Linked by Thom Holwerda on Mon 22nd Oct 2012 13:36 UTC
Thread beginning with comment 539528
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.
They aren't "technically" FRAND nor are they FRAND in fairyland either.
The comparison is nonsensical, not hypocritical.
The comparison is nonsensical, not hypocritical.
Well, I agree with the first, but the second is a matter of opinion in my view. This isn't a legal question (Apple are perfectly within their rights to ask as much as they want). The question of whether it's consistent for them to demand more for their essential patents than they're willing to give for FRAND patents is dependent on whether the requirement is by virtue of them being FRAND (making it nonsensical), or them being essential (making it hypocritical).
RE[5]: Dubious argument
by jared_wilkes on Mon 22nd Oct 2012 15:56
in reply to "RE[4]: Dubious argument"
What makes them essential? NOTHING besides some butthurt Fandroids wanting free access to them. Half of the time they will argue that overscroll bounce is useless and not worthy of copying, the other half of the time you want to describe them as ESSENTIAL?
That's nonsense. Popular does not equal essential.
RE[5]: Dubious argument
by darcysmith on Mon 22nd Oct 2012 16:28
in reply to "RE[4]: Dubious argument"





Member since:
2011-04-25
They aren't "technically" FRAND nor are they FRAND in fairyland either.
The comparison is nonsensical, not hypocritical.