No, what do you understand net neutrality to be and how is Google acting against that. I suspect you don't really see how the article you linked might be mischaracterizing it too.
what a shameful act of injustice. If you can't beat them with innovation in the market place, and if you can't beat them with litigation in the courtroom, then go running to your President for the hope you paid him enough to do the deed. What about the price fixing Apple? You think Obama will help you out with that as well? Pathetic. Guaranteed to have some backlash with markets outside of the US.
A hollow threat of "backlash" from one frustrated Apple hater. Bring it. Less talk, more backlash.
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. Give up on this one. Even trying to "shoot the messenger" doesn't change what the trade rep cited for his reason to overturn.
Same thing.
If said patent is not an SEP, Obama has no reason to step in.
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!!
Quote:
Originally Posted by architecton
Yet another Sameshit loving Fandroid...
hint: Go to macrumors! That site seems to be crawling with fandroids...
Agreed.
I used to be on Macrumors myself. It is the armpit of Apple forums. Then I discovered far more intelligent reporting and discussion on AI, and never made another forum post on MR again.
I occasionally have a look, and it is more riddled with trolls and paid posters than it ever was. The moderators are a bunch of assholes as well!
Due to the political nature of this news, there are restrictions on other Apple sites regarding comments. So some trolls came here.
We have restrictions thereon, too. Thing is, if it's Apple news proper, there's really nothing wrong with talking about it anyway. If you can't keep your personal politics in your pants for something as simple as an Apple article, I mean really.
Actually, both likely carry the same amount of weight for a public official (unless they put out a press correction afterwards).
Despite the fact that his public statement was not at odds with the written judgement ( "in part" is certainly true and doesn't make it a minimal part in any event;) it's pretty plain what grounds he used to overrule the ITC. He stated it quite well and in clear English, making it the primary reason even if it might not be the only reason. Why all the effort from some AI members to imagine some other hidden unstated reason that carried more weight than the public interest concerns he said he based it on?
If some of you would put as much time and effort in researching and reading for yourselves instead of working so hard at claiming I might, maybe, perhaps be wrong you'd probably have a much better understanding of some issues.
Cnet forums are pretty much owned by fandroids and Samsung trolls anymore… Samsung has made it a central suppository (sic) for their "paid shill" marketing.
No, no. Didn't you hear? The paid shills have to sound "organic."
No, what do you understand net neutrality to be and how is Google acting against that. I suspect you don't really see how the article you linked might be mischaracterizing it too.
Actually, both likely carry the same amount of weight for a public official (unless they put out a press correction afterwards).
Despite the fact that his public statement was not at odds with the written judgement ( "in part" is certainly true and doesn't make it a minimal part in any event;) it's pretty plain what grounds he used to overrule the ITC. He stated it quite well and in clear English, making it the primary reason even if it might not be the only reason. Why all the effort from some AI members to imagine some other hidden unstated reason that carried more weight than the public interest concerns he said he based it on?
If some of you would put as much time and effort in researching and reading for yourselves instead of working so hard at claiming I might, maybe, perhaps be wrong you'd probably have a much better understanding of some issues.
Huh what ? Using SEP to ban competition's import is against public interest. The standard bodies adopt these patents because they were (and are) promised to be neutral in principle. If this set a precedence, all standards are potentially threatened.
Google simply gave a boilerplate response. Some services such as peer-to-peer ones may serve both commercial and home interest.
You apparently didn't read the discussion link I offered you then? Pretty sure peer-to-peer is OK as long as it's not a commercial operation. So how is Google working against net neutrality by restricting some commercial server services from running over their consumer lines? It seems as tho it's clear in your mind.
You apparently didn't read the discussion link I offered you then? Pretty sure peer-to-peer is OK as long as it's not a commercial operation. So how is Google working against net neutrality by restricting some commercial server services from running over their consumer lines? It seems as tho it's clear in your mind.
You are "pretty sure" but Google may not be. ^_^
It's your own interpretation.
I'm pretty sure it's case by case. 8^)
People won't express concern if it's clear cut neutral.
Huh what ? Using SEP to ban competition's import is against public interest. The standard bodies adopt these patents because they were (and are) promised to be neutral in principle. If this set a precedence, all standards are potentially threatened.
And that's the only reason that an ITC injunction can ever be overturned? SEP's have to be involved? You should do a little research before coming to that conclusion.
And that's the only reason that an ITC injunction can ever be overturned? SEP's have to be involved? You should do a little research before coming to that conclusion.
Comments
No, what do you understand net neutrality to be and how is Google acting against that. I suspect you don't really see how the article you linked might be mischaracterizing it too.
Here's a discussion and clarification of what Google means in it's Google Fiber TOS.
http://productforums.google.com/forum/#!msg/fiber/-ixejP9yHj4/lGJ6iPAXoe0J
A hollow threat of "backlash" from one frustrated Apple hater. Bring it. Less talk, more backlash.
Actually, both likely carry the same amount of weight for a public official (unless they put out a press correction afterwards).
Same thing.
If said patent is not an SEP, Obama has no reason to step in.
Quote:
Originally Posted by architecton
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!!
Quote:
Originally Posted by architecton
Yet another Sameshit loving Fandroid...
hint: Go to macrumors! That site seems to be crawling with fandroids...
Agreed.
I used to be on Macrumors myself. It is the armpit of Apple forums. Then I discovered far more intelligent reporting and discussion on AI, and never made another forum post on MR again.
I occasionally have a look, and it is more riddled with trolls and paid posters than it ever was. The moderators are a bunch of assholes as well!
We have restrictions thereon, too.
'Can' is not the same as 'does'.
What happened yesterday rarely happens. The last time was in 1987, under Reagan (ironically, protecting Samsung in semiconductors).
Yes, but if said patent is not an SEP, he won't have a solid public interest reason to come in.
Despite the fact that his public statement was not at odds with the written judgement ( "in part" is certainly true and doesn't make it a minimal part in any event;) it's pretty plain what grounds he used to overrule the ITC. He stated it quite well and in clear English, making it the primary reason even if it might not be the only reason. Why all the effort from some AI members to imagine some other hidden unstated reason that carried more weight than the public interest concerns he said he based it on?
If some of you would put as much time and effort in researching and reading for yourselves instead of working so hard at claiming I might, maybe, perhaps be wrong you'd probably have a much better understanding of some issues.
No, no. Didn't you hear? The paid shills have to sound "organic."
Of course I read that article. The Wired one elaborates on the details:
http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2013/07/google-neutrality/
Google simply gave a boilerplate response. Some services such as peer-to-peer ones may serve both commercial and home interest.
Huh?
Huh?
Huh what ? Using SEP to ban competition's import is against public interest. The standard bodies adopt these patents because they were (and are) promised to be neutral in principle. If this set a precedence, all standards are potentially threatened.
You apparently didn't read the discussion link I offered you then? Pretty sure peer-to-peer is OK as long as it's not a commercial operation. So how is Google working against net neutrality by restricting some commercial server services from running over their consumer lines? It seems as tho it's clear in your mind.
You are "pretty sure" but Google may not be. ^_^
It's your own interpretation.
I'm pretty sure it's case by case. 8^)
People won't express concern if it's clear cut neutral.
And that's the only reason that an ITC injunction can ever be overturned? SEP's have to be involved? You should do a little research before coming to that conclusion.
You're still not reading it are you?:\
Given that this is the first time since a long time ago, and SEP is the central issue highlighted by Apple, Microsoft, Intel, Oracle and others. Yes (this time):
http://betanews.com/2013/07/30/microsoft-oracle-and-others-side-with-apple-over-us-iphone-4-ban/