Linked by Thom Holwerda on Thu 20th Dec 2012 23:11 UTC, submitted by someone
Permalink for comment 546032
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Features
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/20/13 11:29 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/18/13 21:33 UTC
Linked by David Adams on 05/16/13 4:23 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/11/13 21:41 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/08/13 14:22 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/02/13 15:28 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 04/29/13 21:06 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 04/24/13 22:24 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 04/18/13 11:21 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 04/16/13 9:29 UTC
More Features »
Sponsored Links



Member since:
2005-11-29
Most people were completely shocked at the callous disregard Samsung had for their FRAND commitment.
Apple's patents are not under FRAND, so they have no obligation to be Fair, Reasonable, and Non Discriminatory...hell, they don't have to license it at all.
Samsung made the CHOICE to enter a FRAND agreement. Choice. The benefits of receiving royalties from almost ubiquitous standards is that you must license them reasonably.
I'm glad the EC stepped in and put the breaks on this whole thing.
Samsung was offered a chance to license Apple's patents, that's an olive branch that does not get extended to everyone. They refused.
Apple is likely willing to license whatever patents Samsung was counter-suing with, but only under the stipulated FRAND terms.
Let's be clear: This isn't a choice Samsung has. They are completely boxed in. Take a license, Samsung.