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 539530
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[3]: Dubious argument
by Yehppael on Mon 22nd Oct 2012 15:23 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Dubious argument"
Member since:

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:

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