Not likely any carrier would invest in tech that only worked with one carriers phone
That's too strong a statement. Let's just say that it's harder for a carrier to justify a technology used in a single phone. There are exceptions - such as AT&T's use of Apple's visual voicemail. At the time, AT&T was the only carrier to offer the technology and had to spend the money solely for one phone.
Your statement is, however, the common justification for SEP technology and it does apply, but don't ignore the exceptions.
I am not confused at all. I believe I am seeing the Google/Motorola group clearly.
Once Google purchased Motorola, Motorola had to get Google's permission to continue pursuing SEP bans and/or charging exhorbitant fees on competitor products. Google did not withhold its permission. At that moment, Google became THE company pursuing these very bad deals.
Sure, many people will try to keep Google out of the SEP mess, but they cannot. Google chose to spend $12.5 billion to purchase Motorola and knew exactly what was going on.
Losses cannot be attributed to Motorola while wins are attributed to Google. All goes to Google
Of course. Any rational person who has even the slightest understanding of multinational businesses sees that. Unfortunately, several of the Samsung/Google shills refuse to acknowledge simple fact.
"U.S. Trade Representative Michael Froman on Saturday vetoed the ban, saying his decision was in part based on its "effect on competitive conditions in the U.S. economy and the effect on U.S. consumers." He said Samsung could continue to pursue its case through the courts."
In essence the ban was overturned more over public interest concerns rather than as a statement on the merits of SEP injunction requests. In any event tho I think the lifting of the injunction had to be done to give weight to the President's proposals for reining in software patents. .
How did you make the leap from "in part based on..." to "overturned MORE over..."?
I don't like many things Apple does but I think this is the right thing. Apple should also drop those stupid trials. When I had for a short time an Android phone I missed the rubber band from the iPhone. Simple things like this or the pinch to zoom or Samsung's 3G patents shouldn't be patents. It's clear that here Obama is protecting Apple because it's an american company, but good for him. He's the president of USA so, he should protect american companies.
I don't like many things Apple does but I think this is the right thing. Apple should also drop those stupid trials. When I had for a short time an Android phone I missed the rubber band from the iPhone. Simple things like this or the pinch to zoom or Samsung's 3G patents shouldn't be patents. It's clear that here Obama is protecting Apple because it's an american company, but good for him. He's the president of USA so, he should protect american companies.
The message is not protecting an American company. Its use of SEP (Standard Essential Patents) under FRAND, and not use it as a weapon to halt competition.
How did you make the leap from "in part based on..." to "overturned MORE over..."?
What was the first item cited in his writen notice to the FTC? Pay more attention to public interest issues both before and after findings. What did his quote to the press cite? Public interest concerns. Hardly a leap..
What was the first item cited in his writen notice to the FTC? Pay more attention to public interest issues both before and after findings. What did his quote to the press cite? Public interest concerns. Hardly a leap..
IOW, you pulled it out of your a**.
There's nothing in his letter that suggests that it was primarily due to public interest. "In part" does not equal "Primarily due to".
There's nothing in his letter that suggests that it was primarily due to public interest. "In part" does not equal "Primarily due to".
Your trolling is getting lamer every day.
LOL. Since the trade representative made it clear that SEP injunctions might be appropriate in certain circumstances and the number one thing he wanted the ITC to pay attention to in future rulings was the public interest concerns and then noting his press quote cited the same public interest concerns too it's pretty obvious sir. :rolleyes:
EDIT: Just peruse the letter AI linked for you in the article itself. Page three, paragraph three if you're not a great reader or simply impatient.
Hmmmm. . .
"This decision is based on... the effect on competitive conditions in the U.S. economy and the effect on U.S. consumers". Huh. Public interest concerns just as I said.
Egregious trolling isn't a great start on a Sunday morning. Maybe you could tone it down at least one day a week.
LOL. Since the trade representative made it clear that SEP injunctions might be appropriate in certain circumstances and the number one thing he wanted the ITC to pay attention to in future rulings was the public interest concerns and then noting his press quote cited the same public interest concerns too it's pretty obvious sir. The fact you have problems seeing it isn't terribly surprising to me. Perhaps you could ask a mathematician for a formula that might lead you to the answer. :rolleyes:
EDIT: If you have a good understanding of English you won't even need a mathematician to show you how to arrive at the right answer. Just peruse the letter AI linked for you in the article itself. Page three, paragraph three if you're not a great reader or simply impatient.
Hmmmm. . .
"This decision is based on... the effect on competitive conditions in the U.S. economy and the effect on U.S. consumers". Huh. Public interest concerns just as I said.
Egregious trolling isn't a great start for you on a Sunday morning. Maybe you could tone it down at least one day a week.
I guess if you're paid by Google and Samsung to misread everything that opposes you, you might read it that way.
The decision was based IN PART on public interest concerns - including the public interest in not having a bully misuse SEP patents. It is clear from the formal letter that the largest part of their concern is to prevent SEP abuse.
Of course, if you want to consider that 'public interest concerns', feel free. However, that paints your employers in a bad light.
That's the danger of making SEP patents worthless. One possible outcome is both Samsung and Google are working on wireless technologies for the next generation of phones that are several hundred times faster than LTE. With no incentive or advantage to license under SEP, they'll simply keep it proprietary.
Apple users would be stuck with 'dial-up' speed phones relative to the zippy Google and Samsung phones. That may not be an entirely bad thing as it would prompt Apple to develop its own wireless technologies and now compete to come up with an even faster or better Apple proprietary wireless solution (Apple is historically very bad at coming up with these type of techs though). With the small market share in some countries outside the US it would likely not be worth the cost of deploying, but in their established markets they could try to gain a competitive edge with it.
My personal view is that while standards generally promote slower 'change' and innovation, they have a very useful purpose. I like the fact that I can call my friends regardless of if they prefer Apple, Android, Windows, or landline phones.
In a world where there were 50 cell phone competitors, SEPs would actually be essential. In a world where there are only two, its a very real possibility they could go their own way since both iOS and Android have enough users to be a 'standard' in and of themselves.
They can do that even without this veto. If they want to go there, giving up this veto won't stop them.
Google already went back against their words in Net Neutrality. Public interests is no longer their concern in this case.
Also, Apple is said to be doing wireless research. If no one offer a standard, they will; just like WebKit, HTTP Live Streaming.
LOL. Since the trade representative made it clear that SEP injunctions might be appropriate in certain circumstances and the number one thing he wanted the ITC to pay attention to in future rulings was the public interest concerns and then noting his press quote cited the same public interest concerns too it's pretty obvious sir. The fact you have problems seeing it isn't terribly surprising to me. Perhaps you could ask a mathematician for a formula that might lead you to the answer. :rolleyes:
EDIT: If you have a good understanding of English you won't even need a mathematician to show you how to arrive at the right answer. Just peruse the letter AI linked for you in the article itself. Page three, paragraph three if you're not a great reader or simply impatient.
Hmmmm. . .
"This decision is based on... the effect on competitive conditions in the U.S. economy and the effect on U.S. consumers". Huh. Public interest concerns just as I said.
Egregious trolling isn't a great start for you on a Sunday morning. Maybe you could tone it down at least one day a week.
Public interest concerns is just a result of SEP abuse. Same thing.
I guess if you're paid by Google and Samsung to misread everything that opposes you, you might read it that way.
The decision was based IN PART on public interest concerns - including the public interest in not having a bully misuse SEP patents. It is clear from the formal letter that the largest part of their concern is to prevent SEP abuse.
Of course, if you want to consider that 'public interest concerns', feel free. However, that paints your employers in a bad light.
Really? Where in the legal letter did the rep say "in part"? I'll wait. I must have missed it. The only "in part" comment I'm aware of is in his spoken comment to the press, not the written legal explanation he supplied. You sound like a legal expert. Which carries more weight, the written ruling or a press statement? Pretty sure based on the evidence at hand that the ITC was overruled on primarily public interest grounds.
Comments
At last, a visible positive action by Obama for business ... better late than never.
Heck, Macrumors seems to be RUN BY fandroids. You can get banned there for simply pointing out all the errors in the trolls' posts.
That's too strong a statement. Let's just say that it's harder for a carrier to justify a technology used in a single phone. There are exceptions - such as AT&T's use of Apple's visual voicemail. At the time, AT&T was the only carrier to offer the technology and had to spend the money solely for one phone.
Your statement is, however, the common justification for SEP technology and it does apply, but don't ignore the exceptions.
Of course. Any rational person who has even the slightest understanding of multinational businesses sees that. Unfortunately, several of the Samsung/Google shills refuse to acknowledge simple fact.
How did you make the leap from "in part based on..." to "overturned MORE over..."?
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta
Heck, Macrumors seems to be RUN BY fandroids. You can get banned there for simply pointing out all the errors in the trolls' posts.
I was... and I had been a member there since 2004!! I think the whole forum section of that site is run by Google / Samsung.
...on the up side I discovered AI! ...and boy am I glad I did!!
Welcome
I wear my (short i should add) MR ban as a badge of honor.
I don't like many things Apple does but I think this is the right thing. Apple should also drop those stupid trials. When I had for a short time an Android phone I missed the rubber band from the iPhone. Simple things like this or the pinch to zoom or Samsung's 3G patents shouldn't be patents. It's clear that here Obama is protecting Apple because it's an american company, but good for him. He's the president of USA so, he should protect american companies.
Quote:
Originally Posted by NelsonX
I don't like many things Apple does but I think this is the right thing. Apple should also drop those stupid trials. When I had for a short time an Android phone I missed the rubber band from the iPhone. Simple things like this or the pinch to zoom or Samsung's 3G patents shouldn't be patents. It's clear that here Obama is protecting Apple because it's an american company, but good for him. He's the president of USA so, he should protect american companies.
The message is not protecting an American company. Its use of SEP (Standard Essential Patents) under FRAND, and not use it as a weapon to halt competition.
IOW, you pulled it out of your a**.
There's nothing in his letter that suggests that it was primarily due to public interest. "In part" does not equal "Primarily due to".
Your trolling is getting lamer every day.
LOL. Since the trade representative made it clear that SEP injunctions might be appropriate in certain circumstances and the number one thing he wanted the ITC to pay attention to in future rulings was the public interest concerns and then noting his press quote cited the same public interest concerns too it's pretty obvious sir. :rolleyes:
EDIT: Just peruse the letter AI linked for you in the article itself. Page three, paragraph three if you're not a great reader or simply impatient.
Hmmmm. . .
"This decision is based on... the effect on competitive conditions in the U.S. economy and the effect on U.S. consumers". Huh. Public interest concerns just as I said.
Egregious trolling isn't a great start on a Sunday morning. Maybe you could tone it down at least one day a week.
I guess if you're paid by Google and Samsung to misread everything that opposes you, you might read it that way.
The decision was based IN PART on public interest concerns - including the public interest in not having a bully misuse SEP patents. It is clear from the formal letter that the largest part of their concern is to prevent SEP abuse.
Of course, if you want to consider that 'public interest concerns', feel free. However, that paints your employers in a bad light.
They can do that even without this veto. If they want to go there, giving up this veto won't stop them.
Google already went back against their words in Net Neutrality. Public interests is no longer their concern in this case.
Also, Apple is said to be doing wireless research. If no one offer a standard, they will; just like WebKit, HTTP Live Streaming.
Public interest concerns is just a result of SEP abuse. Same thing.
How so? Perhaps you might be confused about what "net neutrality" is? If not please explain.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/07/31/google-net-neutrality_n_3683023.html
He already got paid.
Really? Where in the legal letter did the rep say "in part"? I'll wait. I must have missed it. The only "in part" comment I'm aware of is in his spoken comment to the press, not the written legal explanation he supplied. You sound like a legal expert. Which carries more weight, the written ruling or a press statement? Pretty sure based on the evidence at hand that the ITC was overruled on primarily public interest grounds.
What's MacRumors?