- Last Active
T-Mobile's mobile TV service is coming in a matter of weeks, but 'disruptive' plans postpo...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.
I'm excited by the prospect of T-Mobile broadband, and companies like Comcast and ATT should be nervous.
Apple says the iPhone is a valuable readiness aid in a world impacted by climate changenormang 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.
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.
Apple's claim that all iPhones are available at retail enjoined by German courtbells 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....
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.
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.
Apple's claim that all iPhones are available at retail enjoined by German courtThe 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....
Qualcomm pushed for iPhone exclusivity in response to $1B incentive payment demand, CEO sa...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.
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.