If apple had a clue they would adapt to the new phone/tablet world.
TROOOLLLLLLLL !!!!!!
That is a funny statement since Apple pretty much invented both markets. omg I just bited. Granted competition did "innovate" into bigger screens. I fail to see anything else they did. Its like everyone is waiting on Apple next move to clone them again.
imo Apple will move into payments this year, with a combination of fingerprints and NFC all in association with a major player in payments. Then all the other smartphones will add fingerprints and try to compete. then pundits will scream on rooftops Apple didnt invent fingerprints on smartphone or NFC payments, bla bla bla.
imo same will go for the game console market. Apple will move in with hardware based on mobile chips, resultings in cheaper to make game console, more games at a lower price. Then the market will clone them and a few years later pundits will say apple didnt innovate or invented anything.
It's not surprising that you have nothing intelligent to say when you can't tell the difference between an operating system and a multibillion dollar company.
Or, since you didn't capitalize "Apple", maybe you can't tell the difference between an operating system and a red fruit.
Microsoft is part of BSA, which also represents Oracle and Intel. The group has argued that the use of standard-essential patents to ban products should not be allowed, except under unusual circumstances, The Wall Street Journal reported on Monday.
The WSJ article seems to be mostly a rehash of previous events. Microsoft et al put in their briefs with the ITC last Spring, arguing against injunctions.
Of course, an American company (Qualcomm) that DOES have a lot of major cellular SEPs thinks quite differently, and supports Samsung.
So it seems to at least partly boil down to the SEP haves, and the have-nots.
Quote:
The president has not intervened in an ITC ban since 1987, but the ruling against Apple has a number of officials calling for something to be done.
President Bush didn't intervene back in 2007 when Qualcomm and Verizon were in far worse straits over an ITC ban, so if President Obama does so now, it might be seen as a popularity contest over himself and/or Apple.
Quote:
Apple believes that Samsung shouldn't be able to block iPhone or iPad sales because the company isn't licensing its standard essential patents under fair, reasonable and nondiscriminatory terms, or FRAND. The iPhone maker has argued that a product ban could give Samsung the clout to extract high patent royalties from rival companies.
Contrary to popular belief, Apple was not banned for refusing to pay a high rate. Such refusal is expected. The ITC said they banned them for not negotiating to lower the rate, which is an ETSI requirement, and Apple is an ETSI member.
As the article noted, even the BSA members do not debate injunctions if a licensee fails to negotiate. (The question is, what constitutes a negotiation?)
Of course, a major factor is that the ITC only has import bans as their enforcement power.
The CAFC could still overturn their decision on appeal, which Apple has signaled they will immediately file if the President abstains.
-
Note: I'm just reporting what I know from personally studying all the briefs and rulings, instead of relying on others. As I've said before, I don't support bans, at least not over software patents. Rather, I've said that forced arbitration is the way to go, a course which the FTC has also chosen with their recent Google agreement.
I think that in a year, all this will be moot anyway, as governments are now making it clear that if companies cannot come to an agreement, they'll be forced to. At least that way, there's a known process in place.
When judges ban Samsung products they are geniuses who know the law. When they ban Apple products they are idiots?Care to tell us what the actual legal error was in his ruling.
I think you pretty accurately answered your own question.
.umm, apple blocked samsung from the sale of galaxy tab 2 on similar principles? Then sued them for their similar icons and rounded corners which were like every other tablet in the market...
I don't see how 2 wrongs make a right. - or how 2 arced perpendicular lines make a right angle... Ahem.. Apple is not shy to diminish the law system either but in apples defense samsung IS simply being a sore loser in their battles by lashing back with this childish ban.
Apple still buys chips from Samsung after all, let's just continue to play nice (FYI wouldn't buy an apple product OR a samsung, maybe apple one day who knows).
.umm, apple blocked samsung from the sale of galaxy tab 2 on similar principles? Then sued them for their similar icons and rounded corners which were like every other tablet in the market...
...
Yeah, AFTER Apple released their products, everyone else followed along.
Perhaps Apple should have gotten a license. After all they go on about defending their intellectual rights to rounded corners and invalid bounce back patents etc etc. It looks bad that they ignore the rights of others on an actual real invention like 3G connectivity.
Samsung would have spent billions developing that tech. Who are apple to demand a 1 dollar license ?
Sorry, but Apples needs to lose one to force them to start being reasonable. At least this one doesn't effect the iPhone 5.
If the tables were reversed,would the other US tech companies have defended the outsider Samsung?
[quote name="MeZmeriZe1" url="/t/158753/microsoft-intel-oracle-at-t-come-to-apples-defense-in-looming-iphone-4-ban#post_2370361"]…an actual real invention…[/QUOTE]
and when was the last time Apple paid this $1 per unit. As it stand, its "free". All Apple has to do is send the "check", if Samsung didnt accept it, its refusal of payment.
Easy to fix the whole mess. When something is licensed under FRAND, it should be decided up front the royalty fee and trigger point where the royalty is due. No more arguing after that.
Quote:
Originally Posted by bleh1234
Ummmm, the F in FRAND is Fair not Free.
As I mentioned previously, to end all disagreements, when something is declared standards essential, the fee and its trigger point should be declared. Makes the whole licensing system "Fair and Reasonable" and no one can argue about the cost.
As I mentioned previously, to end all disagreements, when something is declared standards essential, the fee and its trigger point should be declared. Makes the whole licensing system "Fair and Reasonable" and no one can argue about the cost.
Comments
Quote:
Originally Posted by jtaylor13
If apple had a clue they would adapt to the new phone/tablet world.
TROOOLLLLLLLL !!!!!!
That is a funny statement since Apple pretty much invented both markets. omg I just bited. Granted competition did "innovate" into bigger screens. I fail to see anything else they did. Its like everyone is waiting on Apple next move to clone them again.
imo Apple will move into payments this year, with a combination of fingerprints and NFC all in association with a major player in payments. Then all the other smartphones will add fingerprints and try to compete. then pundits will scream on rooftops Apple didnt invent fingerprints on smartphone or NFC payments, bla bla bla.
imo same will go for the game console market. Apple will move in with hardware based on mobile chips, resultings in cheaper to make game console, more games at a lower price. Then the market will clone them and a few years later pundits will say apple didnt innovate or invented anything.
It's not surprising that you have nothing intelligent to say when you can't tell the difference between an operating system and a multibillion dollar company.
Or, since you didn't capitalize "Apple", maybe you can't tell the difference between an operating system and a red fruit.
Crawl back in your hole.
Quote:
Originally Posted by AppleInsider
Microsoft is part of BSA, which also represents Oracle and Intel. The group has argued that the use of standard-essential patents to ban products should not be allowed, except under unusual circumstances, The Wall Street Journal reported on Monday.
The WSJ article seems to be mostly a rehash of previous events. Microsoft et al put in their briefs with the ITC last Spring, arguing against injunctions.
Of course, an American company (Qualcomm) that DOES have a lot of major cellular SEPs thinks quite differently, and supports Samsung.
So it seems to at least partly boil down to the SEP haves, and the have-nots.
Quote:
The president has not intervened in an ITC ban since 1987, but the ruling against Apple has a number of officials calling for something to be done.
President Bush didn't intervene back in 2007 when Qualcomm and Verizon were in far worse straits over an ITC ban, so if President Obama does so now, it might be seen as a popularity contest over himself and/or Apple.
Quote:
Apple believes that Samsung shouldn't be able to block iPhone or iPad sales because the company isn't licensing its standard essential patents under fair, reasonable and nondiscriminatory terms, or FRAND. The iPhone maker has argued that a product ban could give Samsung the clout to extract high patent royalties from rival companies.
Contrary to popular belief, Apple was not banned for refusing to pay a high rate. Such refusal is expected. The ITC said they banned them for not negotiating to lower the rate, which is an ETSI requirement, and Apple is an ETSI member.
As the article noted, even the BSA members do not debate injunctions if a licensee fails to negotiate. (The question is, what constitutes a negotiation?)
Of course, a major factor is that the ITC only has import bans as their enforcement power.
The CAFC could still overturn their decision on appeal, which Apple has signaled they will immediately file if the President abstains.
-
Note: I'm just reporting what I know from personally studying all the briefs and rulings, instead of relying on others. As I've said before, I don't support bans, at least not over software patents. Rather, I've said that forced arbitration is the way to go, a course which the FTC has also chosen with their recent Google agreement.
I think that in a year, all this will be moot anyway, as governments are now making it clear that if companies cannot come to an agreement, they'll be forced to. At least that way, there's a known process in place.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jetz
When judges ban Samsung products they are geniuses who know the law. When they ban Apple products they are idiots?Care to tell us what the actual legal error was in his ruling.I think you pretty accurately answered your own question.
are getting old
are getting old
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chandra69
How?
An old adage said:
One lawyer in a small town will go bankrupt after a short time,
Two lawyers in a small town, both will go rich.
I don't see how 2 wrongs make a right. - or how 2 arced perpendicular lines make a right angle... Ahem.. Apple is not shy to diminish the law system either but in apples defense samsung IS simply being a sore loser in their battles by lashing back with this childish ban.
Apple still buys chips from Samsung after all, let's just continue to play nice (FYI wouldn't buy an apple product OR a samsung, maybe apple one day who knows).
the foru horseman is grtting old
Then why do you even care?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dubeck
.umm, apple blocked samsung from the sale of galaxy tab 2 on similar principles? Then sued them for their similar icons and rounded corners which were like every other tablet in the market...
...
Yeah, AFTER Apple released their products, everyone else followed along.
Samsung would have spent billions developing that tech. Who are apple to demand a 1 dollar license ?
Sorry, but Apples needs to lose one to force them to start being reasonable. At least this one doesn't effect the iPhone 5.
If the tables were reversed,would the other US tech companies have defended the outsider Samsung?
Shut up.
[QUOTE]like 3G connectivity.[/QUOTE]
FRAND. End of discussion.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
Shut up.
FRAND. End of discussion.
Ummmm, the F in FRAND is Fair not Free.
Strictly speaking, $1 isn't free.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
Strictly speaking, $1 isn't free.
and when was the last time Apple paid this $1 per unit. As it stand, its "free". All Apple has to do is send the "check", if Samsung didnt accept it, its refusal of payment.
Quote:
Originally Posted by icoco3
Easy to fix the whole mess. When something is licensed under FRAND, it should be decided up front the royalty fee and trigger point where the royalty is due. No more arguing after that.
Quote:
Originally Posted by bleh1234
Ummmm, the F in FRAND is Fair not Free.
As I mentioned previously, to end all disagreements, when something is declared standards essential, the fee and its trigger point should be declared. Makes the whole licensing system "Fair and Reasonable" and no one can argue about the cost.
Quote:
Originally Posted by icoco3
As I mentioned previously, to end all disagreements, when something is declared standards essential, the fee and its trigger point should be declared. Makes the whole licensing system "Fair and Reasonable" and no one can argue about the cost.
and in regards with cross-licensing?