President Obama vetoes Samsung ban on Apple, Inc. iPhones, iPads

1679111214

Comments

  • Reply 161 of 280
    gatorguygatorguy Posts: 23,363member
    edit
  • Reply 162 of 280
    patsupatsu Posts: 430member
    gatorguy wrote: »
    You're still not reading it are you?:\

    Read it and it doesn't address the issue. Only case by case.

    They said they will post more details when the service is rolled out.
    Perhaps by then, they will consider and finalize our feedback.
  • Reply 163 of 280
    gatorguygatorguy Posts: 23,363member
    patsu wrote: »
    Read it and it doesn't address the issue. Only case by case.

    They said they will post more details when the service is rolled out.
    Perhaps by then, they will consider and finalize our feedback.

    So now you're not as certain of your claim as you thought you were that Google has gone anti-net neutrality. Fair enough for me. You're right, we should wait until the service actually rolls out before tossing accusations around.
  • Reply 164 of 280
    patsupatsu Posts: 430member
    gatorguy wrote: »
    So now you're not as certain of your claim as you thought you were that Google has gone anti-net neutrality. Fair enough for me. You're right, we should wait until the service actually rolls out before tossing accusations around.

    As the Wired article put it, their Net Neutrality stance has weakened to become like the people they fought years ago:

    "In its response, Google defended its sweeping ban by citing the very ISPs it opposed through the years-long fight for rules that require broadband providers to treat all packets equally."

    That's going back against their words.

    Since they have stated that they will clarify when the service is rolled out, we should wait for more info. For now, they have gone back against their previous stance.
  • Reply 165 of 280
    tallest skiltallest skil Posts: 43,399member
    No, no. Didn't you hear? The paid shills have to sound "organic." :lol:

    [VIDEO]

    Hey, it's organic.

    EDIT: Where's my video?
  • Reply 166 of 280
    gatorguygatorguy Posts: 23,363member
    patsu wrote: »
    As the Wired article put it, their Net Neutrality stance has weakened to become like the people they fought years ago:

    "In its response, Google defended its sweeping ban by citing the very ISPs it opposed through the years-long fight for rules that require broadband providers to treat all packets equally."

    That's going back against their words.

    Since they have stated that they will clarify when the service is rolled out, we should wait for more info. For now, they have gone back against their previous stance.

    I still don't think you get it. Yes, a packet is a packet. They've not indicated they intend to restrict content or sources. Realistically there are limits to band-width, a fact which is not the same thing as working against net neutrality. I agree you should wait to toss stones. There will be plenty of time and AI will be an ideal grandstand to do it from.
  • Reply 167 of 280
    patsupatsu Posts: 430member
    gatorguy wrote: »
    I still don't think you get it. Yes, a packet is a packet. They've not indicated they intend to restrict content or sources. Realistically there are limits to band-width, a fact which is not the same thing as working against net neutrality. I agree you should wait to toss stones. There will be plenty of time and AI will be an ideal grandstand to do it from.

    It doesn't really matter if you think I get it or not. You have no say in Google's policies especially when you agree with them.

    The thing is People have raised questions, and pointed out that Google has gone against their previous stance. Google has agreed to clarify when the service is rolled out.
  • Reply 168 of 280
    gatorguygatorguy Posts: 23,363member
    patsu wrote: »
    It doesn't really matter if you think I get it or not. You have no say in Google's policies especially when you agree with them.

    The thing is People have raised questions, and pointed out that Google has gone against their previous stance. Google has agreed to clarify when the service is rolled out.

    Now you get it! They haven't actually gone against net neutrality at all then. Going forward they may not either. We have to wait and see what they actually do. Perfect, as we now agree.for the most part.
  • Reply 169 of 280

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post







    Hey, it's organic.


     


    LOL.

  • Reply 170 of 280
    patsupatsu Posts: 430member
    gatorguy wrote: »
    Now you get it! They haven't actually gone against net neutrality at all then. Going forward they may not either. We have to wait and see what they actually do. Perfect, as we now agree.for the most part.

    Nope. It just means It's too early to say whether we agree or not.

    By the TOS they put out and the response they gave so far, they have gone against their previous stance of Net Neutrality (where Google and I used to agree). It has nothing to do with you and your agreement, or approval.

    Google is asking for more time to think it through, and explain properly.
  • Reply 171 of 280
    gatorguygatorguy Posts: 23,363member
    patsu wrote: »
    Nope. It just means It's too early to say whether we agree or not.

    By the TOS they put out and the response they gave so far, they have gone against their previous stance of Net Neutrality (where Google and I used to agree). It has nothing to do with you and your words.

    Google is asking for more time to think it through, and explain properly.

    Then you'll have to explain how limiting excessive use of bandwidth for commercial purposes on a shared consumer-centric network connection is somehow against net-neutrality. I don't see it. IMO you're trying to insist there's a juicy story right now where none yet exists. I think we've strayed from the topic long enough and far enough already. Let's wait to see what really happens before claiming it already has.

    As we were. . .
  • Reply 172 of 280
    mdriftmeyermdriftmeyer Posts: 7,503member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post





    I still don't think you get it. Yes, a packet is a packet. They've not indicated they intend to restrict content or sources. Realistically there are limits to band-width, a fact which is not the same thing as working against net neutrality. I agree you should wait to toss stones. There will be plenty of time and AI will be an ideal grandstand to do it from.


     


    Google's whole Net Neutrality stance was a political ploy to grow their footprint into the ISP business. Once firmly entrenched, they won't give a rat's ass about it.

  • Reply 173 of 280
    patsupatsu Posts: 430member
    gatorguy wrote: »
    Then you'll have to explain how limiting excessive use of bandwidth for commercial purposes on a shared consumer-centric network connection is somehow against net-neutrality. I don't see it. IMO you're trying to insist there's a juicy story right now where none yet exists. I think we've strayed from the topic long enough and far enough already. Let's wait to see what really happens before claiming it already has.

    As we were. . .

    It doesn't concern me that you don't see it (I expected it based on your previous posts). As long as Google has agreed to clarify, I am willing to wait for their official policy response. For now, it's like what the Wired article mentioned. Something's changed at their end.

    This thread is about President Obama's ban anyway.
  • Reply 174 of 280
    jragostajragosta Posts: 10,473member
    gatorguy wrote: »
    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.


    And the part you keep intentionally missing is that "public interest grounds" is not the political nonsense you are pretending that it is.

    The statement from the ITC is quite clear. The ban was overturned because it should never have been issued for an SEP patent. Period. The fact that they went further and stated that it's in the public interest not to ban something over an SEP patent doesn't change that.
  • Reply 175 of 280
    slurpyslurpy Posts: 5,346member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by mrrodriguez View Post





    Or another tone AI would take would be



    "Grr the President sticking his nose where it doesn't belong. The courts decided and that should be final"



    Or



    "We all know the Obama administration got paid by Google. This is Obama returning the favor. "



    Look at the DOJ case. As soon as Apple lost all of AI was condemning the government, even Apple called its punishment punitive and draconian. The moment something is in Apples favor it's 'the right thing to do' .


     


    Or, maybe you can look at the individual situations, and facts contained therein, to come to a conclusion whther each one is "right" or "wrong" instead of your simplistic 1:1 comparison as if both cases are similar and having a different reaction to the results means there's some sort of hypocricy. There isn't. The ebook case was ridiculous, and so was this ban. 

  • Reply 176 of 280


    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post



    Huh?



     


    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post



    Figured you might be one of those making believe you didn't understand.image


     


    Huh?

  • Reply 177 of 280
    MacProMacPro Posts: 19,471member
    gatorguy wrote: »
    I still don't think you get it. Yes, a packet is a packet. They've not indicated they intend to restrict content or sources. Realistically there are limits to band-width, a fact which is not the same thing as working against net neutrality. I agree you should wait to toss stones. There will be plenty of time and AI will be an ideal grandstand to do it from.

    What's with the 'they' come on, it's 'we' isn't it? ;)
  • Reply 178 of 280
    gatorguygatorguy Posts: 23,363member
    jragosta wrote: »
    And the part you keep intentionally missing is that "public interest grounds" is not the political nonsense you are pretending that it is.

    The statement from the ITC is quite clear. The ban was overturned because it should never have been issued for an SEP patent. Period. The fact that they went further and stated that it's in the public interest not to ban something over an SEP patent doesn't change that.

    You're really resisting reading the legal opinion issued to the ITC aren't you? The trade rep doesn't argue that any of the facts the ITC based it's judgement on were flawed or not applicable. He doesn't dispute that Samsung's request for an injunction for SEP infringement may have been proper, say SEP injunctions are always wrong, nor disagree with the ITC finding that Samsung did try to negotiate a license with Apple. He doesn't say that the ITC determination of reverse hold-up on Apple's part was incorrect or say that Apple acted properly in the negotiations. None of those were cited as his reason behind the ITC being overruled does he?

    What he did say, and the only reason directly and explicitly cited, was that the public interest concerns demanded that the injunction could not stand. FWIW I agree with that too. The President had already taken a public stand.

    Your back and forth with me started when you asked how I was making the leap to say the ITC was overturned primarily over public interest concerns. That's not be be read as only over public interest concerns. I've explained my reasoning pretty darn well and pointed you to actual statements (or lack of them). You on the other hand don't appear able to rationally explain how I'm wrong tho you keep saying so.

    If you disagree with anything I just said it's easy to dispute it. Simply show some actual evidence, something better than "I know you're wrong because I said so"
  • Reply 179 of 280
    gatorguygatorguy Posts: 23,363member
    What's with the 'they' come on, it's 'we' isn't it? ;)

    :smokey: :lol: Can't say you're not quick!
  • Reply 180 of 280
    gatorguygatorguy Posts: 23,363member
    Google's whole Net Neutrality stance was a political ploy to grow their footprint into the ISP business. Once firmly entrenched, they won't give a rat's ass about it.

    You could be right. You'll have to wait and see what they actually do "now that they is one".
Sign In or Register to comment.