Linked by Thom Holwerda on Sat 2nd Nov 2013 17:24 UTC
Legal

Apple, Microsoft, and others, a little over a month ago in a letter to the EU, warning that the EU's new proposed unified patent law could lead to more patent trolling:

To mitigate the potential for abuses of such power, courts should be guided by principles set forth in the rules of procedure to assess proportionality prior to granting injunctions. And PAEs should not be allowed to use injunctions for the sole purpose of extracting excessive royalties from operating companies that fear business disruption.

Yesterday:

A new front opened today in the patent wars between large technology companies, as a consortium that owns thousands of patents from the Nortel bankruptcy auction filed suit against Google and other manufacturers alleging infringement. Rockstar, which is owned jointly by Apple, Blackberry, Ericsson, Microsoft, and Sony, filed suit in US District Court in Texas. In addition to Google, the consortium has alleged infringement by Asus, HTC, Huawei, LG, Pantech, Samsung, and ZTE.

They're not just scumbags - they are lying scumbags.

Order by: Score:
Comment by some1
by some1 on Sat 2nd Nov 2013 17:46 UTC
some1
Member since:
2010-10-05

Well, duh.

Reply Score: 4

RE: Comment by some1
by kragil on Sat 2nd Nov 2013 18:40 UTC in reply to "Comment by some1"
kragil Member since:
2006-01-04

Yeah, anybody who buys stuff from those guys is stupid PERIOD

Reply Score: 5

RE[2]: Comment by some1
by leos on Sat 2nd Nov 2013 21:09 UTC in reply to "RE: Comment by some1"
leos Member since:
2005-09-21

Yeah, anybody who buys stuff from those guys is stupid PERIOD


By your logic you should never buy anything from any big company. Or conversely, everyone alive today is stupid.

Edited 2013-11-02 21:15 UTC

Reply Score: 4

Up to some level...
by dionicio on Sun 3rd Nov 2013 03:28 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Comment by some1"
dionicio Member since:
2006-07-12

;)

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: Comment by some1
by gus3 on Sun 3rd Nov 2013 20:12 UTC in reply to "RE: Comment by some1"
gus3 Member since:
2010-09-02

"From these guys" (i.e. Microsoft and Apple), not "from any big company."

Put words in other people's mouths/keyboards, much?

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: Comment by some1
by Bill Shooter of Bul on Mon 4th Nov 2013 15:29 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Comment by some1"
Bill Shooter of Bul Member since:
2006-07-14

What's the difference between those companies and Google or any other large tech company these days? It seems rather difficult to highlight a subset of these companies as being particularly worse than the rest.

Reply Score: 2

RE[4]: Comment by some1
by gus3 on Mon 4th Nov 2013 16:46 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Comment by some1"
gus3 Member since:
2010-09-02

I won't say there is; neither will I say there isn't. I'm only pointing out that the respondent was answering what he wanted the parent comment to say, not what the parent comment actually said.

Reply Score: 1

RE[5]: Comment by some1
by Bill Shooter of Bul on Mon 4th Nov 2013 18:42 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Comment by some1"
Bill Shooter of Bul Member since:
2006-07-14

No, I think his response wasn't responding to what he wanted the parent to say, but was himself broadening the scope to point out that there were no good options if they wanted to boycott companies on that basis. Its what's refereed to as a leading question.

Like:

Mike: Hi Dave.
Dave: Hi Mike. Did you beat your wife last night?


In that example Dave isn't implying that anything in Mike's comment suggested that he was beating his wife, his question is suggesting that he commonly does this based on information outside their current conversation.

Reply Score: 2

Comment by MOS6510
by MOS6510 on Sat 2nd Nov 2013 18:31 UTC
MOS6510
Member since:
2011-05-12

If all is correct it would not be lying, but being hypocritical.

Rockstar is owned by a number of companies, but they (can) act independent.

I guess it's up the media and journalists to figure this one out before people start screaming.

Reply Score: 3

RE: Comment by MOS6510
by Soulbender on Sun 3rd Nov 2013 12:24 UTC in reply to "Comment by MOS6510"
Soulbender Member since:
2005-08-18

I guess it's up the media and journalists to figure this one out before people start screaming.


Or maybe we could make up our own minds.

Reply Score: 3

RE[2]: Comment by MOS6510
by MOS6510 on Sun 3rd Nov 2013 12:27 UTC in reply to "RE: Comment by MOS6510"
MOS6510 Member since:
2011-05-12

You'd first need one.

Most people do some wild guessing based on their own preferences and prejudices. They come up with a conclusion first and then work their way back to an explanation.

Reply Score: 3

RE[3]: Comment by MOS6510
by Soulbender on Sun 3rd Nov 2013 13:07 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Comment by MOS6510"
Soulbender Member since:
2005-08-18

Most people do some wild guessing based on their own preferences and prejudices.


But what makes you think media and journalists would do any better?

Reply Score: 6

RE[4]: Comment by MOS6510
by MOS6510 on Sun 3rd Nov 2013 13:11 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Comment by MOS6510"
MOS6510 Member since:
2011-05-12

Journalists used to investigate stuff, make calls, talk to people, consult experts.

These days they just copy 'n' paste from others and add their own thoughts, if any.

Reply Score: 4

You forgot Google
by bowkota on Sat 2nd Nov 2013 18:32 UTC
bowkota
Member since:
2011-10-12

Not sure why but you forgot to include Google in the title.

Google bought Motorola for it's patents, they even put it in words: http://googleblog.blogspot.co.uk/2011/08/supercharging-android-goog...

Since then they've been continuing to sue companies, while abusing FRAND licenses. This is essentially the same as what Rockstar is doing, if not worse considering that they're using FRAND patents for their dirty work.

Reply Score: 0

RE: You forgot Google
by RshPL on Sat 2nd Nov 2013 19:02 UTC in reply to "You forgot Google"
RshPL Member since:
2009-03-13

Non-trivial hardware patents = GOOD stuff, requiring investment, motivates companies to do costly research and yet whole industry may profit thanks to licensing.

Trivial software patents = BAD stuff, used for trolling other companies who came up with the same ideas independently and in most cases some solutions are basically so basic that no thinking is necessary to devise them.

Reply Score: 3

RE[2]: You forgot Google
by Kochise on Sat 2nd Nov 2013 19:06 UTC in reply to "RE: You forgot Google"
Kochise Member since:
2006-03-03

Let's patent arithmetic operations, rendering ALUs unusable...

Kochise

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: You forgot Google
by dionicio on Sun 3rd Nov 2013 03:55 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: You forgot Google"
dionicio Member since:
2006-07-12

Arithmetic is an art prior to the patent system.

Patents are a case of royal tax concessions,
conceded preferably to allies and supporters.

(Corollary: A patent in the wrong hands
is worth nothing).

Edited 2013-11-03 04:11 UTC

Reply Score: 0

RE[3]: You forgot Google
by Bill Shooter of Bul on Mon 4th Nov 2013 15:31 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: You forgot Google"
Bill Shooter of Bul Member since:
2006-07-14

Off topic, but why do you always sign your posts?

Its clearly obvious that they are from the logged in user kochise.

Reply Score: 4

RE[2]: You forgot Google
by viton on Sun 3rd Nov 2013 06:04 UTC in reply to "RE: You forgot Google"
viton Member since:
2005-08-09

So, if "offending" company comes independently to the same non-trivial tech, with the same investment, they should be sued?

Typically the patent is just a bunch of generic phrases. Also, patents are based on common knowledge. The knowledge, freely given to the world by it's inventors. This is not fair.

Why do you think hardware (or any industry) patents are non-trivial? They can be as simple as software.

Edited 2013-11-03 06:12 UTC

Reply Score: 6

RE: You forgot Google
by Kochise on Sat 2nd Nov 2013 19:03 UTC in reply to "You forgot Google"
Kochise Member since:
2006-03-03

Whose FRAND licenses are they "abusing" ? Those of the same Microsoft that makes Google pay for each Android sold because abusing of a FRAND licenses, yet without hearing you being offended ?

Kochise

Edited 2013-11-02 19:04 UTC

Reply Score: 3

v RE[2]: You forgot Google
by Shadowself on Sat 2nd Nov 2013 23:26 UTC in reply to "RE: You forgot Google"
RE[3]: You forgot Google
by Nelson on Sat 2nd Nov 2013 23:31 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: You forgot Google"
Nelson Member since:
2005-11-29

It amazes me how people still don't fully grasp the concept of SEPs.

It probably explains why the blind eye os turned to Google's actions. If people stopped to think the destructive effect of undermining commitments made to standards bodies they'd be more alarmed.

Suing over SEPs is going thermonuclear in patent warfare.

Reply Score: 1

RE[4]: You forgot Google
by Thom_Holwerda on Sat 2nd Nov 2013 23:48 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: You forgot Google"
Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

In the case of Samsung, the ITC determined that Samsung offered FRAND terms, but that Apple refused to accept them and refused to negotiate. Wouldn't surprise me if the same happened with Motorola. SEP does not mean you may never sue - if FRAND terms are rejected - as Apple did - suing may still be an option.

Unless you have the president's ear, of course.

Edited 2013-11-02 23:49 UTC

Reply Score: 6

RE[5]: You forgot Google
by Shadowself on Sun 3rd Nov 2013 00:05 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: You forgot Google"
Shadowself Member since:
2013-11-02

Actually, that's NOT what the ITC found.

The ITC found that Samsung was due a license fee. The ITC found that Apple had not paid the license fee.

The ITC did NOT rule that Samsung's license demands were fair. The ITC did not rule that Apple's failure to agree to Samsung's demanded fees was unfair.

The ITC instituted an import ban based upon some extremely simple and brain dead facts:
Samsung had patents.
Apple was making products and importing those products into the U.S. that utilized the patented technology.
Apple was not paying any license fees to Samsung.

Hence a ban in Samsung's favor.

The ITC did not take into account that the patents were Standards Essential Patents (SEPs) and must be licensed under Fair, Reasonable, and Non Discriminatory (FRAND) rules. The ITC did not compare Samsung's demands with the rates Samsung was charging everyone but Apple (the Non Discriminatory part).

The Obama Administration looked at those additional circumstances and ruled that the import ban was improper because it did not take into account the fact that the patents are SEPs to be licensed under FRAND rules. The Obama Administration did NOT say that Apple didn't need to license those patents. (In fact the Obama Administrations ruling explicitly says that Apple MUST pay license fees to Samsung.) The Obama Administration just overturned the ban because patent holders of SEPs must follow FRAND rules and Apple must pay FRAND fees!

Reply Score: 1

RE[6]: You forgot Google
by Thom_Holwerda on Sun 3rd Nov 2013 00:17 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: You forgot Google"
Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

You're talking in circles. The ITC was very clear: Samsung did not violate any FRAND commitments during the negotiations. Yet, Apple did not agree to any licensing fee. So, the ITC hands out a ban.

The president overruled the ITC not because Samsung failed any FRAND commitments - he overruled because a ban based on SEPs should not happen.

So, the course of events is that Samsung and Apple were negotiating, that Samsung was making proper FRAND offers, but that Apple refused to accept, despite the offers being FRAND. So, a deadlock.

Apple fanatics believe that the FRAND system means that Apple can just take whatever standards essential technology it wants, and that FRAND patent holders cannot do anything about it. The precedent that has been set here is clear: Apple can continue to use standards essential technology without paying a single dime, since Samsung has no means to stop them. Apple can drag out the negotiation forever - something they've been doing for years now.

With this, the FRAND system has effectively ceased to operate, since *even if Apple refuses proper FRAND terms, there's nothing a SEP holder can do to force Apple to accept them*. This is a very dangerous precedent.

Edited 2013-11-03 00:20 UTC

Reply Score: 6

RE[7]: You forgot Google
by mkone on Sun 3rd Nov 2013 10:30 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: You forgot Google"
mkone Member since:
2006-03-14

The ITC ruling is a red herring. The European Commission found Samsung to be breaking competition rules in the EU because of their abuse of FRAND patents.

The abuse of FRAND patents is more insidious than anything Apple has done.

Reply Score: 2

RE[7]: You forgot Google
by Shadowself on Sun 3rd Nov 2013 18:34 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: You forgot Google"
Shadowself Member since:
2013-11-02

You're talking in circles. The ITC was very clear: Samsung did not violate any FRAND commitments during the negotiations. Yet, Apple did not agree to any licensing fee. So, the ITC hands out a ban.

The president overruled the ITC not because Samsung failed any FRAND commitments - he overruled because a ban based on SEPs should not happen.


So it seems you're the one talking in circles. SEPs and FRAND are inseparable. You absolutely CANNOT have one without the other. AND the ITC did NOT rule that Samsung's demands follow the spirit of FRAND rules or that Samsung's demands follow their commitment to the legal contract that Samsung has with the standards body.

The reality, which you choose to ignore, is that the ITC refused to do their homework. The ruling by the ITC ignored (or, at best, the regulators were just unaware) of the facts presented in multiple cases about the world. It is somewhat amazing that you choose to ignore the full facts and exactly what was in the ruling on the band and the ruling that overturned the ban.

So, the course of events is that Samsung and Apple were negotiating, that Samsung was making proper FRAND offers, but that Apple refused to accept, despite the offers being FRAND. So, a deadlock.


It has been very well documented in multiple court cases that Samsung was NOT making proper FRAND demands. It is also well documented that Apple did offer to pay FRAND fees. (Hell, at one point Steve Jobs flew to Korea to try and negotiate the issue personally.) As I've mentioned elsewhere here, Samsung was demanding that Apple pay as much as 12 times what others were paying to Samsung for those licenses PLUS Samsung wanted a cross licensing deal that included Apple's non SEP, non FRAND patents. Those are in the court records of multiple cases. Why do you try to dispute that?

Apple fanatics believe that the FRAND system means that Apple can just take whatever standards essential technology it wants, and that FRAND patent holders cannot do anything about it. The precedent that has been set here is clear: Apple can continue to use standards essential technology without paying a single dime, since Samsung has no means to stop them. Apple can drag out the negotiation forever - something they've been doing for years now.


This issue has absolutely NOTHING to do with "Apple fanatics". It has to do with upholding the FRAND rules. Samsung has been smacked down in multiple countries -- not just the U.S. -- for attempting to abuse SEPs and demanding non FRAND licensing fees. Samsung is facing a possible fine in the EU because of this (so is Google).

With this, the FRAND system has effectively ceased to operate, since *even if Apple refuses proper FRAND terms, there's nothing a SEP holder can do to force Apple to accept them*. This is a very dangerous precedent.


Even the Obama Administration's ruling that killed the import ban explicitly stated that Apple had to pay Samsung FRAND fees on Samsung's SEPs. The Obama Administration upheld the system. What it stopped was Samsung's attempt to leverage SEPs for improper market control.

If Samsung were to come to court and say, "We are charging AAA, BBB, CCC, DDD, EEE, FFF, etc., etc. companies the following fees for these patents. Apple refuses to pay what we are charging everyone else.", then Samsung would have a very clear and strait forward case in the courts. Samsung would win. Apple would have to pay. Samsung has NOT been doing that. They have, as has been well documented, demanded fees that were NOT in line with the FRAND requirements.

Personally, I believe that a separate licensing authority must be set up for each standard. They did this with MPEG. Each company using the MPEG standard pays a fee to the MPEG-LA. That group then distributes the relevant fraction of the overall fee to each license holder. Everyone pays the same. It's an international standard that is fair and open to all for the exact same fees. Companies are then one step removed from the standards licensing process. There is no realistic means of abuse. Everyone pays the same and everyone with a relevant SEP gets their fair share. DONE.

All standards bodies should move to this system.

Reply Score: 0

RE[6]: You forgot Google
by andydread on Sun 3rd Nov 2013 12:16 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: You forgot Google"
andydread Member since:
2009-02-02

Actually, that's NOT what the ITC found.

The ITC found that Samsung was due a license fee. The ITC found that Apple had not paid the license fee.

The ITC did NOT rule that Samsung's license demands were fair. The ITC did not rule that Apple's failure to agree to Samsung's demanded fees was unfair.

The ITC instituted an import ban based upon some extremely simple and brain dead facts:
Samsung had patents.
Apple was making products and importing those products into the U.S. that utilized the patented technology.
Apple was not paying any license fees to Samsung.

Hence a ban in Samsung's favor.

The ITC did not take into account that the patents were Standards Essential Patents (SEPs) and must be licensed under Fair, Reasonable, and Non Discriminatory (FRAND) rules. The ITC did not compare Samsung's demands with the rates Samsung was charging everyone but Apple (the Non Discriminatory part).

The Obama Administration looked at those additional circumstances and ruled that the import ban was improper because it did not take into account the fact that the patents are SEPs to be licensed under FRAND rules. The Obama Administration did NOT say that Apple didn't need to license those patents. (In fact the Obama Administrations ruling explicitly says that Apple MUST pay license fees to Samsung.) The Obama Administration just overturned the ban because patent holders of SEPs must follow FRAND rules and Apple must pay FRAND fees!


You are showing a bit of desperation here. Read the ITC ruling that THom posted. OR go read the whole thing. They ruled that Samsung's offer was fair. You fail.

Reply Score: 8

RE[5]: You forgot Google
by Nelson on Sun 3rd Nov 2013 00:06 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: You forgot Google"
Nelson Member since:
2005-11-29

Its great that you cite the ITC, as they're pretty much the only judicial apparatus in the country who didn't recognize tying as an affirmative defense.

And what do you know, the USTR vetoed it.

Reply Score: 3

RE[6]: You forgot Google
by TechGeek on Sun 3rd Nov 2013 23:35 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: You forgot Google"
TechGeek Member since:
2006-01-14

Its great that you cite the ITC, as they're pretty much the only judicial apparatus in the country who didn't recognize tying as an affirmative defense.

And what do you know, the USTR vetoed it.



Actually the jury verdict between APple and Samsung, which Apple won, also declared Samsung's actions as fair. Lets face it, Apple has a history of not paying for patents until they get dragged to court. Nokia, Samsung, Motorola (and I don't mean the chip ones, there are others Apple has not paid for yet).

Reply Score: 2

RE[7]: You forgot Google
by Nelson on Sun 3rd Nov 2013 23:44 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: You forgot Google"
Nelson Member since:
2005-11-29

Apple was found not to infringe so its a moot point. I wonder if you accept the rest of the Jury's verdict, or if you just take this piecemeal approach to fit your views..

Reply Score: 2

RE[7]: You forgot Google
by majipoor on Mon 4th Nov 2013 11:55 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: You forgot Google"
majipoor Member since:
2009-01-22

Lets face it, Apple has a history of not paying for patents until they get dragged to court. Nokia, Samsung, Motorola (and I don't mean the chip ones, there are others Apple has not paid for yet).


Let's face it: in order to be able to make Apple the bad guy, you see only what you want to see.

There are thousands of SEP patents concerning the 3G, 4G, Wi-Fi, Bluetooth etc. belonging to dozens of companies. Did you ever hear about Apple not paying for a licence for all these patents except for Nokia, Motorola and Samsung?

And considering that Nokia, Motorola and Samsung are all smartphone manufacturers, is it so difficult to understand that all of them were very interested in getting a licence for non-SEP Apple patents? And that they actually did try to force Apple to licence their non-SEP patents as part of the "FRAND" licence they proposed? And that Apple did actually refuse to accept these terms because they are actually not FRAND?

In the Apple vs Nokia case, Nokia never asked for an injunction however which is the right way to proceed. The final judgment did actually tell Apple to pay a fair licence fee, which they did, but Apple didn't have to cross-licence non-SEP patents which was what make the proposed terms un-acceptables.

In the Motorola and Samsung vs Apple cases, we also know that they both asked about 2.5% fee of the whole iPhone price which has been considered as ridiculously high by several EU and US judges.

And I don't know any "other" patents Apple has not paid for yet, but I am sure you know that it is the common practice for ALL manufacturers to sell products without having paid all patents fees (because it is impossible to know which patents are actually involved) and then wait for patent holders to come ask for money.

Edited 2013-11-04 11:59 UTC

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: You forgot Google
by andydread on Sun 3rd Nov 2013 12:10 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: You forgot Google"
andydread Member since:
2009-02-02

Microsoft DID NOT sue Google over SEPs (Standards Essential Patents) that come under FRAND (Fair, Reasonable, and Non Discriminatory) rules. Whoever is spreading that crap is just plain wrong, including you.

Your red herring about frand patents is falling on deaf ears and rightfully so. You see. MS and Apple decided to attack Google and its partners with frivilous dubious software patents. All Google is trying to do is defend themselves with the frand patents.

Reply Score: 6

RE[4]: You forgot Google
by Shadowself on Sun 3rd Nov 2013 18:42 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: You forgot Google"
Shadowself Member since:
2013-11-02

It is most definitely not a "red herring" as it is relevant.

The two different sets of patents come under different rules. SEPs come under FRAND rules and must be licensed to all comers for effectively the same fees and conditions.

Non SEP (and thus non FRAND) patents are licensed purely at the discretion of the patent holder. IF (truly, IF) the patent holder wants to license the patent they can charge virtually anything they want.

That's the system. For Samsung, Google and the rest to try to use SEPs as legal leverage to force the cheap licensing (or cross licensing) of non SEPs is 100% improper. It certainly violates the spirit, and likely the letter, of the SEP contracts the patent holders have with the standards bodies where the patent holders explicitly sign up to the FRAND rules.

The simple fact that Google (Motorola) and Samsung are attempting to use SEPs to counter non SEP based lawsuits directly ties the two together. It's not a "red herring" at all.

Reply Score: 0

RE[2]: You forgot Google
by kurkosdr on Sun 3rd Nov 2013 12:03 UTC in reply to "RE: You forgot Google"
kurkosdr Member since:
2011-04-11

Whose FRAND licenses are they "abusing" ? Those of the same Microsoft that makes Google pay for each Android sold because abusing of a FRAND licenses, yet without hearing you being offended ?


Microsoft and Apple are smart enough to NOT make their standards open, but make them defacto standards using their OS dupoly (for example, try formating a USB stick in anything else than FAT32 or exFAT in Windows without downloading third-party tools).

Defacto standard = no obligation to FRAND the patents = potential to gouge anyone who implements said standard to interface with your OS.

Want more? Microsoft exchange, WMV, iTunes/UnFairPlay, Quicktime.... the list goes on.

PS: Anyone knows those "anti patent troll" acts are intended to screw small investors who can't bring their inventions to the public. Are you big enough to make products? Patent troll at will. Essentialy the big companies want to have the whole patent trolling business their own, not eliminate it. (what did you expect, really?)

Edited 2013-11-03 12:09 UTC

Reply Score: 3

RE[3]: You forgot Google
by Nelson on Sun 3rd Nov 2013 13:12 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: You forgot Google"
Nelson Member since:
2005-11-29

Samsung, Moto, et all willingly made FRAND pledges. They did not have to.

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: You forgot Google
by zima on Fri 8th Nov 2013 22:55 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: You forgot Google"
zima Member since:
2005-07-06

(for example, try formating a USB stick in anything else than FAT32 or exFAT in Windows without downloading third-party tools).

Formatting in NTFS works easily, just an option in the menu.

Reply Score: 2

RE: You forgot Google
by leech on Sat 2nd Nov 2013 19:07 UTC in reply to "You forgot Google"
leech Member since:
2006-01-10

The problem isn't the large corporation abusing laws, it's the laws themselves. Fix the laws so that these corporations can't abuse them and we'll stop having these monstrous entities who seem to can't innovate so they litigate.

Reply Score: 3

RE[2]: You forgot Google
by bowkota on Sat 2nd Nov 2013 19:23 UTC in reply to "RE: You forgot Google"
bowkota Member since:
2011-10-12

The problem isn't the large corporation abusing laws, it's the laws themselves. Fix the laws so that these corporations can't abuse them and we'll stop having these monstrous entities who seem to can't innovate so they litigate.


Definitely agree with you but the continuous and intentional omission of Google in these cases by the author is hilarious to say the least.

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: You forgot Google
by Alfman on Sat 2nd Nov 2013 20:09 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: You forgot Google"
Alfman Member since:
2011-01-28

bowkota,

Give Thom a break already, he's stated very recently that he's no fan of google for allowing motorola patent offensives to continue.

http://www.osnews.com/permalink?575992

I'm not a fan of the google corporation, but keep it in perspective. Insofar as these patent lawsuits go, frankly google doesn't hold a candle to the other corps with flamethrowers and the legal machines designed to inflict the most damage to others.

Edited 2013-11-02 20:20 UTC

Reply Score: 3

RE[4]: You forgot Google
by Shadowself on Sat 2nd Nov 2013 23:31 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: You forgot Google"
Shadowself Member since:
2013-11-02

I think you need to do a little research. Last year one of the major business magazines (I don't recall which one at the moment) did a bit of in depth research on all these "high tech lawsuits' with regard to Apple.

What they found was that over 60% of the time Apple was the company GETTING sued. Over 15% of the time (a large fraction of that remaining 40%) Apple was just counter suing. It was less than 20% of the time that Apple sued first!

Now, admittedly, that was as of late summer 2012, but the pattern has unlikely changed dramatically in the last year.

Reply Score: 2

RE[5]: You forgot Google
by Alfman on Sun 3rd Nov 2013 03:29 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: You forgot Google"
Alfman Member since:
2011-01-28

Shadowself,

You should find the citation your referring to, however even taking your recollected figures at face value doesn't say anything about how apple compares to google or ms or anybody else.

I suspect the raw numbers would show that all the big players are being sued more than they sue themselves, simply because there are more IP holding companies who want to sue them than visa versa. But at the end of the day it certainly doesn't excuse any of their behaviors.

Reply Score: 5

RE: You forgot Google
by arb1 on Sat 2nd Nov 2013 22:05 UTC in reply to "You forgot Google"
arb1 Member since:
2011-08-19

its called apple refusing to pay or even talk about a license and stone walling it while making billions off stolen tech. that is not frand abuse at that point.

Reply Score: 1

v RE[2]: You forgot Google
by Shadowself on Sat 2nd Nov 2013 23:49 UTC in reply to "RE: You forgot Google"
RE[3]: You forgot Google
by Thom_Holwerda on Sat 2nd Nov 2013 23:53 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: You forgot Google"
Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

Apple never refused to license Motorola's (Google's) or Samsung's patents. What Apple refused to do was agree to a deal that was WAY beyond what the license holders charged other companies.


Read the actual ITC's words. The ITC was clear in that Samsung's offer was FRAND. It was not an unfair offer at all.

Here's the ITC's opinion - and the ITC actually studied the entire negotiation (you have not):

"The Commission analyzed the history of negotiations between Apple and Samsung (this portion is heavily redacted) to see if Apple showed that Samsung failed to negotiate “in good faith,” and found that Apple failed to do so. Notably, the Commission dismissed Apple’s arguments that (1) Samsung’s initial offer was so high as to show bad faith, and (2) Samsung’s attempts to get a cross-license to Apple’s non-SEPs violated its FRAND commitments."


Edited 2013-11-03 00:01 UTC

Reply Score: 2

RE: You forgot Google
by andydread on Sun 3rd Nov 2013 12:06 UTC in reply to "You forgot Google"
andydread Member since:
2009-02-02

Not sure why but you forgot to include Google in the title.

Google bought Motorola for it's patents, they even put it in words: http://googleblog.blogspot.co.uk/2011/08/supercharging-android-goog...

Since then they've been continuing to sue companies, while abusing FRAND licenses. This is essentially the same as what Rockstar is doing, if not worse considering that they're using FRAND patents for their dirty work.

You sir failed to mention that Google did not file suit against anyone. They are merely countersuing the people that attacked them. Your attempt to misinform has crashed and burned.

Reply Score: 4

RE[2]: You forgot Google
by Shadowself on Sun 3rd Nov 2013 18:57 UTC in reply to "RE: You forgot Google"
Shadowself Member since:
2013-11-02

And you, sir, forgot to mention that Motorola, AFTER being bought by Google, did sue. Yes, Google did not sue, but that is because Motorola is still a separate company that is just owned by Google. Thus, Motorola, as the patent holder, did the suing. But only a fool would believe that Googld did not pull the strings (as Motorola did not sue until after Google bought them).

Reply Score: 3

RE[3]: You forgot Google
by tonny on Mon 4th Nov 2013 05:07 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: You forgot Google"
tonny Member since:
2011-12-22

If I remember correctly, Motorola sue because the opposite sue first.

Edited 2013-11-04 05:07 UTC

Reply Score: 1

RE[4]: You forgot Google
by majipoor on Mon 4th Nov 2013 11:44 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: You forgot Google"
majipoor Member since:
2009-01-22

Then you don't remember well: in the Motorola vs Apple case, Motorola did sue first.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smartphone_wars

"2010, Oct 06: Motorola sues Apple over 18 patents, and files an ITC complaint against Apple over 6 of them."

Reply Score: 2

Comment by Nelson
by Nelson on Sat 2nd Nov 2013 21:23 UTC
Nelson
Member since:
2005-11-29

Google can end this if they want. Just buy BBRY for 4-5 billion.

They'll pay one way or another.

Reply Score: 3

RE: Comment by Nelson
by Alfman on Sat 2nd Nov 2013 22:05 UTC in reply to "Comment by Nelson "
Alfman Member since:
2011-01-28

Nelson,

"Google can end this if they want. Just buy BBRY for 4-5 billion."

I suspect google could afford to buy a larger patent arsenal that would help them in court against opponents. However I doubt many of us would think that that would be the end of it. Patent litigation is an endless cycle that perpetually continues to escalate, with more and more wasteful spending for no good reason other than to ensure the next company can't obliterate you in the courtroom.

The laws are absolutely to blame for this, and in turn so are the corporations who bought them. Meanwhile the lawyers are loving all of it.


"They'll pay one way or another."

True enough.

Reply Score: 5

RE[2]: Comment by Nelson
by Nelson on Sat 2nd Nov 2013 22:15 UTC in reply to "RE: Comment by Nelson "
Nelson Member since:
2005-11-29

I suspect Google felt that way when they bought Moto, but as they've learned not all patents are made the same.

They paid over twice as much for a useless trove of patents.

I don't think the laws will change anytime soon, so in the meantime they have to play ball intelligently.


BTW the reason I suggested buying BBRY is because they're a consortium member, so it'd grant Google a license.

Edited 2013-11-02 22:15 UTC

Reply Score: 2

RE: Comment by Nelson
by Vanders on Sun 3rd Nov 2013 00:16 UTC in reply to "Comment by Nelson "
Vanders Member since:
2005-07-06

What should Google "pay" for, precisely? Do you think patents are some sort of divine retribution?

Reply Score: 3

RE[2]: Comment by Nelson
by Nelson on Sun 3rd Nov 2013 01:16 UTC in reply to "RE: Comment by Nelson "
Nelson Member since:
2005-11-29

A patent license or an acquisition charge to buy BBRY and themselves into the consortium.

I meant "pay" in a purely financial sense.

Reply Score: 2

RE: Comment by Nelson
by acobar on Sun 3rd Nov 2013 12:35 UTC in reply to "Comment by Nelson "
acobar Member since:
2005-11-15

Oh yeah, pay for protection, it is perfectly fine, like people are supposed to do when approached by mafia.

Really, the difference between some ridiculous patents, and not all of them are so, and mafia practices is that, "somehow", villains are allowed by law to use the former to sell you something you really do not need to extract money and the latter is rightfully appointed by most of the society as an unacceptable exercise of power.

Reply Score: 3

RE[2]: Comment by Nelson
by Nelson on Sun 3rd Nov 2013 13:15 UTC in reply to "RE: Comment by Nelson "
Nelson Member since:
2005-11-29

I don't understand why you're replying to my comment as if your emotionally charged thicket of equivocal bullshit mattered to me.

I think Google made serious strategic missteps and offered a way they could fix it. Your response has nothing to do with my point and everything to do with your delusion.

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: Comment by Nelson
by acobar on Sun 3rd Nov 2013 22:54 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Comment by Nelson "
acobar Member since:
2005-11-15

First of, my argument was really simple, the attack path they chose to carry on Google, at least as of now and from what I read, is based on patents so generic that they should not be granted. So, they want money from something Google really should not need as they are asking money from trivial generic things. This is not far from "protection" mafia sells in the way that they try to force you to buy something that does not carry a real value.

Second, I come here to read different "opinions" about technology and other things I like, I don't have a "need" to agree or see things the way most do. Sometimes I think my arguments stand and sometimes I fell luck to get corrected and learn something new. I rarely feel personally attacked like you so frequently do when someone disagree with you, grow up and try, at least, to understand that people may have a different view of the world, we are not talking about math here, in which case, a Q.E.D would be easier to provide.

And finally, most of your comments seems to fulfill your agenda, your very own interests and, at least to me, they lack the needed detachment and logical argumentation that would entitle them to carry any value. Not that you should be "worried" about it, of course.

Reply Score: 2

RE[4]: Comment by Nelson
by Nelson on Sun 3rd Nov 2013 23:50 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Comment by Nelson "
Nelson Member since:
2005-11-29

My comment stems from yours having absolutely nothing to do with the central part of my argument and being largely an aside.

Even if you had carefully examined all of the asserted patents in question (you have not) and cited exactly where they were broad, trivial, or had prior art (no, no, and no), it would've been unrelated to anything I was talking about.

Your personal opinions do not matter because you are not the Judge presiding over the case. The reality is that there are rules of the road with patents, rules industry players must abide by.

Your distaste for such rules is utterly irrelevant and non constructive, whereas my suggestions have everything to do with the realities of the impending litigation and operate within that statutory framework.

I'd probably be less annoyed if you were saying something that others haven't already regurgitated many times, bur you aren't. There's nothing new of value here.

Reply Score: 3

RE[5]: Comment by Nelson
by acobar on Mon 4th Nov 2013 00:13 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Comment by Nelson "
acobar Member since:
2005-11-15

We have to wait and see if your argument is really valid. US$ 4,5 billion is a lot of money. Oracle thought that they could make more than US$ 7 billion and got nothing, so to speak.

Granted, the case here is different and, of course, I based my opinion on what was vented by news sites. People here are labeling Google as amateurs on legal bases, I don't believe on that. Lets wait and see how it will develop, though.

Reply Score: 0

RE: Comment by Nelson
by Beta on Sun 3rd Nov 2013 13:55 UTC in reply to "Comment by Nelson "
Beta Member since:
2005-07-06

So now you have Blackberry shares?

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Comment by Nelson
by Nelson on Sun 3rd Nov 2013 14:06 UTC in reply to "RE: Comment by Nelson "
Nelson Member since:
2005-11-29

I'm actually shorting a ton of BBRY shares. At first I was underwater like 8% on my investment, but recently that almost broken even (-0.65%)

I don't think BBRY will survive to be quite frank with you, and with the Fairfax deal seeming to have trouble finding participants...things could get ugly really soon.

http://www.businessweek.com/news/2013-11-01/fairfax-said-short-of-b...

If the deal falls through (which I expect), shares will plumment and I'll walk away with a smile and a fast buck.

My NOK shares are pretty much amazing right now though, I recently opened up a new position with them and I'm up almost 14%. Expecting that to continue through the close of the Microsoft deal -- the shareholders meeting where they approve of the deal should send that up pretty nicely.

Edited 2013-11-03 14:09 UTC

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: Comment by Nelson
by Nelson on Mon 4th Nov 2013 14:38 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Comment by Nelson "
Nelson Member since:
2005-11-29

LOL BBRY shares just tanked today, the Fairfax deal fell through. I shorted at 7.70 and its currently about a dollar under that.

Q.E.D.

Reply Score: 3

Comment by Stephen!
by Stephen! on Sat 2nd Nov 2013 23:09 UTC
Stephen!
Member since:
2007-11-24

The EU probably doesn't trust Microsoft anyway. They did violate the browser ballot agreement.

Reply Score: 2

jockm
Member since:
2012-12-22

I appreciate that OSNews isn't strictly a news site (despite the name), but these last posts have seriously blurred news and opinion.

I come to OSNews to learn things, form my own opinions, and possibly discuss them; not to get your opinions. Ideally you should have a personal blog where you post that kind of thing, but at the very least put this kind of editorial in a specific (and clearly labeled) opinion piece.

Reply Score: 5

tylerdurden Member since:
2009-03-17

Agree completely, unfortunately it is safe to assume that the OS in OSnews is silent.

Reply Score: 2

TechGeek Member since:
2006-01-14

I appreciate that OSNews isn't strictly a news site (despite the name), but these last posts have seriously blurred news and opinion.

I come to OSNews to learn things, form my own opinions, and possibly discuss them; not to get your opinions. Ideally you should have a personal blog where you post that kind of thing, but at the very least put this kind of editorial in a specific (and clearly labeled) opinion piece.



This piece really isn't that blurry. He posted actions from the same parties that contradict each other. His opinion that they are lying scumbags is really inconsequential.

Reply Score: 1

jockm Member since:
2012-12-22

In which case the two quotes speak for themselves. I don't wan't Thom's opinion, I want to make up my own. The same with his "I told you they were patent trolls" comment in a previous story.

If OSNews is to be Thom's personal soapbox, then I want no part of it. It just feels like OSNews lost its way.

Reply Score: 2

TechGeek Member since:
2006-01-14

To be fair, every news site, tv news anchor, and pretty much every other source of information has an opinion attached to it. Thom does nothing to hide that its his opinion. And since he is the editor, its his choice as to the format. Why do you act like Thom shouldn't put his opinion here?

Edited 2013-11-04 04:28 UTC

Reply Score: 2

jockm Member since:
2012-12-22

I disagree, traditional journalism may have an opinion in the selection of news, it is supposed to maintain an objective viewpoint, and clearly separate news and opinion.

I don't argue that it is Thom's right to do anything he wants with OSNews, I am saying it isn't a good idea. If Thom wants to write an opinion piece, then go for it and label it as such.

Reply Score: 1

Comment by ilovebeer
by ilovebeer on Sun 3rd Nov 2013 02:44 UTC
ilovebeer
Member since:
2011-08-08

I'm so sick of all this patent crap. ALL these companies are "patent trolls" and they ALL do the same thing to each other. That's not what bothers me though. Until the laws are changed, this is what happens. If they want to play musical chairs in one big game of reach-around or butt-f*ck, so be it. It's the constant whining & crying about the whole thing that's really annoying imo. If people are truly that upset about it then they should be pro-active in getting the laws changed. Instead of posting a constant stream of whining, how about posting a constant stream of ways to actively participate in getting things changed?

Reply Score: 2

Stop winging, change the laws
by shotsman on Sun 3rd Nov 2013 07:42 UTC
shotsman
Member since:
2005-07-22

and all this will go away.

Companies have a fidicuary duty to maximise shareholder value. This includes going after IP violators hence the litigation. Whilst there is a legal avaune to persue then litigation like this is no suprise and will contiue.

Back in a past life I was one of seven named inventors on a patent relating to video RAMDAC's (long expired). We filed not for the money but for the personal kudos it would give us on our CV's. We worked for a pretty ethical company long since defunct.

So, is changing the law going to be plain sailing?


Not really. Big corporations pay millions of $$$ to Politicians so called 're-election campaigns' just to stop this reform.
If I had my way, anyone who had received more than say $5k from a company should be unable to vote on any legisltation that affected said company in any material way.

Don't just blame the owners of RockStar. Eveyone including Google is partially to blame. Do you really think that Google will sit idly by while someone infringes their patents? Dream on sunshine.

Reply Score: 2

Soulbender Member since:
2005-08-18

We worked for a pretty ethical company long since defunct.


Rambus? ;)
No wait...holy hell!. Rambus is still around. That must constitute some kind of catastrophic failure for the capitalist model.

Reply Score: 2

shotsman Member since:
2005-07-22

Nah it wasn't Rambus. The patent was applied for in 1980 so it predates even the 1st IBM PC.

Reply Score: 2

coming soon
by shotsman on Sun 3rd Nov 2013 18:26 UTC
shotsman
Member since:
2005-07-22

Hold the Presses

Google to file suit against Microsoft, Apple, every man and his dog for wilfull violation of about a thousand patents.

I know that this is speculation but is it all that unlikely?

Google have (so far) kept their powder dry. I can see a couple of reasons for this suit.

1) to get Google over a barrel and hurt them bad.
2) to get Google to get down off the fence and decide if they want to fight Rockstar or continue to let the likes of Samsung do their battles for them?

I know the above is a generalisation and a simplification but the words 'smoking them out'(them being google) come to mind.

Google should have (IMHO) taken on MS over the claims that MS has over Android several years ago. I am of the opinion that if they had done so, this action might have been avoided.

Reply Score: 2

RE: coming soon
by MOS6510 on Sun 3rd Nov 2013 18:34 UTC in reply to "coming soon"
MOS6510 Member since:
2011-05-12

Or: if they could have, they would have.

It seems the plan was to buy Motorola and sue over SEP/FRAND patents and that didn't work. That move proved to be a (financial) blunder (so far).

If they had other and better options, why not use those instead of wasting 12 billion on Motorola?

Reply Score: 3

RE[2]: coming soon
by tonny on Mon 4th Nov 2013 05:17 UTC in reply to "RE: coming soon"
tonny Member since:
2011-12-22

The move is a blunder because the one suing is google. Contrarily (the one suing is Apple or Microsoft), it will work, I guess. These companies (APPL, MS) are experts in this kind of fields.

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: coming soon
by MOS6510 on Mon 4th Nov 2013 05:48 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: coming soon"
MOS6510 Member since:
2011-05-12

If they are experts Google should have taken notice that Apple and Microsoft don't tend to sue over SEPs.

Google's problem, with regards to anything they do be it legal, products, privacy, etc..., is that they do before they think.

Like suing over SEPs, breaking privacy and then paying the judge off, providing us services and then canceling them, buying Motorola and then trying to figure out what to do with them, etc...

Reply Score: 3

v Anti-Apple
by fabrica64 on Mon 4th Nov 2013 14:15 UTC