Macs use an EFI firmware for their boot process, not a PC bios, your response is accurate. The references were based on windows PC technology, which Apple computers running BSD kernel have nothing to do with. This is just a frivolous suit by a south Korean based company that has close ties with Samsung. They're teaming up against Apple to fight their right to blatantly copy Apple technology and get away with it.
No, EFI is actually industry wide standard instituted by Intel; most of the new x86 systems based on Intel platform uses this as firmware interface:
"The owner of the patent is the company Operating Systems Solutions LLC, based out of Fernandina Beach, Fla."
unless you've got proof that oss is owned/controlled by LG or koreans, to accuse koreans of being behind it sounds like simple racism
what goes around, comes around, apple is just as guilty as every other company with it's snout in the software patent trough
until the patent system is reformed to invalidate the abomination of software patents, this nonsense will continue
You have it absolutely wrong. Its not the "abomination of software patents" but the proliferation of patent trolls that is the key problem with the patent system. And it looks like these clowns at OSS are yet another example of a company that produces nothing and tries to extort by suing.
funny how you people can't seem to remember nokia vs apple etc, etc, etc.
what will you do when steve's health gives way and you have no leader? cry yourself to sleep i guess...
Try to get yourself an education. You are making yourself look very foolish. Apple had no problem paying fair market value licensing fees to Nokia. The problem was that Nokia was trying to extort excessive fees from Apple over and above fair market prices established under Nokia's prior written commitments in the fair exchange agreements it has within the tech community, and the much lower licensing fees for these same technologies it already had with other tech companies. In other words it was trying to put it to Apple in violation of its written agreements.
You have it absolutely wrong. Its not the "abomination of software patents" but the proliferation of patent trolls that is the key problem with the patent system. And it looks like these clowns at OSS are yet another example of a company that produces nothing and tries to extort by suing.
No, the problem is the patents. There is no need for software patents to enable innovation in the software industry, whether held by practicing entities or non-practicing entities. NPEs have a bad reputation, but in fact many excellent organizations would fall into that category ARM springs to mind, as do university commercial research operations.
Try to get yourself an education. You are making yourself look very foolish. Apple had no problem paying fair market value licensing fees to Nokia. The problem was that Nokia was trying to extort excessive fees from Apple over and above fair market prices established under Nokia's prior written commitments in the fair exchange agreements it has within the tech community, and the much lower licensing fees for these same technologies it already had with other tech companies. In other words it was trying to put it to Apple in violation of its written agreements.
No, the problem is the patents. There is no need for software patents to enable innovation in the software industry, whether held by practicing entities or non-practicing entities. NPEs have a bad reputation, but in fact many excellent organizations would fall into that category ARM springs to mind, as do university commercial research operations.
You make an excellent point which calls for a clearer definition of what constitutes a troll. No one would accuse universities or ARM of being patent trolls. A troll neither invents the technology, nor produces anything. The two examples you give clearly invent IP and then in good faith go out to the market to put those inventions into production through third parties. As far as saying software should not be patentable, although there are abuses and the system could be tightened up, the patent process is designed to protect intellectual property and software certainly can fall into that category.
You make an excellent point which calls for a clearer definition of what constitutes a troll. No one would accuse universities or ARM of being patent trolls. A troll neither invents the technology, nor produces anything. The two examples you give clearly invent IP and then in good faith go out to the market to put those inventions into production through third parties.
You're attempting to fashion a definition for a troll but you can't succeed sadly, you'll simply find yourself nailing smoke to the wall. You'll never produce a definition that is legally acceptable. For example your current definition implies that if ARM sold all their patents to another firm, then that second firm would have no rights because they would be a troll. But in that case you have effectively banned the sale of patents, which is a far reaching change which would have horrible unintended consequences of its own.
Quote:
As far as saying software should not be patentable, although there are abuses and the system could be tightened up, the patent process is designed to protect intellectual property and software certainly can fall into that category.
Software is adequately protected by copyright and doesn't need patent protection anymore than literature, music or films do. The patent system is in fact not designed to protect intellectual property, it's designed to encourage invention - protecting IP is the means not the end. Software innovation doesn't require patents, as history shows us.
I wonder if the patent really applies to anything outside of a Windows-based operating system. The original patent filing references Windows 95 (despite the document being dated 2002), mentions start up files Apple doesn't use, a boot firmware that Apple doesn't use. The patent refiling of 2008 still references Windows 95, as well as BIOS, config.sys, autoexec.bat and win.com.
Sounds like a grifting attempt. If I was Apple, I would ask for them to throw this out in a summary judgement.
Try to get yourself an education. You are making yourself look very foolish. Apple had no problem paying fair market value licensing fees to Nokia. The problem was that Nokia was trying to extort excessive fees from Apple over and above fair market prices established under Nokia's prior written commitments in the fair exchange agreements it has within the tech community, and the much lower licensing fees for these same technologies it already had with other tech companies. In other words it was trying to put it to Apple in violation of its written agreements.
You are the one making yourself look foolish.
Provide proof of your claims or stop posting these lies
Provide proof of your claims or stop posting these lies
Oh please, repeating widely reported rumours is far from the same thing as lying, and there is plenty of indirect evidence to support it. We know that Nokia settled for less than Apple had been accruing as a charge, and we know that Nokia only received very limited IP licensing from the settlement. Those are facts. It's an entirely reasonable interpretation to believe that Nokia's initial demands were either for greater royalties or greater cross licensing.
As I understand it, GAAP rules required Apple to take a charge that matched their best approximation of the final royalty rate. So yes, Apple 'won'.
Patent troll is just not strong enough. Patent Parasite, Patent Leech or Patent Vampire are better descriptions. Its probably not the only way they survive; I am sure they have side jobs like closing orphanages and destroying crops.
Now I have a great mental image of anthropomorphic locusts running some of these companies that are involved in patent lawsuits
Oh please, repeating widely reported rumours is far from the same thing as lying, and there is plenty of indirect evidence to support it. We know that Nokia settled for less than Apple had been accruing as a charge, and we know that Nokia only received very limited IP licensing from the settlement. Those are facts. It's an entirely reasonable interpretation to believe that Nokia's initial demands were either for greater royalties or greater cross licensing.
As I understand it, GAAP rules required Apple to take a charge that matched their best approximation of the final royalty rate. So yes, Apple 'won'.
Repeated a rumor with substance is as good as a lie. It has never been proved and shouldn't be repeated without proof.
You have no proof to your claims either, without pure fact you are just repeating the lie.
Provide proof of your claims or stop posting these lies
Quote:
Originally Posted by jfanning
Repeated a rumor with substance is as good as a lie. It has never been proved and shouldn't be repeated without proof.
You have no proof to your claims either, without pure fact you are just repeating the lie.
Back at it again I see.
We cannot help the fact you conveniently refuse to believe a couple years of reports over ITC proceedings or press releases and associated quarterly results by both Nokia and Apple. Not very hard to find public domain knowledge. Matter of fact for how long you have been around here you actively have to avoid the facts as they pop off the screen at you.
Your continued call for facts are pure bullcrap diversionary tactics. You know where they are, You have even seen them repeatedly. You just continue to fail to acknowledge them, a pure troll-worthy tactic.
We cannot help the fact you conveniently refuse to believe a couple years of reports over ITC proceedings or press releases and associated quarterly results by both Nokia and Apple. Not very hard to find public domain knowledge. Matter of fact for how long you have been around here you actively have to avoid the facts as they pop off the screen at you.
Your continued call for facts are pure bullcrap diversionary tactics. You know where they are, You have even seen them repeatedly. You just continue to fail to acknowledge them, a pure troll-worthy tactic.
Where are they? No one has ever posted these "facts" you claim, if they exist why don't you post them.
Or are you trying to use Apples documents as proof, if so, you are wrong, they are not proof.
And what do you mean by "Back at it?", do you have an issue with people questioning false claims?
Where are they? No one has ever posted these "facts" you claim, if they exist why don't you post them.
Or are you trying to use Apples documents as proof, if so, you are wrong, they are not proof.
And what do you mean by "Back at it?", do you have an issue with people questioning false claims?
Wait. Apple's quarterly statements are not valid forms of proof? If Apple was lying on their quarterlys, they would be getting investigated and sued bigtime. Reality is calling for you my friend
Where are they? No one has ever posted these "facts" you claim, if they exist why don't you post them.
Or are you trying to use Apples documents as proof, if so, you are wrong, they are not proof.
And what do you mean by "Back at it…", do you have an issue with people questioning false claims?
What do I mean by "back at it" ? Exactly what you are trying to do my little Screamer. Your all to predictable attempt at turning a post inside out with the merest feeble "prove it" comments is a trademark of your lack of debate style. Of course you also ignore all manner of cited public information to do so.
Ya know, it doesn't have to be posted on AI to be posted on the internet. And yes, quarterly earnings reports and comments within can most certainly be used as proof. That's why there are criminal penalties for CEOs that sign reports with factual inaccuracies, post Enron of course.
Wait. Apple's quarterly statements are not valid forms of proof? If Apple was lying on their quarterlys, they would be getting investigated and sued bigtime. Reality is calling for you my friend
Did their quarterly results fully document their confidential negotiations with Nokia that lead up to the law suit?
What do I mean by "back at it" ? Exactly what you are trying to do my little Screamer. Your all to predictable attempt at turning a post inside out with the merest feeble "prove it" comments is a trademark of your lack of debate style. Of course you also ignore all manner of cited public information to do so.
Ya know, it doesn't have to be posted on AI to be posted on the internet. And yes, quarterly earnings reports and comments within can most certainly be used as proof. That's why there are criminal penalties for CEOs that sign reports with factual inaccuracies, post Enron of course.
As I have said, I haven't seen anyone post this so called information, if you have it, and you are willing to claim it exists please post the links to it.
Also Enron was a US based company, US law doesn't stand around the world.
Comments
Macs use an EFI firmware for their boot process, not a PC bios, your response is accurate. The references were based on windows PC technology, which Apple computers running BSD kernel have nothing to do with. This is just a frivolous suit by a south Korean based company that has close ties with Samsung. They're teaming up against Apple to fight their right to blatantly copy Apple technology and get away with it.
No, EFI is actually industry wide standard instituted by Intel; most of the new x86 systems based on Intel platform uses this as firmware interface:
http://www.intel.com/content/www/us/...echnology.html
what's LG/korea got to do with it?
"The owner of the patent is the company Operating Systems Solutions LLC, based out of Fernandina Beach, Fla."
unless you've got proof that oss is owned/controlled by LG or koreans, to accuse koreans of being behind it sounds like simple racism
what goes around, comes around, apple is just as guilty as every other company with it's snout in the software patent trough
until the patent system is reformed to invalidate the abomination of software patents, this nonsense will continue
You have it absolutely wrong. Its not the "abomination of software patents" but the proliferation of patent trolls that is the key problem with the patent system. And it looks like these clowns at OSS are yet another example of a company that produces nothing and tries to extort by suing.
funny how you people can't seem to remember nokia vs apple etc, etc, etc.
what will you do when steve's health gives way and you have no leader? cry yourself to sleep i guess...
Try to get yourself an education. You are making yourself look very foolish. Apple had no problem paying fair market value licensing fees to Nokia. The problem was that Nokia was trying to extort excessive fees from Apple over and above fair market prices established under Nokia's prior written commitments in the fair exchange agreements it has within the tech community, and the much lower licensing fees for these same technologies it already had with other tech companies. In other words it was trying to put it to Apple in violation of its written agreements.
You have it absolutely wrong. Its not the "abomination of software patents" but the proliferation of patent trolls that is the key problem with the patent system. And it looks like these clowns at OSS are yet another example of a company that produces nothing and tries to extort by suing.
No, the problem is the patents. There is no need for software patents to enable innovation in the software industry, whether held by practicing entities or non-practicing entities. NPEs have a bad reputation, but in fact many excellent organizations would fall into that category ARM springs to mind, as do university commercial research operations.
Try to get yourself an education. You are making yourself look very foolish. Apple had no problem paying fair market value licensing fees to Nokia. The problem was that Nokia was trying to extort excessive fees from Apple over and above fair market prices established under Nokia's prior written commitments in the fair exchange agreements it has within the tech community, and the much lower licensing fees for these same technologies it already had with other tech companies. In other words it was trying to put it to Apple in violation of its written agreements.
Just put him on your ban list
No, the problem is the patents. There is no need for software patents to enable innovation in the software industry, whether held by practicing entities or non-practicing entities. NPEs have a bad reputation, but in fact many excellent organizations would fall into that category ARM springs to mind, as do university commercial research operations.
You make an excellent point which calls for a clearer definition of what constitutes a troll. No one would accuse universities or ARM of being patent trolls. A troll neither invents the technology, nor produces anything. The two examples you give clearly invent IP and then in good faith go out to the market to put those inventions into production through third parties. As far as saying software should not be patentable, although there are abuses and the system could be tightened up, the patent process is designed to protect intellectual property and software certainly can fall into that category.
You make an excellent point which calls for a clearer definition of what constitutes a troll. No one would accuse universities or ARM of being patent trolls. A troll neither invents the technology, nor produces anything. The two examples you give clearly invent IP and then in good faith go out to the market to put those inventions into production through third parties.
You're attempting to fashion a definition for a troll but you can't succeed sadly, you'll simply find yourself nailing smoke to the wall. You'll never produce a definition that is legally acceptable. For example your current definition implies that if ARM sold all their patents to another firm, then that second firm would have no rights because they would be a troll. But in that case you have effectively banned the sale of patents, which is a far reaching change which would have horrible unintended consequences of its own.
As far as saying software should not be patentable, although there are abuses and the system could be tightened up, the patent process is designed to protect intellectual property and software certainly can fall into that category.
Software is adequately protected by copyright and doesn't need patent protection anymore than literature, music or films do. The patent system is in fact not designed to protect intellectual property, it's designed to encourage invention - protecting IP is the means not the end. Software innovation doesn't require patents, as history shows us.
The problem is bigger than the trolls
http://www.economist.com/blogs/democ...ctual-property
I wonder if the patent really applies to anything outside of a Windows-based operating system. The original patent filing references Windows 95 (despite the document being dated 2002), mentions start up files Apple doesn't use, a boot firmware that Apple doesn't use. The patent refiling of 2008 still references Windows 95, as well as BIOS, config.sys, autoexec.bat and win.com.
Sounds like a grifting attempt. If I was Apple, I would ask for them to throw this out in a summary judgement.
Try to get yourself an education. You are making yourself look very foolish. Apple had no problem paying fair market value licensing fees to Nokia. The problem was that Nokia was trying to extort excessive fees from Apple over and above fair market prices established under Nokia's prior written commitments in the fair exchange agreements it has within the tech community, and the much lower licensing fees for these same technologies it already had with other tech companies. In other words it was trying to put it to Apple in violation of its written agreements.
You are the one making yourself look foolish.
Provide proof of your claims or stop posting these lies
You are the one making yourself look foolish.
Provide proof of your claims or stop posting these lies
Oh please, repeating widely reported rumours is far from the same thing as lying, and there is plenty of indirect evidence to support it. We know that Nokia settled for less than Apple had been accruing as a charge, and we know that Nokia only received very limited IP licensing from the settlement. Those are facts. It's an entirely reasonable interpretation to believe that Nokia's initial demands were either for greater royalties or greater cross licensing.
As I understand it, GAAP rules required Apple to take a charge that matched their best approximation of the final royalty rate. So yes, Apple 'won'.
Just put him on your ban list
+1
You are so right. Populating the ban list with these people makes reading AI a lot more fun!
Patent troll is just not strong enough. Patent Parasite, Patent Leech or Patent Vampire are better descriptions. Its probably not the only way they survive; I am sure they have side jobs like closing orphanages and destroying crops.
Now I have a great mental image of anthropomorphic locusts running some of these companies that are involved in patent lawsuits
Oh please, repeating widely reported rumours is far from the same thing as lying, and there is plenty of indirect evidence to support it. We know that Nokia settled for less than Apple had been accruing as a charge, and we know that Nokia only received very limited IP licensing from the settlement. Those are facts. It's an entirely reasonable interpretation to believe that Nokia's initial demands were either for greater royalties or greater cross licensing.
As I understand it, GAAP rules required Apple to take a charge that matched their best approximation of the final royalty rate. So yes, Apple 'won'.
Repeated a rumor with substance is as good as a lie. It has never been proved and shouldn't be repeated without proof.
You have no proof to your claims either, without pure fact you are just repeating the lie.
You are the one making yourself look foolish.
Provide proof of your claims or stop posting these lies
Repeated a rumor with substance is as good as a lie. It has never been proved and shouldn't be repeated without proof.
You have no proof to your claims either, without pure fact you are just repeating the lie.
Back at it again I see.
We cannot help the fact you conveniently refuse to believe a couple years of reports over ITC proceedings or press releases and associated quarterly results by both Nokia and Apple. Not very hard to find public domain knowledge. Matter of fact for how long you have been around here you actively have to avoid the facts as they pop off the screen at you.
Your continued call for facts are pure bullcrap diversionary tactics. You know where they are, You have even seen them repeatedly. You just continue to fail to acknowledge them, a pure troll-worthy tactic.
Back at it again I see.
We cannot help the fact you conveniently refuse to believe a couple years of reports over ITC proceedings or press releases and associated quarterly results by both Nokia and Apple. Not very hard to find public domain knowledge. Matter of fact for how long you have been around here you actively have to avoid the facts as they pop off the screen at you.
Your continued call for facts are pure bullcrap diversionary tactics. You know where they are, You have even seen them repeatedly. You just continue to fail to acknowledge them, a pure troll-worthy tactic.
Where are they? No one has ever posted these "facts" you claim, if they exist why don't you post them.
Or are you trying to use Apples documents as proof, if so, you are wrong, they are not proof.
And what do you mean by "Back at it?", do you have an issue with people questioning false claims?
Where are they? No one has ever posted these "facts" you claim, if they exist why don't you post them.
Or are you trying to use Apples documents as proof, if so, you are wrong, they are not proof.
And what do you mean by "Back at it?", do you have an issue with people questioning false claims?
Wait. Apple's quarterly statements are not valid forms of proof? If Apple was lying on their quarterlys, they would be getting investigated and sued bigtime. Reality is calling for you my friend
Where are they? No one has ever posted these "facts" you claim, if they exist why don't you post them.
Or are you trying to use Apples documents as proof, if so, you are wrong, they are not proof.
And what do you mean by "Back at it…", do you have an issue with people questioning false claims?
What do I mean by "back at it" ? Exactly what you are trying to do my little Screamer. Your all to predictable attempt at turning a post inside out with the merest feeble "prove it" comments is a trademark of your lack of debate style. Of course you also ignore all manner of cited public information to do so.
Ya know, it doesn't have to be posted on AI to be posted on the internet. And yes, quarterly earnings reports and comments within can most certainly be used as proof. That's why there are criminal penalties for CEOs that sign reports with factual inaccuracies, post Enron of course.
Wait. Apple's quarterly statements are not valid forms of proof? If Apple was lying on their quarterlys, they would be getting investigated and sued bigtime. Reality is calling for you my friend
Did their quarterly results fully document their confidential negotiations with Nokia that lead up to the law suit?
What do I mean by "back at it" ? Exactly what you are trying to do my little Screamer. Your all to predictable attempt at turning a post inside out with the merest feeble "prove it" comments is a trademark of your lack of debate style. Of course you also ignore all manner of cited public information to do so.
Ya know, it doesn't have to be posted on AI to be posted on the internet. And yes, quarterly earnings reports and comments within can most certainly be used as proof. That's why there are criminal penalties for CEOs that sign reports with factual inaccuracies, post Enron of course.
As I have said, I haven't seen anyone post this so called information, if you have it, and you are willing to claim it exists please post the links to it.
Also Enron was a US based company, US law doesn't stand around the world.