He's just relentlessly anti-Apple. In the most passive-aggressive way.
Just ignore him.....
Add: Oops, I see it's too late.
The idea that Apple is apparently guilty of infringement is explained by Mueller in his blog article I linked earlier. "The nature of the questions and the fact that they were asked at such a late procedural stage indicated that the ITC has most probably identified an (Apple) infringement of the '348 patent."
"The commercial impact of an exclusion order (i.e., import ban) on Apple would be rather limited. Samsung has already stated affirmatively that it's not accusing Apple products incorporating a Qualcomm baseband chip but only older iPhones and iPads. The iPhone 4S was Apple's first Qualcomm-based handset."
"The most interesting question is what position the ITC will take on FRAND-pledged standard-essential patents (SEPs). In the build-up to the just-postponed decision, four U.S. Senators and four U.S. Representatives had written letters to the ITC to reiterate lawmakers' concern over the anticompetitive and anti-innovative implications of import bans over FRAND-pledged SEPs."
Is he anti-Apple? Hardly. Whether you like Apple or don't even know who they are doesn't change whatever the ITC announces on the 5th. We'll see soon enough what it is. Probably the only remaining issue of importance is some indication of how or even whether at all the ITC will entertain future filings that claim IP infringement of SEP's.
And you're another one. And, no, the difference for SEP is that to implement the standard, you must use the patented "invention". That's the point, and we all know that all these "controversies" are from companies like Samsung and Google trying to either "double-dip" or violating their FRAND obligations. No one, including Apple, is refusing to license these patents under FRAND terms, but FRAND terms, in violation of the commitments made, aren't being offered by these companies. Instead, they are reneging on their promises and trying to use them as offensive weapons.
What GG and you have said is complete and utter nonsense.
Please, don't call something nonsense just because you cannot understand a rather simple legal concept properly.
SEP is still a patent that a licensee must pay royalty. If he does not, he infringes. It is that simple.
You keep saying just because everyone has to use a patent because it is standard essential that no one can infringe on a SEP in a meaningful way. Think twice. The fact that you have to use the invention to conform to a standard does not give you any legal rights to use it without paying a reasonable royalty.
Also, what are you, a judge? The contentions are (1) whether Samsung abused its SEP and (2) if it did not whether Apple refused to license under FRAND terms. And you seem to already know the answers to the questions presented. While I do think ITC might say Samsung abused its SEP, you just have no authority to say that Apple had any intention to do it right and Samsung did not offer FRAND terms as of now. If ITC says so, then cite it. But for the time being, stop the "propaganda."
No one, including Apple, is refusing to license these patents under FRAND terms, but FRAND terms, in violation of the commitments made, aren't being offered by these companies.
According to Apple, that is.
Apple did refuse a judge's offer to set FRAND terms between it and Motorola. Instead, Apple wanted to decide what the maximum FRAND price could be, something it has no right to do.
Apple also wants to be treated special, and not pay licenses calculated by device price, like every other ETSI licensee has done for two decades. (Higher priced/ profit devices subsidize lower priced / very low profit devices, in order to make the technology available to all.)
So while Apple might have some legitimate complaints about other companies trying to use their FRAND patents as weapons, they are not just an innocent company wanting to play by the rules. They want to change the rules.
The idea that Apple is apparently guilty of infringement is explained by Mueller in his blog article I linked earlier.
"The nature of the questions and the fact that they were asked at such a late procedural stage indicated that the ITC has most probably identified an (Apple) infringement of the '348 patent."
"The commercial impact of an exclusion order (i.e., import ban) on Apple would be rather limited. Samsung has already stated affirmatively that it's not accusing Apple products incorporating a Qualcomm baseband chip but only older iPhones and iPads. The iPhone 4S was Apple's first Qualcomm-based handset."
"The most interesting question is what position the ITC will take on FRAND-pledged standard-essential patents (SEPs). In the build-up to the just-postponed decision, four U.S. Senators and four U.S. Representatives had written letters to the ITC to reiterate lawmakers' concern over the anticompetitive and anti-innovative implications of import bans over FRAND-pledged SEPs."
Is he anti-Apple? Hardly. Whether you like Apple or don't even know who they are doesn't change whatever the ITC announces on the 5th. We'll see soon enough what it is. Probably the only remaining issue of importance is some indication of how or even whether at all the ITC will entertain future filings that claim IP infringement of SEP's.
It's funny how one week GG will be on here bashing Mueller and the next citing him.
Apple did refuse a judge's offer to set FRAND terms between it and Motorola. Instead, Apple wanted to decide what the maximum FRAND price could be, something it has no right to do.
Apple also wants to be treated special, and not pay licenses calculated by device price, like every other ETSI licensee has done for two decades. (Higher priced/ profit devices subsidize lower priced / very low profit devices, in order to make the technology available to all.)
So while Apple might have some legitimate complaints about other companies trying to use their FRAND patents as weapons, they are not just an innocent company wanting to play by the rules. They want to change the rules.
More nonsense from the usual purveyors of falsehood. Google/Samsung's entire strategy has to date been based on abuse of FRAND patents, and there's nothing different about that here.
More nonsense from the usual purveyors of falsehood. Google/Samsung's entire strategy has to date been based on abuse of FRAND patents, and there's nothing different about that here.
Are you referring to the opinion portion or the reference to the judge's order? The judge was very detailed in her reasoning. I'm not going to argue about their broader goals as it's a pointless argument to me.
Apple’s allegations of “irreparable harm” have at least two problems. The first problem is that Apple’s request for specific performance in the form of court declaration of a FRAND rate without any obligation by Apple to accept the rate would not prevent Motorola from suing Apple for patent infringement and requesting injunctive relief. In other words, if Apple refuses to be bound by the rate determined by the court, Motorola could continue to sue Apple for patent infringement and request injunctive relief.
The second problem is that Apple has provided no reason why its injuries would not be remedied by an award of money damages. It is undisputed that Motorola has failed to obtain any exclusion order or permanent injunction against Apple in the related patent infringement proceedings. Further, although Apple suggests that it will continue to face threats of permanent injunction or exclusionary orders related to Motorola’s standards-essential patents, it is not clear why this would be so if this court had resolved Apple’s claim for money damages in its favor. If Apple had been awarded money damages in this case, the court would have necessarily determined that Motorola breached a contract by failing to offer Apple a FRAND rate. Under
4
such circumstances, Apple would have an obvious defense in any future proceeding in which Motorola sought an injunction or exclusionary order against Apple.
Vindicated Exactly as i said it would likely be. Expecting an apology from members who decided personal attacks were proper is too much to expect of course.
Comments
The idea that Apple is apparently guilty of infringement is explained by Mueller in his blog article I linked earlier.
"The nature of the questions and the fact that they were asked at such a late procedural stage indicated that the ITC has most probably identified an (Apple) infringement of the '348 patent."
"The commercial impact of an exclusion order (i.e., import ban) on Apple would be rather limited. Samsung has already stated affirmatively that it's not accusing Apple products incorporating a Qualcomm baseband chip but only older iPhones and iPads. The iPhone 4S was Apple's first Qualcomm-based handset."
"The most interesting question is what position the ITC will take on FRAND-pledged standard-essential patents (SEPs). In the build-up to the just-postponed decision, four U.S. Senators and four U.S. Representatives had written letters to the ITC to reiterate lawmakers' concern over the anticompetitive and anti-innovative implications of import bans over FRAND-pledged SEPs."
Is he anti-Apple? Hardly. Whether you like Apple or don't even know who they are doesn't change whatever the ITC announces on the 5th. We'll see soon enough what it is. Probably the only remaining issue of importance is some indication of how or even whether at all the ITC will entertain future filings that claim IP infringement of SEP's.
Quote:
Originally Posted by anonymouse
And you're another one. And, no, the difference for SEP is that to implement the standard, you must use the patented "invention". That's the point, and we all know that all these "controversies" are from companies like Samsung and Google trying to either "double-dip" or violating their FRAND obligations. No one, including Apple, is refusing to license these patents under FRAND terms, but FRAND terms, in violation of the commitments made, aren't being offered by these companies. Instead, they are reneging on their promises and trying to use them as offensive weapons.
What GG and you have said is complete and utter nonsense.
Please, don't call something nonsense just because you cannot understand a rather simple legal concept properly.
SEP is still a patent that a licensee must pay royalty. If he does not, he infringes. It is that simple.
You keep saying just because everyone has to use a patent because it is standard essential that no one can infringe on a SEP in a meaningful way. Think twice. The fact that you have to use the invention to conform to a standard does not give you any legal rights to use it without paying a reasonable royalty.
Also, what are you, a judge? The contentions are (1) whether Samsung abused its SEP and (2) if it did not whether Apple refused to license under FRAND terms. And you seem to already know the answers to the questions presented. While I do think ITC might say Samsung abused its SEP, you just have no authority to say that Apple had any intention to do it right and Samsung did not offer FRAND terms as of now. If ITC says so, then cite it. But for the time being, stop the "propaganda."
Come on.
Quote:
Originally Posted by anonymouse
No one, including Apple, is refusing to license these patents under FRAND terms, but FRAND terms, in violation of the commitments made, aren't being offered by these companies.
According to Apple, that is.
Apple did refuse a judge's offer to set FRAND terms between it and Motorola. Instead, Apple wanted to decide what the maximum FRAND price could be, something it has no right to do.
Apple also wants to be treated special, and not pay licenses calculated by device price, like every other ETSI licensee has done for two decades. (Higher priced/ profit devices subsidize lower priced / very low profit devices, in order to make the technology available to all.)
So while Apple might have some legitimate complaints about other companies trying to use their FRAND patents as weapons, they are not just an innocent company wanting to play by the rules. They want to change the rules.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy
The idea that Apple is apparently guilty of infringement is explained by Mueller in his blog article I linked earlier.
"The nature of the questions and the fact that they were asked at such a late procedural stage indicated that the ITC has most probably identified an (Apple) infringement of the '348 patent."
"The commercial impact of an exclusion order (i.e., import ban) on Apple would be rather limited. Samsung has already stated affirmatively that it's not accusing Apple products incorporating a Qualcomm baseband chip but only older iPhones and iPads. The iPhone 4S was Apple's first Qualcomm-based handset."
"The most interesting question is what position the ITC will take on FRAND-pledged standard-essential patents (SEPs). In the build-up to the just-postponed decision, four U.S. Senators and four U.S. Representatives had written letters to the ITC to reiterate lawmakers' concern over the anticompetitive and anti-innovative implications of import bans over FRAND-pledged SEPs."
Is he anti-Apple? Hardly. Whether you like Apple or don't even know who they are doesn't change whatever the ITC announces on the 5th. We'll see soon enough what it is. Probably the only remaining issue of importance is some indication of how or even whether at all the ITC will entertain future filings that claim IP infringement of SEP's.
It's funny how one week GG will be on here bashing Mueller and the next citing him.
Quote:
Originally Posted by KDarling
According to Apple, that is.
Apple did refuse a judge's offer to set FRAND terms between it and Motorola. Instead, Apple wanted to decide what the maximum FRAND price could be, something it has no right to do.
Apple also wants to be treated special, and not pay licenses calculated by device price, like every other ETSI licensee has done for two decades. (Higher priced/ profit devices subsidize lower priced / very low profit devices, in order to make the technology available to all.)
So while Apple might have some legitimate complaints about other companies trying to use their FRAND patents as weapons, they are not just an innocent company wanting to play by the rules. They want to change the rules.
More nonsense from the usual purveyors of falsehood. Google/Samsung's entire strategy has to date been based on abuse of FRAND patents, and there's nothing different about that here.
Quote:
Originally Posted by anonymouse
More nonsense from the usual purveyors of falsehood. Google/Samsung's entire strategy has to date been based on abuse of FRAND patents, and there's nothing different about that here.
Are you referring to the opinion portion or the reference to the judge's order? The judge was very detailed in her reasoning. I'm not going to argue about their broader goals as it's a pointless argument to me.
http://www.groklaw.net/articlebasic.php?story=2012110322254380#Order
Quote:
Apple’s allegations of “irreparable harm” have at least two problems. The first problem is that Apple’s request for specific performance in the form of court declaration of a FRAND rate without any obligation by Apple to accept the rate would not prevent Motorola from suing Apple for patent infringement and requesting injunctive relief. In other words, if Apple refuses to be bound by the rate determined by the court, Motorola could continue to sue Apple for patent infringement and request injunctive relief.
The second problem is that Apple has provided no reason why its injuries would not be remedied by an award of money damages. It is undisputed that Motorola has failed to obtain any exclusion order or permanent injunction against Apple in the related patent infringement proceedings. Further, although Apple suggests that it will continue to face threats of permanent injunction or exclusionary orders related to Motorola’s standards-essential patents, it is not clear why this would be so if this court had resolved Apple’s claim for money damages in its favor. If Apple had been awarded money damages in this case, the court would have necessarily determined that Motorola breached a contract by failing to offer Apple a FRAND rate. Under
4
such circumstances, Apple would have an obvious defense in any future proceeding in which Motorola sought an injunction or exclusionary order against Apple.