I never once said what you believed. In fact, had you read what I wrote, you would have seen I specifically ASKED what your view was and did TELL you what your view was. Do not presume to know what I thought I wrote when you obviously had no clue.
You're right, but a better way to have asked your initial question would have been to say "So is your view..." rather than "So your view is..." then it would be clearly a question even without the punctuation mark. People mis-read stuff all the time, better to take away as many barriers to understanding as possible.
Unfortunately the general public doesn't see a distinction between patents. All they see are companies distastefully cross-suing each other, with every other company pointing its finger at Apple as being the bad guy. This has been a PR disaster of sorts for Apple, as consumers validate the illegal behavior of companies like Googorola and Samsmug by buying their products instead of Apple's. That lost time and revenue can not be recouped.
Wow, so quiet in here for what represents a huge blow to Google/Motorola and patent abusers. This is shaping up to be a horrible year for Google/Motorola and a great one for Apple/MS.
I never once said what you believed. In fact, had you read what I wrote, you would have seen I specifically ASKED what your view was and did TELL you what your view was. Do not presume to know what I thought I wrote when you obviously had no clue.
No, you made a statement different to both what I wrote and what I implied and then just put a question mark after it. This was a presumption of understanding that just quite obviously didn't exist.
I read very carefully what you wrote before replying. Both this and the last time.
But who determines fair licensing terms? What if the FRAND patent holders demand $30/device? Every vendor would not agree to that. They could then claim the vendors are refusing to negotiate.
True but the vendors can claim that the patent owner isn't being reasonable.
Wow, so quiet in here for what represents a huge blow to Google/Motorola and patent abusers. This is shaping up to be a horrible year for Google/Motorola and a great one for Apple/MS.
Not much has changed.
Apple still has to pay Motorola for use of their patents, and injunctions are still available if a licensee fails to negotiate.
This preliminary finding says that SEP holders cannot seek/enforce an injunction if the potential licensee has agreed to accept a binding rate from a third party.
It could also help the EU push for anti-trust proceedings if it wants to, although it would seem a lot fairer if the prohibitive ruling had existed before the injunction was allowed by an EU member court.
"Motorola Mobility sought an injunction against Apple in Germany on the basis of a GPRS SEP and, after the injunction was granted, went on to enforce it, even when Apple had declared that it would be willing to be bound by a determination of the FRAND royalties by the German court." - EU Commission statement
Apple still has to pay Motorola for use of their patents, and injunctions are still available if a licensee fails to negotiate.
This preliminary finding says that SEP holders cannot seek/enforce an injunction if the potential licensee has agreed to accept a binding rate from a third party.
It could also help the EU push for anti-trust proceedings if it wants to, although it would seem a lot fairer if the prohibitive ruling had existed before the injunction was allowed by an EU member court.
"Motorola Mobility sought an injunction against Apple in Germany on the basis of a GPRS SEP and, after the injunction was granted, went on to enforce it, even when Apple had declared that it would be willing to be bound by a determination of the FRAND royalties by the German court." - EU Commission statement
Too bad Google won't get the $4 Billion per annum projected patent licensing revenue from both Apple and Microsoft, which led to Google being suckered in to paying way too much for Motorola Mobility.
Google got suckered as slickly as a fresh rube from Kansas playing three card monty on a New York sidewalk.
Apple still has to pay Motorola for use of their patents, and injunctions are still available if a licensee fails to negotiate.
This preliminary finding says that SEP holders cannot seek/enforce an injunction if the potential licensee has agreed to accept a binding rate from a third party.
It could also help the EU push for anti-trust proceedings if it wants to, although it would seem a lot fairer if the prohibitive ruling had existed before the injunction was allowed by an EU member court.
"<span style="font-family:Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:9px;line-height:13px;text-align:justify;">Motorola Mobility sought an injunction against Apple in Germany on the basis of a GPRS SEP and, after the injunction was granted, went on to enforce it, even when Apple had declared that it would be willing to be bound by a determination of the FRAND royalties by the German court." - EU Commission statement</span>
Not much has changed? Wow, that's quite the spin. Of course Apple still has to pay - Apple has always been willing to pay so it's not like Apple is getting "stuck" with an unexpected bill to pay. Apple will end up paying a fraction of Motorola's demands (just like MS).
They were going partly by what various EU judges had ruled.
For example, a German judge recently ruled that FRAND only meant the patent holder must offer the patent, and did not otherwise remove any patent holder rights such as injunctions.
The UK High Court likewise had said that injunctions were valid, but that they preferred the parties to negotiate instead. (A position that some US judges had taken as well.)
The ETSI FRAND agreement itself makes no mention of injunctions, pro or con.
(A lot of observers thought the EU Commission would never get around to actually ruling, due to its overall lethargy and perceived weakness. Of course, this is still just a preliminary ruling, subject to change. It's more about the Commission stretching its power across the EU, more than anything else.
A similar thing is happening in the US, where the ITC has repeatedly maintained that injunctions are always a valid relief, even though the DOJ says otherwise. Like the EUC, the ITC is trying to preserve their power.)
More soon. You can cherry pick the few cases that support injunctions are OK but the fact remains the majority of judges, officials, standards bodies, politicians and academics and even companies with patents are opposed to injunctions over SEP's.
As I've pointed out before, the companies that are abusing patents (and think onjunctions are OK), fall into two groups: companies that have stolen IP and/or are locked in court battles with Apple (Samsung, Google) and companies who have seen their once booming business fail and want to leverage their only remaining assets (Nokia, Ericsson or Motorola).
In other words, companies making bad patent related decisions out of desperation, not as a matter of good policy.
They were going partly by what various EU judges had ruled...blah...blah...blah
I'm sorry, darling.
You lost me at hello based on your inanely boring and bias posting history.
If you'd like to be taken seriously in any way possible around here you may wish to offer something other than the common drivel that you've regularly spouted for quite a while now.
Still, at least you can claim having Google Glasses before anybody else, and you didn't need to pay for them...
Use yer noggin. A patent is effectively a government-issued, limited-duration monopoly over a novel design or method. In contrast to the classical monopoly about which you no doubt are narrowly thinking, a patent provides an absolute 100% exclusive monopoly.
Use yer noggin. A patent is effectively a government-issued, limited-duration monopoly over a novel design or method. In contrast to the classical monopoly about which you no doubt are narrowly thinking, a patent provides an absolute 100% exclusive monopoly.
Ok that I get, but how can a government that gave Google a monopoly then label them a monopolist and punish them?
The OP said patents=monopoly, and aren't patents government granted?
Okay, there is a lot of confusion going around.
The way I understand it, Google is behaving monopolistically in the same way that Microsoft behaved so in the 1990s. This makes sense, because although alternatives to their product exist, Google has a market presence that gives the capability of abuse.
A patent is a timed monopoly on an implementation of the execution of an idea. It is not a monopoly on said idea itself. A patent can be used to create a monopoly in a market (which is wholly different from the monopoly granted via the patent itself), but monopolies may arise in other ways.
That a government grants a patent that then leads to monopolistic behavior does not exempt the holder in question from punishment for said behavior, because said behavior is not an eventuality of the existence of a patent.
jragosta or someone else who actually knows what they're talking about firsthand, tell me where I'm wrong.
The way I understand it, Google is behaving monopolistically in the same way that Microsoft behaved so in the 1990s. This makes sense, because although alternatives to their product exist, Google has a market presence that gives the capability of abuse.
A patent is a timed monopoly on an implementation of the execution of an idea. It is not a monopoly on said idea itself. A patent can be used to create a monopoly in a market (which is wholly different from the monopoly granted via the patent itself), but monopolies may arise in other ways.
That a government grants a patent that then leads to monopolistic behavior does not exempt the holder in question from punishment for said behavior, because said behavior is not an eventuality of the existence of a patent.
jragosta or someone else who actually knows what they're talking about firsthand, tell me where I'm wrong.
The big difference being that Google is abusing a government given monopolistic power with the understanding that it would license fairly. They wanted to charge Apple what I call the "white boy price", which I jokingly tell my black friends whenever I feel I was overly charged for something in a minority neighborhood.
Comments
Quote:
Originally Posted by Steven N.
I never once said what you believed. In fact, had you read what I wrote, you would have seen I specifically ASKED what your view was and did TELL you what your view was. Do not presume to know what I thought I wrote when you obviously had no clue.
You're right, but a better way to have asked your initial question would have been to say "So is your view..." rather than "So your view is..." then it would be clearly a question even without the punctuation mark. People mis-read stuff all the time, better to take away as many barriers to understanding as possible.
Unfortunately the general public doesn't see a distinction between patents. All they see are companies distastefully cross-suing each other, with every other company pointing its finger at Apple as being the bad guy. This has been a PR disaster of sorts for Apple, as consumers validate the illegal behavior of companies like Googorola and Samsmug by buying their products instead of Apple's. That lost time and revenue can not be recouped.
Wow, so quiet in here for what represents a huge blow to Google/Motorola and patent abusers. This is shaping up to be a horrible year for Google/Motorola and a great one for Apple/MS.
What monopoly?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Steven N.
I never once said what you believed. In fact, had you read what I wrote, you would have seen I specifically ASKED what your view was and did TELL you what your view was. Do not presume to know what I thought I wrote when you obviously had no clue.
No, you made a statement different to both what I wrote and what I implied and then just put a question mark after it. This was a presumption of understanding that just quite obviously didn't exist.
I read very carefully what you wrote before replying. Both this and the last time.
True but the vendors can claim that the patent owner isn't being reasonable.
Originally Posted by dasanman69
What monopoly?
Cute. Cut it out.
Quote:
Originally Posted by dasanman69
What monopoly?
patent = monopoly
Quote:
Originally Posted by EricTheHalfBee
Wow, so quiet in here for what represents a huge blow to Google/Motorola and patent abusers. This is shaping up to be a horrible year for Google/Motorola and a great one for Apple/MS.
Not much has changed.
Apple still has to pay Motorola for use of their patents, and injunctions are still available if a licensee fails to negotiate.
This preliminary finding says that SEP holders cannot seek/enforce an injunction if the potential licensee has agreed to accept a binding rate from a third party.
It could also help the EU push for anti-trust proceedings if it wants to, although it would seem a lot fairer if the prohibitive ruling had existed before the injunction was allowed by an EU member court.
"Motorola Mobility sought an injunction against Apple in Germany on the basis of a GPRS SEP and, after the injunction was granted, went on to enforce it, even when Apple had declared that it would be willing to be bound by a determination of the FRAND royalties by the German court." - EU Commission statement
Since when has patents equaled monopoly?
Quote:
Originally Posted by KDarling
Not much has changed.
Apple still has to pay Motorola for use of their patents, and injunctions are still available if a licensee fails to negotiate.
This preliminary finding says that SEP holders cannot seek/enforce an injunction if the potential licensee has agreed to accept a binding rate from a third party.
It could also help the EU push for anti-trust proceedings if it wants to, although it would seem a lot fairer if the prohibitive ruling had existed before the injunction was allowed by an EU member court.
"Motorola Mobility sought an injunction against Apple in Germany on the basis of a GPRS SEP and, after the injunction was granted, went on to enforce it, even when Apple had declared that it would be willing to be bound by a determination of the FRAND royalties by the German court." - EU Commission statement
Too bad Google won't get the $4 Billion per annum projected patent licensing revenue from both Apple and Microsoft, which led to Google being suckered in to paying way too much for Motorola Mobility.
Google got suckered as slickly as a fresh rube from Kansas playing three card monty on a New York sidewalk.
PS what's with the fine print?
As I've pointed out before, the companies that are abusing patents (and think onjunctions are OK), fall into two groups: companies that have stolen IP and/or are locked in court battles with Apple (Samsung, Google) and companies who have seen their once booming business fail and want to leverage their only remaining assets (Nokia, Ericsson or Motorola).
In other words, companies making bad patent related decisions out of desperation, not as a matter of good policy.
I'm sorry, darling.
You lost me at hello based on your inanely boring and bias posting history.
If you'd like to be taken seriously in any way possible around here you may wish to offer something other than the common drivel that you've regularly spouted for quite a while now.
Still, at least you can claim having Google Glasses before anybody else, and you didn't need to pay for them...
Quote:
Originally Posted by dasanman69
Since when has patents equaled monopoly?
Use yer noggin. A patent is effectively a government-issued, limited-duration monopoly over a novel design or method. In contrast to the classical monopoly about which you no doubt are narrowly thinking, a patent provides an absolute 100% exclusive monopoly.
Ok that I get, but how can a government that gave Google a monopoly then label them a monopolist and punish them?
Originally Posted by dasanman69
…gave Google a monopoly…
Er?
The OP said patents=monopoly, and aren't patents government granted? Try reading what led up to my post before commenting.
Originally Posted by dasanman69
The OP said patents=monopoly, and aren't patents government granted?
Okay, there is a lot of confusion going around.
The way I understand it, Google is behaving monopolistically in the same way that Microsoft behaved so in the 1990s. This makes sense, because although alternatives to their product exist, Google has a market presence that gives the capability of abuse.
A patent is a timed monopoly on an implementation of the execution of an idea. It is not a monopoly on said idea itself. A patent can be used to create a monopoly in a market (which is wholly different from the monopoly granted via the patent itself), but monopolies may arise in other ways.
That a government grants a patent that then leads to monopolistic behavior does not exempt the holder in question from punishment for said behavior, because said behavior is not an eventuality of the existence of a patent.
jragosta or someone else who actually knows what they're talking about firsthand, tell me where I'm wrong.
The big difference being that Google is abusing a government given monopolistic power with the understanding that it would license fairly. They wanted to charge Apple what I call the "white boy price", which I jokingly tell my black friends whenever I feel I was overly charged for something in a minority neighborhood.