bells

bulk001 said:

What exactly is a “snackable content app” I have TMobile and while the coverage is not as good as ATT right now, the unlimited
video streaming for my kids on trip around the country is really great. Happy not to be sending ATT my money. 

Coverage is relative. I have ATT home internet. T-Mobile cell. When the ATT home internet went down I was streaming from my T-mobile iPhone to my Apple TV. The ATT guy came out to fix home internet, and was blown away at how fast T-Mobile LTE was compared to what he was getting on his cell phone. 

I'm excited by the prospect of T-Mobile broadband, and companies like Comcast and ATT should be nervous. 

normang said:

Climate constantly changes, to think we can actually have any impact on significantly altering the climate is the height of arrogance. It's been warmer in the past than today and its been cooler, we know this..... but somehow altering a carbon footprint is going to save us? This is not to say that we should not try and be prudent in the use of resources, but the proposed changes all mandate government control of your life and all that will do is make things worse for people, not better.

I hate to tell you but worldwide government mandates are the only chance to fight climate change. 

It also seems kind of silly to suggest things such as mass defortestion in combination with significant carbon output wouldn’t likely have an appreciable impact on the climate any more than saying lighting a fire in a small room won’t effect air quality. I certainly see appreciable changes where I live in Michigan. 

Even if scientists somehow got got it wrong, which I doubt, planning to avoid the potential crisis seems prudent. I’m certainly not taking your word for it.

Also combating climate change will be very profitable for the private sector, and if done correctly won’t have serious impact on people’s lives.

gatorguy said:

bells said:

gatorguy said:

The injunction order required not only that Apple themselves remove the "infringing" handsets from it's own stores but that stock at existing authorized resellers be removed and destroyed. That the Apple PR statement inferring that sales would continue as normal is misleading should be obvious IMO.  

They're both still in the controlling the story phase....

That isn’t what this decision implies. The story implies the court just doesn’t want the impression of unlimited availability. Fosspatents, whose author is German, says the decision only applies to the parties themselves not third parties. You can go on the carriers German websites right now and find the applicable iPhones. You’d think Qualcomm would be going after them if they couldn’t sell them.

Have you noticed that Florian stopped reporting on the trial as soon as the FTC had made their case and it became QC's chance to answer and defend? He's already crowned the FTC as the victor. A dozen articles in just a few days explaining the FTC's arguments and now barely a mention of Qualcomm's. That's why I believe you should take what Mr Mueller has to say with a grain of salt. By all appearances he has a new paying client... 

As far as I had read the injunction required Apple to recover stock they had sent to resellers in addition to what was in their own company stores. Perhaps the judgement hasn't been properly reported and that was incorrect but I wouldn't take just Florians word on what it meant. He might be right, or he might have other reasons for downplaying it. 

I do take his word with a grain of salt. He is however a good resource for the German patent system if you can leave out his opinions on fact. I also think his view is in accords with what you see going on in Germany. That being third parties still selling iPhones, and Qualcomm not going after them. I also don't think Apple would have said its phones were still available if that weren't true. If you follow the links on his website, carriers such as T-Mobile are still selling iPhones in Germany. 

As far as the FTC case goes, the only pre-trial ruling I am aware of that the Judge has made has gone in the FTC's favor. That doesn't mean it will win, but it is usually harder to be a defendant than a plaintiff. Again, I don't always like Florian, but so far it has been the FTC putting on its case. It would only make sense things have gone its way so far. Further, I think Florian is laying it on thick in the FTC's favor, but he has said when he thought Qualcomm had a good day. For instance, he thought Qualcomm's CEO's testimony was favorable, but it was rebutted by today's witness who claimed Qualcomm did in fact refuse access to its standard essential patents without a license to its whole portfolio. 

Then again I'm in the camp that the standard essential patent rate should be based on the component cost, not the final product cost. 

gatorguy said:

The injunction order required not only that Apple themselves remove the "infringing" handsets from it's own stores but that stock at existing authorized resellers be removed and destroyed. That the Apple PR statement inferring that sales would continue as normal is misleading should be obvious IMO.  

They're both still in the controlling the story phase....

That isn’t what this decision implies. The story implies the court just doesn’t want the impression of unlimited availability. Fosspatents, whose author is German, says the decision only applies to the parties themselves not third parties. You can go on the carriers German websites right now and find the applicable iPhones. You’d think Qualcomm would be going after them if they couldn’t sell them.

MlorianFueller said:

applemagic said:

Hmm...I am not sure why AI is presenting this (the incentive payment) as some kind of a bribe that Apple offered Qualcomm. Going by Florian Mueller's article on fosspatents.com, it appears to be the other way around!

That is, Qualcomm had a habit of negotiating incentive payments from device makers in return for strategic favours. So, there's really no wrinkle in the FTC case, as suggested by AI. Instead, it's one of four issues related to Qualcomm's conduct that are being investigated. To quote:

********

For the FTC, Jennifer Milici outlined the four key issues surrounding Qualcomm's conduct that the FTC is tackling (let's not forget that some other aspects are at issue in Apple v. Qualcomm in San Diego, where a trial will start on April 15), which are interrelated as she also explained:

• the "no license-no chips" policy;
• incentive payments (for a brief explanation, those incentives effectively reduce patent licensing fees in exchange for doing Qualcomm some strategically-relevant favors);
• the refusal to license rival chipset makers (note that Judge Koh's summary judgment in this context was based on contractual obligations, while the focus at this trial is now on an antitrust duty to deal); and
• past exclusive arrangements with Apple.

********

http://www.fosspatents.com/2019/01/in-its-courtroom-chess-match-with.html

We all know Florian Mueller is paid by Apple and has been Apple support for so many years. His blog is biased and has no credibility. The fact that FTC is getting testimony from Apple and other manufactures saying Qualcomm is a monopoly shows the flaw in the FTC case. Apple suing because of the price that has been previously agreed upon by Apple and come to know the only reason that both companies agreed to the deal is because Apple demanded a $1 billion "incentive payment" to secure the deal. Apple will and always eat alive their suppliers.

Oh, and btw - https://www.sullcrom.com/district-court-holds-that-frand-commitment-does-not-require-licensing-at-chip-level

You are kidding right? Mueller mostly took Samsung and Nokia's in Apple's fight with those two. Further, Qualcomm's CEO's testimony doesn't even make sense. Apple didn't have any leverage over Qualcomm to demand anything. Who else is the FTC going to get to testify other than the companies that have dealings with Qualcomm?

Additionally, if a robber asks you for the hundred dollars in your pocket, and you agree because he has a gun to your head, that doesn't really mean you agreed in a legally binding manner.

The district court case doesn't mean anything. Texas is a friendly to patent Plaintiff's that is why everybody sues there. The case was contrary to how a California court rules, and the Texas court had to apply French law. It likely will get appealed.