Google fighting to suppress evidence Android willfully infringed upon Oracle's Java

1121314151618»

Comments

  • Reply 341 of 353
    hirohiro Posts: 2,663member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by jfanning View Post


    Daniel is a terrible writer, he is so one eyed he may as well be a cyclops.



    As the kettle calls the pot black.
  • Reply 342 of 353
    hirohiro Posts: 2,663member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by screamingfist View Post


    Rubbish. Apple may have "claimed" high price but did not prove it. You and apple must not know about ETSI RECIPROCITY cluase that nokia had and had right to exercise. Apple didnt think they should have to abide. Apple free ride? DENIED.



    Screamie, you taking another ride around here? I though you got all hot an bothered about being called on your faux facts last time around. <3 <3



    You are blatantly ignoring the online postings of the ITC complaints and the press released by Apple, Nokia and their associated last quarterly results.



    As to Apple not having "proved" anything, well if your only definition is an open courtroom judgement you might be able to start defending your point, but really you can't because there was a settlement in the case. A settlement which caused Apple to pay less than Apple voluntarily put in reserve to cover FRAND licensing fees. That looks an awful lot like a minor loss for Noika. There were some cross licenses granted, stated to not be iPhone related which in every world but yours shows Apple threw Nokia an empty press release-bone to save a little face with.



    While that might not prove anything in your world, the implication is so strong as to prove conclusively that your world is a world of one. As usual.
  • Reply 343 of 353
    cloudgazercloudgazer Posts: 2,161member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by screamingfist View Post


    Rubbish. Apple may have "claimed" high price but did not prove it. You and apple must not know about ETSI RECIPROCITY cluase that nokia had and had right to exercise. Apple didnt think they should have to abide. Apple free ride? DENIED.



    Did you ever actually read that clause?



    'When an ESSENTIAL IPR relating to a particular STANDARD or TECHNICAL SPECIFICATION is brought to the attention of ETSI, the Director-General of ETSI shall immediately request the owner to give within three months an irrevocable undertaking in writing that it is prepared to grant irrevocable licences on fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory terms and conditions under such IPR to at least the following extent:

    ● MANUFACTURE, including the right to make or have made customized components and sub-systems to the licensee's own design for use in MANUFACTURE;

    ● sell, lease, or otherwise dispose of EQUIPMENT so MANUFACTURED;

    ● repair, use, or operate EQUIPMENT; and

    ● use METHODS.

    The above undertaking may be made subject to the condition that those who seek licences agree to reciprocate.'




    I'm quite sure that Apple's argument would be that Nokia are only entitled to demand that Apple reciprocate by licensing any patents they hold that are essential IPR relating to a standard or specification. But Apple did hold any such patents, so by that entirely reasonable interpretation the clause did not apply. Now in future Nokia may be able to use that clause to require Apple to license the LTE patents that they just bought, but that's a very different matter.
  • Reply 344 of 353
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by cloudgazer View Post


    Did you ever actually read that clause?



    'When an ESSENTIAL IPR relating to a particular STANDARD or TECHNICAL SPECIFICATION is brought to the attention of ETSI, the Director-General of ETSI shall immediately request the owner to give within three months an irrevocable undertaking in writing that it is prepared to grant irrevocable licences on fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory terms and conditions under such IPR to at least the following extent:

    ● MANUFACTURE, including the right to make or have made customized components and sub-systems to the licensee's own design for use in MANUFACTURE;

    ● sell, lease, or otherwise dispose of EQUIPMENT so MANUFACTURED;

    ● repair, use, or operate EQUIPMENT; and

    ● use METHODS.

    The above undertaking may be made subject to the condition that those who seek licences agree to reciprocate.'




    I'm quite sure that Apple's argument would be that Nokia are only entitled to demand that Apple reciprocate by licensing any patents they hold that are essential IPR relating to a standard or specification. But Apple did hold any such patents, so by that entirely reasonable interpretation the clause did not apply. Now in future Nokia may be able to use that clause to require Apple to license the LTE patents that they just bought, but that's a very different matter.



    I am sure that was apples argument too. The problem was that nokia had a better one.do some more research. But the fact isthat if nokia was violating frand ETSI so simply then why the long battleand why the nod to nokia? Nokiawasnt under the gun here.apple was.
  • Reply 345 of 353
    jfanningjfanning Posts: 3,398member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Hiro View Post


    As the kettle calls the pot black.



    Please explain? Are you trying to refer to me? If so, I'm afraid you are wrong, I purchase devices from a number of manufacturers, I choose the ones that perform the task I want, weather it be from Apple, Sony, Samsung, whomever...
  • Reply 346 of 353
    cloudgazercloudgazer Posts: 2,161member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by screamingfist View Post


    I am sure that was apples argument too. The problem was that nokia had a better one.do some more research. But the fact isthat if nokia was violating frand ETSI so simply then why the long battleand why the nod to nokia? Nokiawasnt under the gun here.apple was.



    Nokia's argument isn't better, which probably explains why they never went to court and ended up settling for less than Apple had been accruing. Nokia's argument is extreme, and far from generally accepted. In fact some argument has been made that the interpretation should be even more restrictive and only requires reciprocal licensing of patents relevant to the same standard, not even any standard.
  • Reply 347 of 353
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Hiro View Post


    Screamie, you taking another ride around here? I though you got all hot an bothered about being called on your faux facts last time around. <3 <3



    You are blatantly ignoring the online postings of the ITC complaints and the press released by Apple, Nokia and their associated last quarterly results.



    As to Apple not having "proved" anything, well if your only definition is an open courtroom judgement you might be able to start defending your point, but really you can't because there was a settlement in the case. A settlement which caused Apple to pay less than Apple voluntarily put in reserve to cover FRAND licensing fees. That looks an awful lot like a minor loss for Noika. There were some cross licenses granted, stated to not be iPhone related which in every world but yours shows Apple threw Nokia an empty press release-bone to save a little face with.



    While that might not prove anything in your world, the implication is so strong as to prove conclusively that your world is a world of one. As usual.



    A simple google search and some reading shows that everything i said was true and that the consensus is this was a victory for nokia. Apple took ip that didnt belong to it. No doubts about that. White knights my a$$. Corporate thugs dazzling the mentally weak with shiny aluminum and dreams of grandeur.
  • Reply 348 of 353
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Hiro View Post


    Screamie, you taking another ride around here? I though you got all hot an bothered about being called on your faux facts last time around.

    al.



    Its fun to stop by and laugh and feed the 'pigeons' now and again.
  • Reply 349 of 353
    hirohiro Posts: 2,663member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by screamingfist View Post


    A simple google search and some reading shows that everything i said was true and that the consensus is this was a victory for nokia. Apple took ip that didnt belong to it. No doubts about that. White knights my a$$. Corporate thugs dazzling the mentally weak with shiny aluminum and dreams of grandeur.



    Only in your own personal universe.



    I haven't read anything that actually considered Nokia a winner in that case. It's possible that there are a few scattered examples out there, but the consensus is all in your head.
  • Reply 350 of 353
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Hiro View Post


    Only in your own personal universe.



    I haven't read anything that actually considered Nokia a winner in that case. It's possible that there are a few scattered examples out there, but the consensus is all in your head.



    Huffington post, nyt, foss patents, gizmodo, ars technica, wsj, and on call this a win for nokia. You sir, are the one spreading b.s.
  • Reply 351 of 353
    cloudgazercloudgazer Posts: 2,161member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by screamingfist View Post


    Huffington post, nyt, foss patents, gizmodo, ars technica, wsj, and on call this a win for nokia. You sir, are the one spreading b.s.



    Right, lets consider that shall we.



    Huffington Post: 'Analysts said Nokia could be estimated to get between 1 and 2 percent of iPhone revenues'. We now know that estimate to be way way too high.



    NYT: didn't report it as a win for Nokia, they reported Foss as saying that. They made no such claim

    http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/15/te...y/15nokia.html



    Gizmodo: I can find no gizmodo editorial where they say that this was a win for nokia.



    Ars Tech: 'We suspect the amount is somewhere between what Apple considers "fair, reasonable, and non-discriminatory" and what Nokia had been asking for before the disagreement spilled over into the courts.' - nowhere do they describe the result as a 'win for nokia'

    http://arstechnica.com/apple/news/20...r-lump-sum.ars



    Foss: Didn't present it as a huge win for Nokia - 'I were an Apple shareholder, I would probably view this outcome favorably.'.



    WSJ: The most pro-Nokia part of their coverage was when they said 'The settlement is clearly positive for Nokia as Apple's one-off payment and future royalties will boost the Finnish company's profits and cash flow, said Evli Bank analyst Mikko Ervasti.'. Not exactly a clarion call, more a statement of the bleeding obvious.



    So basically every source you just cited didn't say what you said they said, except HuffPo which did but was just hopelessly wrong on the details (as usual).



    Really I don't see how you can claim that a settlement which Apple has subsequently revealed caused an INCREASE in their gross margins can be considered a loss to them.
  • Reply 352 of 353
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by cloudgazer View Post


    Evil is indeed a discussion of morality, but patents are a matter of law, as is copyright. It's ludicrous to suggest that patent infringement is evil - I invite you to find a major religion with an injunction against it, or a moral philosopher with a cogent argument for it as 'evil' or immoral.



    Evil is definitely used to mean extreme immorality. When George W Bush railed against the Axis of Evil, even americans didn't think he was including people who cheated on their spouses or double dipped their chips.



    If Google is evil, then Apple is evil and no doubt even Ben and Jerries were evil. If everybody is evil then nobody is evil. A little sense of proportion would go a long way.





    I'm sure you impress yourself as a philosopher/polemicist - worthy opponent.



    To begin, look up the definition of sophistry, or better still look in a mirror, or if you have the courage, look inside your own heart. One of the 10 commandments is DO NOT STEAL, another is DO NOT COVET.



    If it is attention you seek, try a bar.
  • Reply 353 of 353
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by screamingfist View Post


    Huffington post, nyt, foss patents, gizmodo, ars technica, wsj, and on call this a win for nokia. You sir, are the one spreading b.s.





    Sorry, you lost all credibility when you reference Huffington Post and the NY Times.
Sign In or Register to comment.