Linked by Thom Holwerda on Mon 22nd Oct 2012 13:36 UTC
Legal "One of the exhibits Samsung has now made public tells an interesting tale. It's the slide presentation that Apple showed Samsung when it first tried (and failed) to get Samsung to license Apple's patents prior to the start of litigation. While some of the numbers were earlier reported on when the exhibit was used at trial, the slides themselves provide more data - specifically on the difference between what Apple wanted Samsung to pay for Windows phones and for Android phones. The slides punch huge holes in Apple's FRAND arguments. Apple and Microsoft complain to regulators about FRAND rates being excessive and oppressive at approximately $6 per unit, or 2.4%; but the Apple offer was not only at a much higher rate, it targeted Android in a way that seems deliberately designed to destroy its ability to compete in the marketplace." Eagerly awaiting the 45 paragraph comment explaining how this is completely fair and not hypocritical at all. Bonus points if it includes something about Eric Schmidt being on Apple's board, and, double bonus point if it mentions one of the QWERTY Android prototypes. Mega Epic Bonus if it somehow manages to draw a line from Edison, Tesla, to Jobs.
Thread beginning with comment 539520
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[2]: Dubious argument
by Hiev on Mon 22nd Oct 2012 14:48 UTC in reply to "RE: Dubious argument"
Hiev
Member since:
2005-09-27

What about the vandalism to Open Streeth Maps? Google never came out with an explanation, till now, they are still "investigating" the issue.

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[3]: Dubious argument
by Yehppael on Mon 22nd Oct 2012 15:23 in reply to "RE[2]: Dubious argument"
Yehppael Member since:
2012-08-01

Google is a multinational company, with thousands of employees, deals in billions and the word "Google" is probably known and used more than any other word after "God" and "sex".

To say they engaged in some petty vandalism is laughable.

I googled ;) "open street map vandalism" read a few articles, interesting, no doubt they believe, and maybe rightfully so, that some Google employees were responsible for this, but it takes an impressive imagination to believe it was corporate strategy or something more coordinated than some drunk idiots.

I'm not saying anything about their ethics, just plain market strategy, Google is doing brilliantly on almost every field they play, this particular incident reeks of stupidity. Or something else.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[4]: Dubious argument
by Hiev on Mon 22nd Oct 2012 15:28 in reply to "RE[3]: Dubious argument"
Hiev Member since:
2005-09-27

Blah, blah blah, where is Google's explanation?

No where, they did admit it was a contractor from them.

How does it feel to suffert the Stocolm syndrome?

Reply Parent Score: -1

RE[3]: Dubious argument
by cyrilleberger on Tue 23rd Oct 2012 09:14 in reply to "RE[2]: Dubious argument"
cyrilleberger Member since:
2006-02-01

Maybe they do engage in openstreetmap vandalism. But I can tell you, that if they do, they don't do it from an IP that can be traced right back to their ass. It is an Internet-age company, they know about traceability.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[4]: Dubious argument
by Hiev on Tue 23rd Oct 2012 13:56 in reply to "RE[3]: Dubious argument"
Hiev Member since:
2005-09-27

Well, they were stupid enough to get caught stealing wireless information from their Google cars, and stupid enough to get caught working around the security of safary, and stupid enough to get caught not deleting the information they collected from Google cars after they say they did.

So, I see no difference here.

Reply Parent Score: 3