. With respect to the registered design (in the EU), their claims were rejected in the final instance by the court. In other words, the court found that Apple's claims were false and not supported by the evidence.
As far as I am aware, the UK case is the ONLY case that has actually reached final judgement anywhere in the world with respect to Apple's "thermonuclear war". In all other jurisdictions in the US and EU, the cases are still either in the preliminary phase (prior to the initial judgement), or pending appeal. As they say, the show is not over till the fat lady sings.
So to present any of the assertions of either party as if they are "FACTS" is simply nonsense ... or if you want to put it in a less polite way, "lies".
Returning to the "shut up" part: It may be that it is uncomfortable to you to be confronted with views and opinions that do not match your personal agenda.
It may also be the case that my view of what is "Just" or my ethical values do not correspond to yours. That would not surprise many people. For one thing, it appears that you are an American, and you seem to have a personal agenda. I am more interested in seeing justice done and ethical values maintained, and I am not an american. In fact I am an expat Kiwi living in Germany. (not that that is relevant except to emphasize the point that I probably do not share your cultural values. It is abundantly clear that I don't share your ethical values).
I do have a personal agenda : If I feel that either justice is not being done, or if ethical values are being violated, I will call it out, whether you like it or not. It has nothing to do with cool toys or a particular large company. (I work for a large multinational in its EU HQ and I could tell you a thing or two about the machinations of large concerns.)
I assume that you, as a moderator, can see the email addresses. You could have tested the address and you would have found that it is in fact a real e-mail address. I call you out for lying on that one.
If someone has posted at all on this forum they have used a real email address.
If you mean an email address that is used by someone for more than just verifying an account from this site, then no, no one at AI from the paid employees to the moderators that volunteer their time to help make this community great are privy to how much or often an email account has been used by the person that made in.
So, they are suing Apple again for the same technology for products that were not released during the original suit. It sounds like they can sue Apple again and again for every product Apple releases using the technology, until the cow comes homes. Something just doesn't seem right.
If someone has posted at all on this forum they have used a real email address.
Nope. Huddler doesn't require e-mail verification. Unless ALL of the various utilities I have used to verify e-mail addresses are lying about the status of his e-mail, he signed up with a fake e-mail.
Originally Posted by Taniwha
Apple does not dispute stealing Motorola's IP in this matter, they are just refusing to pay.
Nope. Huddler doesn't require e-mail verification. Unless ALL of the various utilities I have used to verify e-mail addresses are lying about the status of his e-mail, he signed up with a fake e-mail.
Mea culpa.... and what a horrible downgrade to the forum over vBulletin that will make it tougher on moderators and readers if anyone can sign up without an email address. Email verification is so standard that I never once questioned it when AI made the switch.
Mea culpa.... and what a horrible downgrade to the forum over vBulletin that will make it tougher on moderators and readers if anyone can sign up without an email address. Email verification is so standard that I never once questioned it when AI made the switch.
Oh, they have to put one, sure. But "asdjghasuietuwesht7w3y45iwerhlr7srkyw3t5awetia7ysg@a8s8tuaisuugaslfdgueirasdkg.com" is accepted, for example. They can type whatever they want.
I would hope, though can't confirm, that it's just a setting that is turned off, but that leads to the question of why something so fundamentally unquestionable is a setting in the first place.
I dunno, I certainly suppose the e-mail testing I've done could have all been broken or come back with wrong results, but I tend not to think so. Meaning his vehement denial of lying is all the more ironic.
If someone has posted at all on this forum they have used a real email address.
Nope. Huddler doesn't require e-mail verification. Unless ALL of the various utilities I have used to verify e-mail addresses are lying about the status of his e-mail, he signed up with a fake e-mail.
Originally Posted by Taniwha
Apple does not dispute stealing Motorola's IP in this matter, they are just refusing to pay.
Mea culpa.... and what a horrible downgrade to the forum over vBulletin that will make it tougher on moderators and readers if anyone can sign up without an email address. Email verification is so standard that I never once questioned it when AI made the switch.
Oh, they have to put one, sure. But "asdjghasuietuwesht7w3y45iwerhlr7srkyw3t5awetia7ysg@a8s8tuaisuugaslfdgueirasdkg.com" is accepted, for example. They can type whatever they want.
I would hope, though can't confirm, that it's just a setting that is turned off, but that leads to the question of why something so fundamentally unquestionable is a setting in the first place.
I dunno, I certainly suppose the e-mail testing I've done could have all been broken or come back with wrong results, but I tend not to think so. Meaning his vehement denial of lying is all the more ironic.
TS, what you have NOT done is attempt to verify the Email address by the simplest of all procedures ... namely to send a manual email to that address.
I really think it is intolerable that you are repeatedly abusing your role as moderator.
It simply doesn*t wash to try and pretend that its a technical problem. It is not. The mail address is valid and functions regularly, including today where I received email notifications from AI that new comments were present in the forums to which I have contributed.
I also think it is totally unethical because the standard users have no possibility to check whether you are being truthful or not.
However I do hope that other moderators will take the opportunity to check for themselves simply by writing an email to the address in my profile.
I do intend to complain to the editors of AI and refer this issue to them for further action.
I would accept a public apology from you in this forum.
There should be a legal obligation for the patent holder to sell a long unused patent, at cost, to a company that will immediately commercialize it, lest consumers be denied or delayed access to valuable technology. In the end, all laws must serve the greater good.
So in your view, "the greater good" is served by stealing technology from the rightful owner and giving it to someone else?
By that standard, if I own a factory and am not using it, you should be able to move in and start using it. If an author writes a book and doesn't want to publish it, you should be able to take it from them and publish it. If a painter doesn't want to sell his work but rather wants to keep in in a closet, then the government should force him to sell it.
I think the entire industry needs to calm the hell down with these patent lawsuits. They only prevent each other from creating the next big thing and move the industry forward. I like to see the big companies form an alliance and truce. As for Virnetx, Apple should pay them and move on to a different technology. I think companies that relies on patent lawsuits for income are the less innovative overtime. Let them drown in their own inventions if they are so great that no one else is using them.
That said, Apple also need to break out of this mold, iPad mini is not groundbreaking. We are starting to see Apple only changing sizes in their product line and spec updates.
Put the brakes on. It is the responsibility of both parties to FIRST enter into negotiations whenever a patent issue is raised. Not go sue-happy off the cuff. Apple KNEW Samsung was stealing from them. Apple's first course of action was NOT to sue Samsung. Apple wanted to make a deal. Samsung refused, THEN Apple sued.
THAT is how you operate. Not like this. VirnetX has no excuses for this behavior.
WRONG, the patent holder has only 1 responsibility, and that is to defend its patent from infringers.
There are companies that have patents that they don't license to ANYONE, sometimes because the patent competes with their product and it's more profitable for them to hold onto the patent than to license it. That doesn't mean that anyone should come along and STEAL their patent and start making money off someone else's idea.
I don't know why you continue to defend this behavior. Theft is Theft, Apple was caught stealing other people's IP.
Mea culpa.... and what a horrible downgrade to the forum over vBulletin that will make it tougher on moderators and readers if anyone can sign up without an email address. Email verification is so standard that I never once questioned it when AI made the switch.
Oh, they have to put one, sure. But "asdjghasuietuwesht7w3y45iwerhlr7srkyw3t5awetia7ysg@a8s8tuaisuugaslfdgueirasdkg.com" is accepted, for example. They can type whatever they want.
I would hope, though can't confirm, that it's just a setting that is turned off, but that leads to the question of why something so fundamentally unquestionable is a setting in the first place.
I dunno, I certainly suppose the e-mail testing I've done could have all been broken or come back with wrong results, but I tend not to think so. Meaning his vehement denial of lying is all the more ironic.
TS, that's a load of bullshit.
Now you are trying to blame the software as crap.
The problem is not the software, The problem is YOU.
As they say in information security circles: The biggest risk factor in IT is not the technology, its the idiot behind the keyboard.
So far you have blamed everything except yourself in this silly dispute. If you had balls enough, or a modicum of integrity you would take up the possibility that you just made a stupid mistake. BTW, you seem to be suggesting that you've done all kinds of things to "verify" the mail address. Thats also a load of bs.
The very simplest test, to write an email to the address is something that you still haven't done. You're not interested in the truth of the matter, you're just trying to discredit someone you don't like, and you're using all kinds of unethical tricks to hide behind. ... Shitty software, "ALL" the testing ... and so on. You never actually say what or how you have "tested", you just imply that you did something sensible ... knowing full well that nobody else can check you out. How the hell should anyone else know whether "all of the testing" is right or wrong ... or that you simply didn't check at all and aren't graceful enough to admit it. The fact remains that I do receive automatic notifications from AI to exactly the address that you say is a fake. Go figure. You seem to be lying.
Its Just a smokescreen.
The reason that I am so vehement is simply that it is untrue, so unfair and so unjust. NOBODY except a moderater can actually check to see whether you are right or not. And you haven't got the balls , or perhaps the knowledge and ability to check diligently yourself.
It you don't trust the forum software to verify email properly, that doesn't mean thay MY email address is a fake. But it DOES mean that you should take more care before casting accusations around and attacking my personal integrity.
To rephrase from Sir Robin Jacob
"I do hope that this lack of integrity on the part of TS is wholly atypical of AI and the moderators in general" ;-)
From Wikipedia (in case you also don't understand what I mean by INTEGRITY)
"Integrity is a concept of consistency of actions, values, methods, measures, principles, expectations, and outcomes. In ethics, integrity is regarded as the honesty and truthfulness or accuracy of one's actions. Integrity can be regarded as the opposite of hypocrisy,[1] in that it regards internal consistency as a virtue, and suggests that parties holding apparently conflicting values should account for the discrepancy or alter their beliefs.
The word "integrity" stems from the Latin adjective integer (whole, complete).[2] In this context, integrity is the inner sense of "wholeness" deriving from qualities such as honesty and consistency of character. As such, one may judge that others "have integrity" to the extent that they act according to the values, beliefs and principles they claim to hold."
So in your view, "the greater good" is served by stealing technology from the rightful owner and giving it to someone else?
By that standard, if I own a factory and am not using it, you should be able to move in and start using it. If an author writes a book and doesn't want to publish it, you should be able to take it from them and publish it. If a painter doesn't want to sell his work but rather wants to keep in in a closet, then the government should force him to sell it.
What part of PROPERTY do you not understand?
Your analogies are colorful, but not comparable. While the reality of patent law has allowed all manner of abuses and frivolities, the spirit of the law is intended to serve the interests of the people—not to deny them access to technological advancements. The things you list are material or artistic property. Scientific (technological) knowledge is the rightful property of humanity as a whole, and must not be sequestered.
Is that a fact :-), then how, may I ask, do you explain Apple's refusal to enter into negotiations on FRAND with Motorola, chosing not to negotiate at all but to sue and try to get a court to impose a one-sided-apple-advantage ?? Apple does not dispute stealing Motorola's IP in this matter, they are just refusing to pay.
And remember that line had already been thrown out of court once before (Posner Judgement).
Your reality-distortion-field is showing.
Motorola sued Apple first.
Motorola attempted to rescind the licenses they granted to the companies Apple bought chips from to get around patent exhaustion issues.
Apple are not refusing to pay at all, they are willing to pay a "fair and reasonable" amount, such is their right under the agreements which make patented technology part of a standard.
Motorola attempted to rescind the licenses they granted to the companies Apple bought chips from to get around patent exhaustion issues.
Apple are not refusing to pay at all, they are willing to pay a "fair and reasonable" amount, such is their right under the agreements which make patented technology part of a standard.
Then it's unfortunate Apple would not commit to accepting a judge's "fair and reasonable" determination of what that royalty should be. It looked particularly damning when Motorola did commit to accept the judge's royalty order no matter the amount.
Would it be cliched if I say, What goes around comes around? A few weeks back we had Apple taking on more Samsung products after it won a $1bn claim. Guess life's after all a circle.
Comments
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
Originally Posted by Taniwha
Apple does not dispute stealing Motorola's IP in this matter, they are just refusing to pay.
Shut up or stop lying. It's a pretty simple concept to understand. You already refuse to have an actual e-mail address, meaning you're obviously just someone who we've already banned.
If our new rule suggestions go through, you'll be out faster than you can make new fake accounts.
TS, you need to be more careful of throwing accusations about like that. I don't actually know what you are referring to by "lying". My Email address is an actual address. As a moderator I assume you can see it. You could have tested it if you wanted to do so. As for having been previously banned. That is simply a lie.
I have seen some complaints here in AI about your propensity for abusing your moderator role. This would be a good example.
But I think the more important point is that you simply refuse to address any points of view that don't correspond to your own, and you seem to be steadfastly unwilling to actually read the transcripts and submissions to the courts on litigation issues.
I have said it a couple of times, but it bears repeating. It doesn't matter a hoot what your or my opinion may be on what the parties in a litigation argue before the court or in submissions. What matters ist the judgement, and what finally matters is the final judgement.
In this whole morass of Apple litigations, only one has actually reached the end of the line in the US and the EU, and that is the UK Court of appeals judgement. EVERY other litigation is in preliminary stages or first instance judgements with pending appeals.
It is also mostly a bad idea to confuse allegations/claims/assertions (e.g. Apple KNEW Samsung was copying) with Facts. Facts are what the court decides are facts. Sometimes it is controversial and sometimes they make mistakes ... there are a number of cases where people have been sentenced to death and executed ... and finally cleared and declared innocent.
It is almost ALWAYS the case that attorneys for a party will do their utmost to present their case in the most favourable light for their client. In fact it is their duty to do so, but there are rules and limits insofar as how far they can stretch the truth.
My personal interest is in seeing justice done and not in pursuing a particular agenda. I also place considerable value on ethical behaviour and when I see either injustice being done, or unethical behaviour (like yours as I mentioned above), then I will call it out. It may well be that your view of what is "justice" and my view of the same are completely irreconcilable. It wouldn't surprise me much. You appear to be an american and i am most definitely not (if it matters to you, I am a new zealander living and working in Germany). I don't think that is relevant to anything except to emphasize that my moral and ethical values are quite probably different to yours.
You may not like it. Get a life and live with it.
I assume that you, as a moderator, can see the email addresses. You could have tested the address and you would have found that it is in fact a real e-mail address. I call you out for lying on that one.
As to being someone who has already been banned. That is outright nonsense. I call you out for lying on that.
Regarding the "shut up and stop lying". (sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander :-) )
I am not quite sure exactly what you are accusing me of with respect to lying, but I am sure you can be more precise on that if you chose to do so,
Regarding the Apple/Motorola FRAND dispute. The public record (ie, court transcripts, judgements and rulings, and submissions/affadavits of the parties) shows that Apple is not disputing using Motorola FRAND patents without paying. They are not arguing about the usage of the FRAND Patents. They are simply refusing to (a) pay what Motorola suggested (2.5%) (b) enter into negotiations to find a mutually acceptable alternative.
Instead, they immediately sued in Wisconsin, trying to get the court to set license fees, and got their claim tossed. That had already happened in Judge Posner's court, albeit with different reasoning, but the same result ... dismissed with prejudice.
Among other problems you seem to have is a steadfast refusal or perhaps simply the inability to distinguish between assertions/claims in a litigation, and Facts.
In general a party to litigation will naturally attempt to present their case in the best possible light. The opposing party will do the same. The whole point of a court is to adjudicate and to determine (a) the FACTS and (b) what to do in the context of the claims and the facts.
For example: Elswhere you say "Apple KNEW" that Samsung was stealing their IP/Design. Apple didn't "Know". Apple ASSERTED something, which is absolutely not necessarily true or a "Fact", and presented some evidence to support their assertion. With respect to the registered design (in the EU), their claims were rejected in the final instance by the court. In other words, the court found that Apple's claims were false and not supported by the evidence.
As far as I am aware, the UK case is the ONLY case that has actually reached final judgement anywhere in the world with respect to Apple's "thermonuclear war". In all other jurisdictions in the US and EU, the cases are still either in the preliminary phase (prior to the initial judgement), or pending appeal. As they say, the show is not over till the fat lady sings.
So to present any of the assertions of either party as if they are "FACTS" is simply nonsense ... or if you want to put it in a less polite way, "lies".
Returning to the "shut up" part: It may be that it is uncomfortable to you to be confronted with views and opinions that do not match your personal agenda.
It may also be the case that my view of what is "Just" or my ethical values do not correspond to yours. That would not surprise many people. For one thing, it appears that you are an American, and you seem to have a personal agenda. I am more interested in seeing justice done and ethical values maintained, and I am not an american. In fact I am an expat Kiwi living in Germany. (not that that is relevant except to emphasize the point that I probably do not share your cultural values. It is abundantly clear that I don't share your ethical values).
I do have a personal agenda : If I feel that either justice is not being done, or if ethical values are being violated, I will call it out, whether you like it or not. It has nothing to do with cool toys or a particular large company. (I work for a large multinational in its EU HQ and I could tell you a thing or two about the machinations of large concerns.)
If someone has posted at all on this forum they have used a real email address.
If you mean an email address that is used by someone for more than just verifying an account from this site, then no, no one at AI from the paid employees to the moderators that volunteer their time to help make this community great are privy to how much or often an email account has been used by the person that made in.
Originally Posted by SolipsismX
If someone has posted at all on this forum they have used a real email address.
Nope. Huddler doesn't require e-mail verification. Unless ALL of the various utilities I have used to verify e-mail addresses are lying about the status of his e-mail, he signed up with a fake e-mail.
Originally Posted by Taniwha
Apple does not dispute stealing Motorola's IP in this matter, they are just refusing to pay.
BLATANT LIES. Simple as that.
Originally Posted by Taniwha
They are simply refusing to (a) pay what Motorola suggested…
Funny how that's completely different from what you said before.
Mea culpa.... and what a horrible downgrade to the forum over vBulletin that will make it tougher on moderators and readers if anyone can sign up without an email address. Email verification is so standard that I never once questioned it when AI made the switch.
Originally Posted by SolipsismX
Mea culpa.... and what a horrible downgrade to the forum over vBulletin that will make it tougher on moderators and readers if anyone can sign up without an email address. Email verification is so standard that I never once questioned it when AI made the switch.
Oh, they have to put one, sure. But "asdjghasuietuwesht7w3y45iwerhlr7srkyw3t5awetia7ysg@a8s8tuaisuugaslfdgueirasdkg.com" is accepted, for example. They can type whatever they want.
I would hope, though can't confirm, that it's just a setting that is turned off, but that leads to the question of why something so fundamentally unquestionable is a setting in the first place.
I dunno, I certainly suppose the e-mail testing I've done could have all been broken or come back with wrong results, but I tend not to think so. Meaning his vehement denial of lying is all the more ironic.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
Originally Posted by SolipsismX
If someone has posted at all on this forum they have used a real email address.
Nope. Huddler doesn't require e-mail verification. Unless ALL of the various utilities I have used to verify e-mail addresses are lying about the status of his e-mail, he signed up with a fake e-mail.
Originally Posted by Taniwha
Apple does not dispute stealing Motorola's IP in this matter, they are just refusing to pay.
BLATANT LIES. Simple as that.
Originally Posted by Taniwha
They are simply refusing to (a) pay what Motorola suggested…
Funny how that's completely different from what you said before.
Crap: Using Patented IP without paying is stealing IP. Wilfully.
You could also consider apologising PUBLICALLY for your unethical behaviour re my email address and "previous" accounts. Blatant lies, as you put it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
Originally Posted by SolipsismX
Mea culpa.... and what a horrible downgrade to the forum over vBulletin that will make it tougher on moderators and readers if anyone can sign up without an email address. Email verification is so standard that I never once questioned it when AI made the switch.
Oh, they have to put one, sure. But "asdjghasuietuwesht7w3y45iwerhlr7srkyw3t5awetia7ysg@a8s8tuaisuugaslfdgueirasdkg.com" is accepted, for example. They can type whatever they want.
I would hope, though can't confirm, that it's just a setting that is turned off, but that leads to the question of why something so fundamentally unquestionable is a setting in the first place.
I dunno, I certainly suppose the e-mail testing I've done could have all been broken or come back with wrong results, but I tend not to think so. Meaning his vehement denial of lying is all the more ironic.
TS, what you have NOT done is attempt to verify the Email address by the simplest of all procedures ... namely to send a manual email to that address.
I really think it is intolerable that you are repeatedly abusing your role as moderator.
It simply doesn*t wash to try and pretend that its a technical problem. It is not. The mail address is valid and functions regularly, including today where I received email notifications from AI that new comments were present in the forums to which I have contributed.
I also think it is totally unethical because the standard users have no possibility to check whether you are being truthful or not.
However I do hope that other moderators will take the opportunity to check for themselves simply by writing an email to the address in my profile.
I do intend to complain to the editors of AI and refer this issue to them for further action.
I would accept a public apology from you in this forum.
Hey taniwha!
Manage Subscriptions | Manage Email Preferences
Period ending November 11, 2012AppleInsider Subscription Update
Here is a quick summary of the latest activity from AppleInsider. For more, login to your personalized homepage.
New/Updated Threads
VirnetX sues Apple again after winning $368M patent trial verdict
1 Unread Post
Judge to review Samsung's allegations of jury misconduct in loss to Apple
3 Unread Posts
Email sent to <ADDRESS DELETED> from AppleInsider.
To change the frequency at which you receive subscription emails, please visit your subscription management page.
If you want to stop receiving ALL email from us (including private message notifications), click here to disable all email notifications. You can also modify this setting by clicking Edit Account Details button on Your Profile.
You want a public apology? WTF?! In that case I want a public apology for having to read your request.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX
Quote:
Originally Posted by Taniwha
I would accept a public apology from you in this forum.
You want a public apology? WTF?! In that case I want a public apology for having to read your request.
Sorry if you misunderstood. I was offering TS the chance.
BTW; I don't know where you get the idea that the forum software doesn't require email verification. That is a load of bs.
From the account management screen on AI: (anyone can check it out if they wish to do so)
Basic Information
If you change your email address, we will send a verification email to the new address.
So in your view, "the greater good" is served by stealing technology from the rightful owner and giving it to someone else?
By that standard, if I own a factory and am not using it, you should be able to move in and start using it. If an author writes a book and doesn't want to publish it, you should be able to take it from them and publish it. If a painter doesn't want to sell his work but rather wants to keep in in a closet, then the government should force him to sell it.
What part of PROPERTY do you not understand?
That said, Apple also need to break out of this mold, iPad mini is not groundbreaking. We are starting to see Apple only changing sizes in their product line and spec updates.
Put the brakes on. It is the responsibility of both parties to FIRST enter into negotiations whenever a patent issue is raised. Not go sue-happy off the cuff. Apple KNEW Samsung was stealing from them. Apple's first course of action was NOT to sue Samsung. Apple wanted to make a deal. Samsung refused, THEN Apple sued.
THAT is how you operate. Not like this. VirnetX has no excuses for this behavior.
WRONG, the patent holder has only 1 responsibility, and that is to defend its patent from infringers.There are companies that have patents that they don't license to ANYONE, sometimes because the patent competes with their product and it's more profitable for them to hold onto the patent than to license it. That doesn't mean that anyone should come along and STEAL their patent and start making money off someone else's idea.
I don't know why you continue to defend this behavior. Theft is Theft, Apple was caught stealing other people's IP.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
Originally Posted by SolipsismX
Mea culpa.... and what a horrible downgrade to the forum over vBulletin that will make it tougher on moderators and readers if anyone can sign up without an email address. Email verification is so standard that I never once questioned it when AI made the switch.
Oh, they have to put one, sure. But "asdjghasuietuwesht7w3y45iwerhlr7srkyw3t5awetia7ysg@a8s8tuaisuugaslfdgueirasdkg.com" is accepted, for example. They can type whatever they want.
I would hope, though can't confirm, that it's just a setting that is turned off, but that leads to the question of why something so fundamentally unquestionable is a setting in the first place.
I dunno, I certainly suppose the e-mail testing I've done could have all been broken or come back with wrong results, but I tend not to think so. Meaning his vehement denial of lying is all the more ironic.
TS, that's a load of bullshit.
Now you are trying to blame the software as crap.
The problem is not the software, The problem is YOU.
As they say in information security circles: The biggest risk factor in IT is not the technology, its the idiot behind the keyboard.
So far you have blamed everything except yourself in this silly dispute. If you had balls enough, or a modicum of integrity you would take up the possibility that you just made a stupid mistake. BTW, you seem to be suggesting that you've done all kinds of things to "verify" the mail address. Thats also a load of bs.
The very simplest test, to write an email to the address is something that you still haven't done. You're not interested in the truth of the matter, you're just trying to discredit someone you don't like, and you're using all kinds of unethical tricks to hide behind. ... Shitty software, "ALL" the testing ... and so on. You never actually say what or how you have "tested", you just imply that you did something sensible ... knowing full well that nobody else can check you out. How the hell should anyone else know whether "all of the testing" is right or wrong ... or that you simply didn't check at all and aren't graceful enough to admit it. The fact remains that I do receive automatic notifications from AI to exactly the address that you say is a fake. Go figure. You seem to be lying.
Its Just a smokescreen.
The reason that I am so vehement is simply that it is untrue, so unfair and so unjust. NOBODY except a moderater can actually check to see whether you are right or not. And you haven't got the balls , or perhaps the knowledge and ability to check diligently yourself.
It you don't trust the forum software to verify email properly, that doesn't mean thay MY email address is a fake. But it DOES mean that you should take more care before casting accusations around and attacking my personal integrity.
To rephrase from Sir Robin Jacob
"I do hope that this lack of integrity on the part of TS is wholly atypical of AI and the moderators in general" ;-)
From Wikipedia (in case you also don't understand what I mean by INTEGRITY)
"Integrity is a concept of consistency of actions, values, methods, measures, principles, expectations, and outcomes. In ethics, integrity is regarded as the honesty and truthfulness or accuracy of one's actions. Integrity can be regarded as the opposite of hypocrisy,[1] in that it regards internal consistency as a virtue, and suggests that parties holding apparently conflicting values should account for the discrepancy or alter their beliefs.
The word "integrity" stems from the Latin adjective integer (whole, complete).[2] In this context, integrity is the inner sense of "wholeness" deriving from qualities such as honesty and consistency of character. As such, one may judge that others "have integrity" to the extent that they act according to the values, beliefs and principles they claim to hold."
Originally Posted by mrrodriguez
WRONG, the patent holder has only 1 responsibility, and that is to defend its patent from infringers.
So they should go kill the executives at Apple that "stole the patent" so that they can't do it again.
No. That's not their only responsibility.
I don't know why you continue to defend this behavior.
Probably because I'm not defending the behavior of IP theft. I'm suggesting behavior for the other party.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Taniwha
Is that a fact :-), then how, may I ask, do you explain Apple's refusal to enter into negotiations on FRAND with Motorola, chosing not to negotiate at all but to sue and try to get a court to impose a one-sided-apple-advantage ?? Apple does not dispute stealing Motorola's IP in this matter, they are just refusing to pay.
And remember that line had already been thrown out of court once before (Posner Judgement).
Your reality-distortion-field is showing.
Motorola sued Apple first.
Motorola attempted to rescind the licenses they granted to the companies Apple bought chips from to get around patent exhaustion issues.
Apple are not refusing to pay at all, they are willing to pay a "fair and reasonable" amount, such is their right under the agreements which make patented technology part of a standard.
Quote:
Originally Posted by hill60
Motorola sued Apple first.
Motorola attempted to rescind the licenses they granted to the companies Apple bought chips from to get around patent exhaustion issues.
Apple are not refusing to pay at all, they are willing to pay a "fair and reasonable" amount, such is their right under the agreements which make patented technology part of a standard.
Then it's unfortunate Apple would not commit to accepting a judge's "fair and reasonable" determination of what that royalty should be. It looked particularly damning when Motorola did commit to accept the judge's royalty order no matter the amount.