Linked by Thom Holwerda on Tue 19th Mar 2013 09:50 UTC
Legal Nokia has gotten an injunction against HTC in Germany over a patent on a power-saving feature in Qualcomm chips (?!). Nokia's response illustrates why the company started its recent patent offensive: "Nokia is pleased with this decision, which confirms the quality of Nokia's patent portfolio." If nobody buys your phones and your business is failing spectacularly, you have to promote something else of value to paint yourself as an interesting acquisition target. Patents it is, then. If you can't compete, litigate. Update: HTC's statement is pretty damning.
Permalink for comment 555987
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[4]: Don't understanding!
by MOS6510 on Wed 20th Mar 2013 11:03 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Don't understanding!"
Member since:

And the view being expressed is that if you're doing well, spending vast amounts of time and money protecting your patents is less productive from a business standpoint than spending it selling more units to your customers. Seems like a reasonable inference.

I'm pretty sure the people creating Nokia products aren't the same as the ones doing the court cases.

And if you feel that it's absolutely, positively necessary to include words like 'probably', 'likely', etc., just because the expressed opinion can't be proven to be true in 100% of cases, feel free to join in the pissing contest instigated by MOS above. Jeez.

It's my opinion that in communication you should make it clear if something is an opinion and not state it as a fact. Or worse: state it as a fact and attack people who dispute it being a fact.

In a lot of fields it can be terrible confusing if people presented their opinions as facts and rather annoying if things are messed up to claim "well, you should have know it was an opinion". I consider "journalism" a profession where you should make it very clear what is opinion and what is fact. Should the readers be guessing each time what is what?

What if you are out of work and walk around in expensive sneakers. Someone asks me how you got them. I take a guess and think you have stolen them. But in my reply I don't mention it's a guess, but I say, "He stole them". You get upset and I reply, "Well, it was just a guess. That guy seemed smart, he should have known I was guessing".

What is happening here is that a mantra is being repeated. Each time a bad guy sues a good guy the mantra is added to the true fact. The mantra is turned in to dogma. If someone tries to dispute it he is ridiculed and any arguments are waved off.

Now I've been on-line long enough to understand that a lot of people, like you, aren't necessary interested in any background information or bear any interested in the (real) facts and rather have a "victim" to have a go at. Some cheap shots or nasty words to let it be known they are the bad ones and you are the good one like you just did by making it appear Nokia employees put down their screwdrivers to present a court case in Germany.

I guess that won't change, no matter what anyone says or does, but I just hope maybe on this site people can hand out and receive arguments with some level of open mind instead of unleashing insults, hiding behind dogmatic "facts" or playing word games.

Reply Parent Score: 2