Nice try. You're managing to ignore the fact that Motorola (now Google) and Samsung have BOTH been found guilty of FRAND abuse while Apple has not
Wha?? When did that happen? I completely missed the news about Moto. You wouldn't be using an investigation or even a preliminary finding as proof of guilt would you? I think you got ahead of yourself.
Just to be clear, a company that's aware its product uses IP belonging to another and does so despite no permission to do so and notice that they don't, refuses to make any payment at all for over 5 years and does so by taking advantage of every court, every appeal, and every delay available to it is A-OK in your view?
Apple proudly announced that was their intent, drag it out forever if need be rather than pay a dime in court determined royalties to Motorola if it wasn't to their liking. I thought you held strong beliefs in the sanctity of intellectual property? If it's not Apple's, and even they agree it isn't and belongs to Moto, why would you suddenly argue they have the right to use it for profit without permission of the owner for even a week much less years? Because Motorola agreed to license it fairly means Apple alone gets to decide how much they'll pay if anything at all? It sounds as tho their use of the courts to avoid paying others for their IP might qualify as abusive to some.
Comments
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta
Nice try. You're managing to ignore the fact that Motorola (now Google) and Samsung have BOTH been found guilty of FRAND abuse while Apple has not
Wha?? When did that happen? I completely missed the news about Moto. You wouldn't be using an investigation or even a preliminary finding as proof of guilt would you? I think you got ahead of yourself.
Just to be clear, a company that's aware its product uses IP belonging to another and does so despite no permission to do so and notice that they don't, refuses to make any payment at all for over 5 years and does so by taking advantage of every court, every appeal, and every delay available to it is A-OK in your view?
Apple proudly announced that was their intent, drag it out forever if need be rather than pay a dime in court determined royalties to Motorola if it wasn't to their liking. I thought you held strong beliefs in the sanctity of intellectual property? If it's not Apple's, and even they agree it isn't and belongs to Moto, why would you suddenly argue they have the right to use it for profit without permission of the owner for even a week much less years? Because Motorola agreed to license it fairly means Apple alone gets to decide how much they'll pay if anything at all? It sounds as tho their use of the courts to avoid paying others for their IP might qualify as abusive to some.