Feel free to post nonsense showing how ignorant you are.
Oh, wait - you're already doing that.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dorotea
Isn't part of the problem the timing? I believe some of the Motorola patents have to do with wifi, and if true they should have sued when Apple implemented wifi earlier in the century.
First, we don't know what the Wifi patents are (at least I don't know what they are). As just one example, if the patent covers the inclusion of both WiFi and cellular service in a mobile phone, Apple has only been in the market for 3 years. Some of that time was used on negotiations, so it wouldn't be an extraordinarily long time to wait.
Even if the patents covered something Apple was doing earlier, there are LOTS of valid reasons why it might have taken this long to file. That doesn't negate Motorola's ability to enforce their patents (or vice versa).
So what, if anything do Apple's "obvious in hindsight" patents regarding software AND hardware implementations of various functions have to do with antenna design?
Quote:
Originally Posted by sprockkets
Apple's patent on icon rearranging: A bunch of computer code that is neither novel or non-obvious.
Apple's multitouch gesture for unlocking the phone: Patenting a slide lock switch on a screen is neither non-obvious or novel.
The difference, of course, is that Motorola is a signatory to Fair and Non-discriminatory License agreements and is required to license their patents to everyone at the same rate. Apple is not required to license its GUI and other patents to anyone.
There were significant rumors that Motorola wanted more money from Apple than anyone else - which would be a violation of their agreement and Apple would not have to sign such a license. The fact that Motorola admits that they had lengthy discussions confirms that.
If Motorola offered Apple FAND terms, then Apple's answer would have been 'yes' or 'no' - and there would have been no need for lengthy discussions. Even if Apple asked for better terms, Motorola's answer would have been 'no, because we can't do that under our license agreements with others'. The fact that there were lengthy discussions can ONLY be explained by Motorola asking for more from Apple than they get under FAND.
If it was that simple I would think Apple would present facts to that & would have won their case by now. I suspect though that the negotiations were more Apple trying to work out maybe licensing exchanges instead of licensing fees, the prior probably saving Apple some money but Motorola may have determined they couldn't meet a lot of Apple's proposals due to legal restrictions. It quite possibly then could have gone south with Apple requesting license costs higher than what Motorola thought fair.
I think it is very easy for what might seem simple to have become complicated, at this point it looks like Apple is simply trying to make it not worth Motorola's time & money to demand the licensing. I'm thinking a legal settlements can be a form of negotiation too, maybe allowing loopholes for back-room agreements. Just my speculation though, I am no lawyer & I could be way off base on this.
If it was that simple I would think Apple would present facts to that & would have won their case by now.
Nope. These things can take years. Especially when there's litigation involved. Standard civil adjudication is anything but a speedy process. I've personally worked on some cases here in Canada (legal research assistant when I was younger) that took upwards of five years to resolve. Even when some facts were obviously more supportive of one side over the other. That's the whole reason ADR exists (mediation/arbitration): to ease the court docket. Delays and backlogs are a fact of legal life.
Besides, there will be a settlement long before there will be any "winner" here. The real winner will be decided by actual market performance.
Isn't part of the problem the timing? I believe some of the Motorola patents have to do with wifi, and if true they should have sued when Apple implemented wifi earlier in the century.
"have to do with WiFi" doesn't mean that they were included in what Apple did 10 years ago.
If you want to make a point, read and understand the patent and then determine if what Apple did 10 years ago was covered by the patent. It is entirely possible for a WiFi patent to not cover the 2002 state of the art.
So what, if anything do Apple's "obvious in hindsight" patents regarding software AND hardware implementations of various functions have to do with antenna design?
It's their stupid patents they are suing everyone over, not just Motorola. "Obvious in hindsight" means nothing. Patenting a physical slider button on a touch screen or moving around icons on a screen is Apple trying to patent a bunch of zeros and ones.
HTC is getting sued for having cpus that can clock down. As if Apple made that tech first vs. Intel.
Feel free to post nonsense showing how ignorant you are.
Oh, wait - you're already doing that.
First, we don't know what the Wifi patents are (at least I don't know what they are). As just one example, if the patent covers the inclusion of both WiFi and cellular service in a mobile phone, Apple has only been in the market for 3 years. Some of that time was used on negotiations, so it wouldn't be an extraordinarily long time to wait.
Even if the patents covered something Apple was doing earlier, there are LOTS of valid reasons why it might have taken this long to file. That doesn't negate Motorola's ability to enforce their patents (or vice versa).
Saying that I said that ALL their patents are FAND (which is really FRAND) is just a strawman argument + stating that I'm ignorant is just trolling.
"have to do with WiFi" doesn't mean that they were included in what Apple did 10 years ago.
If you want to make a point, read and understand the patent and then determine if what Apple did 10 years ago was covered by the patent. It is entirely possible for a WiFi patent to not cover the 2002 state of the art.
You are not the keeper of truth and light. This is a rumor site...anyone can post opinions whether you like them or not.
Of course you could actually link to this particular patent instead of just saying "ignorance".
I never said "ignorance". Someone made a claim that since Motorola's patents had something to do with WiFi and Apple used WiFi since early in the decade that Motorola couldn't sue.
I simply pointed out that saying the patent had something to do with WiFi was useless. It would be necessary to understand what the patent claimed before knowing if Apple's 2002 technology was covered.
Once again, you seem to be more interested in personal attacks than in understanding the simple, factual statements I'm making.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dorotea
You are not the keeper of truth and light. This is a rumor site...anyone can post opinions whether you like them or not.
Obviously they can - and I've never denied it.
I simply said that it would be a lot better and more useful site if people only posted opinions on subjects that they know enough about for their opinion to MEAN something.
But I can see that a lot of people prefer millions of posts from people who don't have any concept of what they're talking about and without any effort to ensure that what they're posting has any validity.
What you're suggesting is that people who don't know the difference between a bit and a byte should be cluttering up microprocessor design forums with their drivel. Or people who don't know how to boil water should be posting thousands of messages with their advice on Food Network forums. Or people who don't know which end if a socket wrench to hold should be posting advice on car repair forums.
Obviously, it's legal and no one's going to stop them. But it would be SOOOOOOOOO much better if people didn't post things when they're clueless. I guess some people LIKE to look like idiots.
I never said "ignorance". Someone made a claim that since Motorola's patents had something to do with WiFi and Apple used WiFi since early in the decade that Motorola couldn't sue.
I simply pointed out that saying the patent had something to do with WiFi was useless. It would be necessary to understand what the patent claimed before knowing if Apple's 2002 technology was covered.
Once again, you seem to be more interested in personal attacks than in understanding the simple, factual statements I'm making.
Telling someone they don't know what FRAND is is calling someone ignorant, which is PRECISELY what you did.
Oh wait, I can just quote from earlier:
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta
Feel free to post nonsense showing how ignorant you are.
Second, I mentioned NOTHING about the wifi patent, but the antenna patent, which others said that has to be FRAND, and won't explain why.
Third, since you already are sooooooo up on the patents, you should be able to post the link.
Telling someone they don't know what FRAND is is calling someone ignorant, which is PRECISELY what you did.
Oh wait, I can just quote from earlier:
Which doesn't say anything even remotely like what you're claiming. You have a serious reading comprehension problem.
Quote:
Originally Posted by sprockkets
Second, I mentioned NOTHING about the wifi patent, but the antenna patent, which others said that has to be FRAND, and won't explain why.
Not my problem. I never claimed it was FRAND or anything else. Take it up with the people who made that claim.
What I said was that people can't simply say "the patent is about wifi (or antennas or whatever)" and think that's useful in discussing prior art. A patent isn't about just WiFi. It's about some specific aspect of WiFi. Until you've discerned what specific aspect is claimed in the patent, saying 'it's about WiFi' is like saying Monet's paintings are worthless because they're just about flowers.
Quote:
Originally Posted by sprockkets
TThird, since you already are sooooooo up on the patents, you should be able to post the link.
Post up or shut up.
Why should I? I'm not the one who claimed to know what was covered, nor did I even discuss the content of the patents. Ask the person who is claiming to know that the patents are invalid provide their evidence.
Let me refresh your memory: some people were making comments about the validity of some patents. Without taking a position one way or the other, I suggested that they really need to know what the patent covers before they're able to comment on whether the patent is valid or not.
Patents are very specific things. A patent is not 'about WiFi' or 'about antennas'. They're about one particular implementation of how a specific item is made or how a specific process is done. It is pointless to pretend that a patent is valid or that it's invalid without knowing (and understanding) what it actually says.
Which doesn't say anything even remotely like what you're claiming. You have a serious reading comprehension problem.
Not my problem. I never claimed it was FRAND or anything else. Take it up with the people who made that claim.
What I said was that people can't simply say "the patent is about wifi (or antennas or whatever)" and think that's useful in discussing prior art. A patent isn't about just WiFi. It's about some specific aspect of WiFi. Until you've discerned what specific aspect is claimed in the patent, saying 'it's about WiFi' is like saying Monet's paintings are worthless because they're just about flowers.
Why should I? I'm not the one who claimed to know what was covered, nor did I even discuss the content of the patents. Ask the person who is claiming to know that the patents are invalid provide their evidence.
Let me refresh your memory: some people were making comments about the validity of some patents. Without taking a position one way or the other, I suggested that they really need to know what the patent covers before they're able to comment on whether the patent is valid or not.
Patents are very specific things. A patent is not 'about WiFi' or 'about antennas'. They're about one particular implementation of how a specific item is made or how a specific process is done. It is pointless to pretend that a patent is valid or that it's invalid without knowing (and understanding) what it actually says.
Well since you won't even believe the crap you yourself posted even when shoved into your face, you sir, are ignorant, and perhaps best represent the typical retarded apple fanboi.
I could post this:
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta
The difference, of course, is that Motorola is a signatory to Fair and Non-discriminatory License agreements and is required to license their patents to everyone at the same rate. Apple is not required to license its GUI and other patents to anyone.
There were significant rumors that Motorola wanted more money from Apple than anyone else - which would be a violation of their agreement and Apple would not have to sign such a license. The fact that Motorola admits that they had lengthy discussions confirms that.
If Motorola offered Apple FAND terms, then Apple's answer would have been 'yes' or 'no' - and there would have been no need for lengthy discussions. Even if Apple asked for better terms, Motorola's answer would have been 'no, because we can't do that under our license agreements with others'. The fact that there were lengthy discussions can ONLY be explained by Motorola asking for more from Apple than they get under FAND.
Well since you won't even believe the crap you yourself posted even when shoved into your face, you sir, are ignorant, and perhaps best represent the typical retarded apple fanboi.
I could post this:
but then you would deny you wrote that too?
So you've proven that you can make one claim in a post and then when I tell you I didn't say it, you pull up an entirely unrelated post that says something entirely different. What I wrote has absolutely no relationship to what you claim I wrote.
But you are clever - you never put your claim and my exact quote in the same post so it's easy for you to delude others.
You're really amazing. I've seen some people who are completely incapable of logical discourse, but you're one of the worst - by far.
So you've proven that you can make one claim in a post and then when I tell you I didn't say it, you pull up an entirely unrelated post that says something entirely different. What I wrote has absolutely no relationship to what you claim I wrote.
But you are clever - you never put your claim and my exact quote in the same post so it's easy for you to delude others.
You're really amazing. I've seen some people who are completely incapable of logical discourse, but you're one of the worst - by far.
Here, let's put your quotes in the right order since you are the only one who can't comprehend them:
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta
Why should I? I'm not the one who claimed to know what was covered, nor did I even discuss the content of the patents. Ask the person who is claiming to know that the patents are invalid provide their evidence.
But you already claimed:
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta
The difference, of course, is that Motorola is a signatory to Fair and Non-discriminatory License agreements and is required to license their patents to everyone at the same rate. Apple is not required to license its GUI and other patents to anyone.
There were significant rumors that Motorola wanted more money from Apple than anyone else - which would be a violation of their agreement and Apple would not have to sign such a license. The fact that Motorola admits that they had lengthy discussions confirms that.
And, here's the link to it, since you can't believe it yourself:
If that was all there was to it, then Marconi's work would still be SOTA. I think that the engineers can tune them somehow or something like that. And the shape?
Maybe I'm wrong.
In 1896, Marconi introduced to the public a device in London, asserting it was his invention. Despite Marconi's statements to the contrary, though, the apparatus resembles Tesla's descriptions in the widely translated articles.[21] Marconi's later practical four-tuned system was pre-dated by N. Tesla, Oliver Lodge, and J. S. Stone.[22] He filed a patent on his system with the British Patent Office on June 2, 1896.
In 1943, the United States Supreme Court ruled one Marconi patent invalid on the basis of prior art by Stone and Tesla. This decision was based on the fact that prior art existed before the establishment of Marconi's patent.
Marconi was a great marketer and the 1909 nobel prize for "inventing" radio helped his reputation. Reality was more along the lines that he was a great business person and was the first to "commercialize" radio. He did this though borrowing very very heavily on the work of other pioneers.
Comments
Antenna design = put a piece of metal in a field of radio waves.
Something that has been known about since the 1900's.
So which of Motorola's patent claims specifically involve "Antenna design"?
Nokia is using one involving attaching a piece of wire to a metal speaker enclosure so it acts as an antenna.
Apple's patent on icon rearranging: A bunch of computer code that is neither novel or non-obvious.
Apple's multitouch gesture for unlocking the phone: Patenting a slide lock switch on a screen is neither non-obvious or novel.
Feel free to be a dumbass troll.
Feel free to post nonsense showing how ignorant you are.
Oh, wait - you're already doing that.
Isn't part of the problem the timing? I believe some of the Motorola patents have to do with wifi, and if true they should have sued when Apple implemented wifi earlier in the century.
First, we don't know what the Wifi patents are (at least I don't know what they are). As just one example, if the patent covers the inclusion of both WiFi and cellular service in a mobile phone, Apple has only been in the market for 3 years. Some of that time was used on negotiations, so it wouldn't be an extraordinarily long time to wait.
Even if the patents covered something Apple was doing earlier, there are LOTS of valid reasons why it might have taken this long to file. That doesn't negate Motorola's ability to enforce their patents (or vice versa).
Apple's patent on icon rearranging: A bunch of computer code that is neither novel or non-obvious.
Apple's multitouch gesture for unlocking the phone: Patenting a slide lock switch on a screen is neither non-obvious or novel.
The difference, of course, is that Motorola is a signatory to Fair and Non-discriminatory License agreements and is required to license their patents to everyone at the same rate. Apple is not required to license its GUI and other patents to anyone.
There were significant rumors that Motorola wanted more money from Apple than anyone else - which would be a violation of their agreement and Apple would not have to sign such a license. The fact that Motorola admits that they had lengthy discussions confirms that.
If Motorola offered Apple FAND terms, then Apple's answer would have been 'yes' or 'no' - and there would have been no need for lengthy discussions. Even if Apple asked for better terms, Motorola's answer would have been 'no, because we can't do that under our license agreements with others'. The fact that there were lengthy discussions can ONLY be explained by Motorola asking for more from Apple than they get under FAND.
If it was that simple I would think Apple would present facts to that & would have won their case by now. I suspect though that the negotiations were more Apple trying to work out maybe licensing exchanges instead of licensing fees, the prior probably saving Apple some money but Motorola may have determined they couldn't meet a lot of Apple's proposals due to legal restrictions. It quite possibly then could have gone south with Apple requesting license costs higher than what Motorola thought fair.
I think it is very easy for what might seem simple to have become complicated, at this point it looks like Apple is simply trying to make it not worth Motorola's time & money to demand the licensing. I'm thinking a legal settlements can be a form of negotiation too, maybe allowing loopholes for back-room agreements. Just my speculation though, I am no lawyer & I could be way off base on this.
If it was that simple I would think Apple would present facts to that & would have won their case by now. .
Nonsense. It would be incredibly naive to think that a case like this could have been litigated and a verdict reached in this amount of time.
If it was that simple I would think Apple would present facts to that & would have won their case by now.
Nope. These things can take years. Especially when there's litigation involved. Standard civil adjudication is anything but a speedy process. I've personally worked on some cases here in Canada (legal research assistant when I was younger) that took upwards of five years to resolve. Even when some facts were obviously more supportive of one side over the other. That's the whole reason ADR exists (mediation/arbitration): to ease the court docket. Delays and backlogs are a fact of legal life.
Besides, there will be a settlement long before there will be any "winner" here. The real winner will be decided by actual market performance.
Smart money's obviously on Apple.
Isn't part of the problem the timing? I believe some of the Motorola patents have to do with wifi, and if true they should have sued when Apple implemented wifi earlier in the century.
"have to do with WiFi" doesn't mean that they were included in what Apple did 10 years ago.
If you want to make a point, read and understand the patent and then determine if what Apple did 10 years ago was covered by the patent. It is entirely possible for a WiFi patent to not cover the 2002 state of the art.
So what, if anything do Apple's "obvious in hindsight" patents regarding software AND hardware implementations of various functions have to do with antenna design?
It's their stupid patents they are suing everyone over, not just Motorola. "Obvious in hindsight" means nothing. Patenting a physical slider button on a touch screen or moving around icons on a screen is Apple trying to patent a bunch of zeros and ones.
HTC is getting sued for having cpus that can clock down. As if Apple made that tech first vs. Intel.
Feel free to post nonsense showing how ignorant you are.
Oh, wait - you're already doing that.
First, we don't know what the Wifi patents are (at least I don't know what they are). As just one example, if the patent covers the inclusion of both WiFi and cellular service in a mobile phone, Apple has only been in the market for 3 years. Some of that time was used on negotiations, so it wouldn't be an extraordinarily long time to wait.
Even if the patents covered something Apple was doing earlier, there are LOTS of valid reasons why it might have taken this long to file. That doesn't negate Motorola's ability to enforce their patents (or vice versa).
Saying that I said that ALL their patents are FAND (which is really FRAND) is just a strawman argument + stating that I'm ignorant is just trolling.
Saying that I said that ALL their patents are FAND (which is really FRAND) is just a strawman argument + stating that I'm ignorant is just trolling.
Since I never said either of those things, what is your point?
Since I never said either of those things, what is your point?
Feel free to study the patents in enough detail to understand them and then look up what FAND licensing covers to form an educated opinion.
.....
Of course you could actually link to this particular patent instead of just saying "ignorance".
"have to do with WiFi" doesn't mean that they were included in what Apple did 10 years ago.
If you want to make a point, read and understand the patent and then determine if what Apple did 10 years ago was covered by the patent. It is entirely possible for a WiFi patent to not cover the 2002 state of the art.
You are not the keeper of truth and light. This is a rumor site...anyone can post opinions whether you like them or not.
.....
Of course you could actually link to this particular patent instead of just saying "ignorance".
I never said "ignorance". Someone made a claim that since Motorola's patents had something to do with WiFi and Apple used WiFi since early in the decade that Motorola couldn't sue.
I simply pointed out that saying the patent had something to do with WiFi was useless. It would be necessary to understand what the patent claimed before knowing if Apple's 2002 technology was covered.
Once again, you seem to be more interested in personal attacks than in understanding the simple, factual statements I'm making.
You are not the keeper of truth and light. This is a rumor site...anyone can post opinions whether you like them or not.
Obviously they can - and I've never denied it.
I simply said that it would be a lot better and more useful site if people only posted opinions on subjects that they know enough about for their opinion to MEAN something.
But I can see that a lot of people prefer millions of posts from people who don't have any concept of what they're talking about and without any effort to ensure that what they're posting has any validity.
What you're suggesting is that people who don't know the difference between a bit and a byte should be cluttering up microprocessor design forums with their drivel. Or people who don't know how to boil water should be posting thousands of messages with their advice on Food Network forums. Or people who don't know which end if a socket wrench to hold should be posting advice on car repair forums.
Obviously, it's legal and no one's going to stop them. But it would be SOOOOOOOOO much better if people didn't post things when they're clueless. I guess some people LIKE to look like idiots.
I never said "ignorance". Someone made a claim that since Motorola's patents had something to do with WiFi and Apple used WiFi since early in the decade that Motorola couldn't sue.
I simply pointed out that saying the patent had something to do with WiFi was useless. It would be necessary to understand what the patent claimed before knowing if Apple's 2002 technology was covered.
Once again, you seem to be more interested in personal attacks than in understanding the simple, factual statements I'm making.
Telling someone they don't know what FRAND is is calling someone ignorant, which is PRECISELY what you did.
Oh wait, I can just quote from earlier:
Feel free to post nonsense showing how ignorant you are.
Second, I mentioned NOTHING about the wifi patent, but the antenna patent, which others said that has to be FRAND, and won't explain why.
Third, since you already are sooooooo up on the patents, you should be able to post the link.
Post up or shut up.
Telling someone they don't know what FRAND is is calling someone ignorant, which is PRECISELY what you did.
Oh wait, I can just quote from earlier:
Which doesn't say anything even remotely like what you're claiming. You have a serious reading comprehension problem.
Second, I mentioned NOTHING about the wifi patent, but the antenna patent, which others said that has to be FRAND, and won't explain why.
Not my problem. I never claimed it was FRAND or anything else. Take it up with the people who made that claim.
What I said was that people can't simply say "the patent is about wifi (or antennas or whatever)" and think that's useful in discussing prior art. A patent isn't about just WiFi. It's about some specific aspect of WiFi. Until you've discerned what specific aspect is claimed in the patent, saying 'it's about WiFi' is like saying Monet's paintings are worthless because they're just about flowers.
TThird, since you already are sooooooo up on the patents, you should be able to post the link.
Post up or shut up.
Why should I? I'm not the one who claimed to know what was covered, nor did I even discuss the content of the patents. Ask the person who is claiming to know that the patents are invalid provide their evidence.
Let me refresh your memory: some people were making comments about the validity of some patents. Without taking a position one way or the other, I suggested that they really need to know what the patent covers before they're able to comment on whether the patent is valid or not.
Patents are very specific things. A patent is not 'about WiFi' or 'about antennas'. They're about one particular implementation of how a specific item is made or how a specific process is done. It is pointless to pretend that a patent is valid or that it's invalid without knowing (and understanding) what it actually says.
Which doesn't say anything even remotely like what you're claiming. You have a serious reading comprehension problem.
Not my problem. I never claimed it was FRAND or anything else. Take it up with the people who made that claim.
What I said was that people can't simply say "the patent is about wifi (or antennas or whatever)" and think that's useful in discussing prior art. A patent isn't about just WiFi. It's about some specific aspect of WiFi. Until you've discerned what specific aspect is claimed in the patent, saying 'it's about WiFi' is like saying Monet's paintings are worthless because they're just about flowers.
Why should I? I'm not the one who claimed to know what was covered, nor did I even discuss the content of the patents. Ask the person who is claiming to know that the patents are invalid provide their evidence.
Let me refresh your memory: some people were making comments about the validity of some patents. Without taking a position one way or the other, I suggested that they really need to know what the patent covers before they're able to comment on whether the patent is valid or not.
Patents are very specific things. A patent is not 'about WiFi' or 'about antennas'. They're about one particular implementation of how a specific item is made or how a specific process is done. It is pointless to pretend that a patent is valid or that it's invalid without knowing (and understanding) what it actually says.
Well since you won't even believe the crap you yourself posted even when shoved into your face, you sir, are ignorant, and perhaps best represent the typical retarded apple fanboi.
I could post this:
The difference, of course, is that Motorola is a signatory to Fair and Non-discriminatory License agreements and is required to license their patents to everyone at the same rate. Apple is not required to license its GUI and other patents to anyone.
There were significant rumors that Motorola wanted more money from Apple than anyone else - which would be a violation of their agreement and Apple would not have to sign such a license. The fact that Motorola admits that they had lengthy discussions confirms that.
If Motorola offered Apple FAND terms, then Apple's answer would have been 'yes' or 'no' - and there would have been no need for lengthy discussions. Even if Apple asked for better terms, Motorola's answer would have been 'no, because we can't do that under our license agreements with others'. The fact that there were lengthy discussions can ONLY be explained by Motorola asking for more from Apple than they get under FAND.
but then you would deny you wrote that too?
Well since you won't even believe the crap you yourself posted even when shoved into your face, you sir, are ignorant, and perhaps best represent the typical retarded apple fanboi.
I could post this:
but then you would deny you wrote that too?
So you've proven that you can make one claim in a post and then when I tell you I didn't say it, you pull up an entirely unrelated post that says something entirely different. What I wrote has absolutely no relationship to what you claim I wrote.
But you are clever - you never put your claim and my exact quote in the same post so it's easy for you to delude others.
You're really amazing. I've seen some people who are completely incapable of logical discourse, but you're one of the worst - by far.
So you've proven that you can make one claim in a post and then when I tell you I didn't say it, you pull up an entirely unrelated post that says something entirely different. What I wrote has absolutely no relationship to what you claim I wrote.
But you are clever - you never put your claim and my exact quote in the same post so it's easy for you to delude others.
You're really amazing. I've seen some people who are completely incapable of logical discourse, but you're one of the worst - by far.
Here, let's put your quotes in the right order since you are the only one who can't comprehend them:
Why should I? I'm not the one who claimed to know what was covered, nor did I even discuss the content of the patents. Ask the person who is claiming to know that the patents are invalid provide their evidence.
But you already claimed:
The difference, of course, is that Motorola is a signatory to Fair and Non-discriminatory License agreements and is required to license their patents to everyone at the same rate. Apple is not required to license its GUI and other patents to anyone.
There were significant rumors that Motorola wanted more money from Apple than anyone else - which would be a violation of their agreement and Apple would not have to sign such a license. The fact that Motorola admits that they had lengthy discussions confirms that.
And, here's the link to it, since you can't believe it yourself:
http://forums.appleinsider.com/showp...75&postcount=7
Answer: A good start.
Back to the post. I still cannot understand why Apple are not suing all the copiers of its touch UI.
Didn't Jobs state that they had patents for this.
So why aren't Apple going after all of them ?
I'm mystified, has anybody got answers or opinions for this ?
I love Apple products, they are by far the best, nobody comes close, but I do smell a rat in all of this, or maybe its my paranoia.
By the way, as this appears to be a USA-centric blog, what are people's take on Wikileakes.
I, for one, are proud of Justin Assange, maybe its because he is a fellow countrymen.
Interesting to know what others think.
If that was all there was to it, then Marconi's work would still be SOTA. I think that the engineers can tune them somehow or something like that. And the shape?
Maybe I'm wrong.
In 1896, Marconi introduced to the public a device in London, asserting it was his invention. Despite Marconi's statements to the contrary, though, the apparatus resembles Tesla's descriptions in the widely translated articles.[21] Marconi's later practical four-tuned system was pre-dated by N. Tesla, Oliver Lodge, and J. S. Stone.[22] He filed a patent on his system with the British Patent Office on June 2, 1896.
In 1943, the United States Supreme Court ruled one Marconi patent invalid on the basis of prior art by Stone and Tesla. This decision was based on the fact that prior art existed before the establishment of Marconi's patent.
Marconi was a great marketer and the 1909 nobel prize for "inventing" radio helped his reputation. Reality was more along the lines that he was a great business person and was the first to "commercialize" radio. He did this though borrowing very very heavily on the work of other pioneers.
(some snippets borrowed from wikipedia)