Linked by Thom Holwerda on Tue 3rd Jul 2012 09:37 UTC
Legal So let me get this straight. Nokia claims that the Nexus 7 infringes upon standard essential wifi patents, and that Asus does not have a license. How in the name of hell is it possible that Asus has been shipping a gazillion wifi-enabled products every year for god knows how long now, and only now does Nokia notice? Wait - of course. Silly me. If you can't compete, litigate. D'oh.
Thread beginning with comment 524965
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[3]: So?
by Thom_Holwerda on Tue 3rd Jul 2012 10:39 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: So?"
Thom_Holwerda
Member since:
2005-06-29

Two things. First, they've made no indication they're actually going to sue. This is in response to questioning. They simply confirmed ASUS and Google are not licensees.


They're not litigating, you're right. This is the first step though, as history has taught us. Pattern recognition: when a technology company is in a downward spiral, they start to sue. It's inevitable like the tides rolling in.

Why is Motorola waiting until now to sue over FRAND? Because it feels like it.


Because they have to deal with aggressive patent lawsuits and extortion by people who can't compete on merit. Motorola sued defensively, not offensively.

Unbelievable that you can defend such an egregious abuse of software patents. You talk about the evils of software patents, well this is arguably the most nefarious.


Right, a defensive lawsuit is more nefarious than Microsoft's long-filename bullshit or Apple slide-to-unlock nonsense.

Right. If somebody starts punching me in the face and I happen to have a bat in my hands, sure as hell I'm going to use it to defend myself.

Edited 2012-07-03 10:40 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 4

RE[4]: So?
by Nelson on Tue 3rd Jul 2012 10:49 in reply to "RE[3]: So?"
Nelson Member since:
2005-11-29

Its amusing to watch you defend something you can't stand because you refuse to admit youre wrong. It really is.

You were against software patents before you were for them. :-)

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[5]: So?
by Thom_Holwerda on Tue 3rd Jul 2012 11:06 in reply to "RE[4]: So?"
Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

Its amusing to watch you defend something you can't stand because you refuse to admit youre wrong. It really is.


As usual, you really seem to misunderstand plain language. I made it quite clear that using FRAND patents sucks, but that I *understand* it because it's all in self-defense; the punch/bat example is pretty clear. Using a bat to beat someone is bad. Using a bat to defend yourself while you're being attacked is in essence still violence and thus, bad, but it's *understandable* considering the circumstances.

Really, this isn't rocket science.

You were against software patents before you were for them. :-)


1) Motorola's patents cover hardware as far as I know.
2) I'm against software patents, but when used defensively, it's entirely understandable. That doesn't mean I approve of it (re:bat example), but it does mean I can sympathise with the situation.

Again, these are all basic life lessons that can be applied across the board. Speeding is bad, but when you're trying to get a pregnant woman in labour to a hospital, it's understandable. Stealing is bad, but when you're starving and you steal bread, it's understandable. Violence is bad, but when you're being attacked, self-defense is understandable.

I could go on for bloody hours with these examples, but I'm getting the idea I'll have more luck telling a floortile to flip.

Reply Parent Score: 12

RE[5]: So?
by andydread on Tue 3rd Jul 2012 16:10 in reply to "RE[4]: So?"
andydread Member since:
2009-02-02

You are still missing the point. No one is going around launching lawsuits based on FRAND patents. everyone here is using their FRAND portfolio as a defensive measure except of-course Microsoft/Nokia. Motorola is using their portfolio defensively Apple Microsft and Nokia and their related trolls MOSAID(MS) and Digitude(Apple) are the aggressors here. You are either being disingenuous or willfully ignorant.

Reply Parent Score: 7

RE[4]: So?
by allanregistos on Wed 4th Jul 2012 04:40 in reply to "RE[3]: So?"
allanregistos Member since:
2011-02-10

Like this one:
http://www.crunchdot.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/610a1ff994locke...

Apple innovates, yes, the picture shows that it's heavy and difficult to unlock that particular door, while Apple's design is very beautiful and easy to use, you only need to slide your finger, and lo and behold, you can use your cellphone.

Apple's argument must be:
Cellphone != House. Therefore arguing against them about "slide to unlock" prior art is nonsense.

Reply Parent Score: 0

RE[4]: So?
by lucas_maximus on Wed 4th Jul 2012 09:37 in reply to "RE[3]: So?"
lucas_maximus Member since:
2009-08-18

They're not litigating, you're right. This is the first step though, as history has taught us. Pattern recognition: when a technology company is in a downward spiral, they start to sue. It's inevitable like the tides rolling in.


From the article.

However, unlike Apple, it's doubtful that Nokia will seek injunctions against the Google Nexus 7. Instead, Nokia is more likely to request that Google or Asus obtain the proper licenses.


Lets see what happens.

I personally think the title is alarmist.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[4]: So?
by Fergy on Thu 5th Jul 2012 14:18 in reply to "RE[3]: So?"
Fergy Member since:
2006-04-10

It's inevitable like the tides rolling in.

tide goes in tide goes out: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2BCipg71LbI&feature=player_detailpag...

Edited 2012-07-05 14:19 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 2