Linked by Thom Holwerda on Thu 1st Sep 2011 21:48 UTC, submitted by glarepate
Thread beginning with comment 488051
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[4]: Right back atcha: You clearly don't get it ...
by smashIt on Fri 2nd Sep 2011 02:26
in reply to "RE[3]: Right back atcha: You clearly don't get it ..."
You might have a point there. Except Apple hasn't actually paid for those FRAND licenses yet. Maybe they should have done that before they started selling the product.
apple didn't even have the rights to the iPhone trademark and they still went on sale with it.
they just don't give a shit about other peoples IP
RE[4]: Right back atcha: You clearly don't get it ...
by lemur2 on Fri 2nd Sep 2011 02:28
in reply to "RE[3]: Right back atcha: You clearly don't get it ..."
You might have a point there. Except Apple hasn't actually paid for those FRAND licenses yet. Maybe they should have done that before they started selling the product. Now its just one more brick to hit Apple with. I don't have much sympathy for Apple on this.
Not only that, but also consider that Apple are attacking other companies, and trying to get competing products banned, based on simple elementary concepts such as the fact that tablets and phones are rectangles, and that one needs to scroll when the text to be displayed is longer than the screen.
In what way are Apple's alleged GUI patent complaints any less required for interoperability (with people) than any that Apple are complaining about as required for interoperability with wireless networks?
RE[4]: Right back atcha: You clearly don't get it ...
by lemur2 on Fri 2nd Sep 2011 04:02
in reply to "RE[3]: Right back atcha: You clearly don't get it ..."
You might have a point there. Except Apple hasn't actually paid for those FRAND licenses yet. Maybe they should have done that before they started selling the product. Now its just one more brick to hit Apple with. I don't have much sympathy for Apple on this.
One would think that it is perfectly Fair, Reasonable, And entirely Non-Discriminatory, to sue parties who have not paid for a FRAND license, when other parties have paid.
Edited 2011-09-02 04:02 UTC
RE[5]: Right back atcha: You clearly don't get it ...
by BallmerKnowsBest on Fri 2nd Sep 2011 14:48
in reply to "RE[4]: Right back atcha: You clearly don't get it ..."
"You might have a point there. Except Apple hasn't actually paid for those FRAND licenses yet. Maybe they should have done that before they started selling the product. Now its just one more brick to hit Apple with. I don't have much sympathy for Apple on this.
One would think that it is perfectly Fair, Reasonable, And entirely Non-Discriminatory, to sue parties who have not paid for a FRAND license, when other parties have paid. "
When it comes to Apple, the iFanboys have a completely warped notion of "fairness". They don't really want fairness for Apple, they want special treatment - and "unfair" is when Apple isn't given ENOUGH special treatment.
It's like a collective form of narcissistic personality disorder. Apple's complaint amounts to "but we're special, how DARE you expect us play by the same rules as everyone else?!?!?!?"




Member since:
2006-01-14
You might have a point there. Except Apple hasn't actually paid for those FRAND licenses yet. Maybe they should have done that before they started selling the product. Now its just one more brick to hit Apple with. I don't have much sympathy for Apple on this.