In what way was Google hypocritical? Their argument on de-facto standards might not be legally supportable but I don't see the hypocrisy.
That's probably the problem with Google; even if they aren't being hypocrites at all they can be perceived that way. To some, that's a good thing, as hypocritical that may seem.
FWIW Google is hardly the first to raise the issue of de-facto standards. Back in 2006 Nokia submitted an amici-brief in the historical eBay-Merc case arguing that [B]de-facto standard[/B] patents should be considered in the same vein as FRAND-pledged IP with no access to injunctive relief for either one. Since Nokia's market-leading position has disappeared they've now changed their minds on that issue of course.
Since it’s possible that North Korea will level the south before then, how about we have Samsung put 20 billion in escrow right now so that they can’t worm out of paying damages in the event that they, you know, don’t have anything with which to pay.
Today those patents might not be worth as much as when the infringement took place. Back then they were worth a lot as it took them to shift the industry to a new wave of products and more important: a shift of power from the Mobile Phone Carriers into the hands of the Hardware and Software Manufacturers. LG, Motorola, Samsung, Nokia, Blackberry, HTC, etc. were all doing the same thing. Apple completely changed the marketplace and change pda-phones into money-making-machines. The greatest idea behind the iPhone was the AppStore, the enabler for the AppStore were all those patents that enabled a simple device to interact with the user. What makes the iPhone great is that "simplicity".
Before you made that irrelevant and irreverent remark, did you consider the number of mice that have suffered for your health?
Nope. There's no need for any mice, rabbits, hedgehogs, wildebeest or any other animal to be suffering for my health. I don't take medicine unless you count a single aspirin a very few times a year. I've no need for doctors nor use any cosmetics. If there's critters being sacrificed to improve the human condition I hope those researchers have really strong support for the necessity because I'd guess much of it can be done without animals being required. (altho it might be costlier)
With that said I do like a good piece of meat, but prefer seafood if I have my 'druthers.
Let one be consistent here! Either a patent is valuable and merits the expense and time for its application or else it is not worthy of patenting. I can appreciate the issue that some firms will seek to patent everyone just for a CYA-type strategy. These patent wars seem to have been going on longer than the Seven Years War of old and nothing seems to fundamentally change or even materially decided. I am frustrated at seeing all these tech patent war filings, I can only ponder what this jury may make out of all of this nonsense. Samsung if found guilty should just pay a fine agreement, just like Apple will be forced to do in the iBooks affair. I fear that the litigation is becoming so Byzantine that it needs to be avoided at all costs as it merely saps valuable time and money from any firm involved in these legal albatrosses.
So... Samsung is saying that it's okay to steal as long as what you're stealing has little or no value. Do I have that right? Perhaps if there is little or no monetary value to these patents, the judge can ban the products entirely as just compensation to Apple.
Comments
It's not only self-serving, it's communistic.
That's probably the problem with Google; even if they aren't being hypocrites at all they can be perceived that way. To some, that's a good thing, as hypocritical that may seem.
... and causes birth defects in mice.
In the context of "Don't be evil," what could be more hypocritical?
Nokia's lengthy and well-stated brief can be downloaded here if you're that interested.
http://patentlaw.typepad.com/eBay/eBayNokia.pdf
Since it’s possible that North Korea will level the south before then, how about we have Samsung put 20 billion in escrow right now so that they can’t worm out of paying damages in the event that they, you know, don’t have anything with which to pay.
Today those patents might not be worth as much as when the infringement took place. Back then they were worth a lot as it took them to shift the industry to a new wave of products and more important: a shift of power from the Mobile Phone Carriers into the hands of the Hardware and Software Manufacturers. LG, Motorola, Samsung, Nokia, Blackberry, HTC, etc. were all doing the same thing. Apple completely changed the marketplace and change pda-phones into money-making-machines. The greatest idea behind the iPhone was the AppStore, the enabler for the AppStore were all those patents that enabled a simple device to interact with the user. What makes the iPhone great is that "simplicity".
You already did.
Just write 'please delete' in your post and a moderator will do it.
... and causes birth defects in mice.
AND in kids without access to healthcare! Think of the children!
I love the smell of Samsung desperation in the morning
... and causes birth defects in mice.
Before you made that irrelevant and irreverent remark, did you consider the number of mice that have suffered for your health?
The issue is Samsung's infringement of valuable IP owned by others, as I'm willing to accept Samsung's statement that it's own IP is nearly worthless.
Nope. There's no need for any mice, rabbits, hedgehogs, wildebeest or any other animal to be suffering for my health. I don't take medicine unless you count a single aspirin a very few times a year. I've no need for doctors nor use any cosmetics. If there's critters being sacrificed to improve the human condition I hope those researchers have really strong support for the necessity because I'd guess much of it can be done without animals being required. (altho it might be costlier)
With that said I do like a good piece of meat, but prefer seafood if I have my 'druthers.
So... Samsung is saying that it's okay to steal as long as what you're stealing has little or no value. Do I have that right? Perhaps if there is little or no monetary value to these patents, the judge can ban the products entirely as just compensation to Apple.