Apple, HTC sign cross-licensing agreement, end lawsuits
Linked by Thom Holwerda on Sun 11th Nov 2012 12:48 UTC
Legal Interesting news in the middle of the night: Apple and HTC have announced they've settled all their patent disputes, bringing an end to all running lawsuits between the two companies. The companies signed a ten-year cross-licensing deal. Considering Apple's legal assault on Android hasn't been going particularly well, this really shouldn't come as a surprise.
E-mail Print r 2   · Read More · 53 Comment(s) http://osne.ws/khd
Thread beginning with comment 541979
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[4]: Not going well?
by Thom_Holwerda on Sun 11th Nov 2012 16:40 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Not going well?"
Thom_Holwerda
Member since:
2005-06-29

"Do you have a source for your claim of an anti-trust investigation against Samsung? I've not heard about this.


Why do people do this, btw? Can it just stop? If you know someone is posting something that is actually wrong, please refute them with the facts and links, or challenge them to substantiate their false claims with supporting evidence. This is fine. But if you are ignorant of the facts, don't ask someone who is equipped with the facts to educate you. Do the research yourself. Googling "Samsung antitrust patents" takes 2 seconds. "

People do this because, uhm, that's how arguing works. Maybe not in, say, politics, but in the real world, people want proof. You're the one making the claim, you're the one who has to back it up.

Of course, this was a widely known fact, but even then, the request is valid.

Reply Parent Score: 4

RE[5]: Not going well?
by jared_wilkes on Sun 11th Nov 2012 16:49 in reply to "RE[4]: Not going well?"
jared_wilkes Member since:
2011-04-25

It's lazy. This may be how arguing works for you, but for me, it's a way to lose an argument. You don't know the facts, want me to help you learn the facts, and are questioning the validity of my facts based on ZERO evidence? You lose.

For myself, if someone raises a point that I'm ignorant of, I don't think doubting the point is a rebuttal. I think: heh, I should learn about that so I can properly respond.

The end result of asking for factual support of a well-publicized fact is demonstration that you are ignorant and unwilling or unequipped to educate yourself.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[5]: Not going well?
by jared_wilkes on Sun 11th Nov 2012 17:04 in reply to "RE[4]: Not going well?"
jared_wilkes Member since:
2011-04-25

Maybe not in, say, politics, but in the real world, people want proof. You're the one making the claim, you're the one who has to back it up.


This sticks in my craw. I'm not making a "claim." If someone wants to engage me in an "argument," they better not be unaware of significant, well-established facts key to the argument. Moreover, if they do intend to question my "claims" they should do so based on some evidence of their own, not ignorance. It's just as easy (in fact, far easier) to say that it was darknexus questioning my "claim" without any evidence for or against this "claim;" therefore, it is his responsible to demonstrate the smallest iota of evidence to raise a question in the first place. The notion that any and all facts must be proven with x number of links if questioned by someone who is ignorant is pure silliness — every discussion would be a regression to complete idiocy, burdened by citation after citation. Certainly, you wouldn't like responding to every question asked of your unlinked "claims," particularly those which are factual.

Edited 2012-11-11 17:22 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[6]: Not going well?
by Tony Swash on Sun 11th Nov 2012 19:32 in reply to "RE[5]: Not going well?"
Tony Swash Member since:
2009-08-22

"Maybe not in, say, politics, but in the real world, people want proof. You're the one making the claim, you're the one who has to back it up.


This sticks in my craw. I'm not making a "claim." If someone wants to engage me in an "argument," they better not be unaware of significant, well-established facts key to the argument. Moreover, if they do intend to question my "claims" they should do so based on some evidence of their own, not ignorance. It's just as easy (in fact, far easier) to say that it was darknexus questioning my "claim" without any evidence for or against this "claim;" therefore, it is his responsible to demonstrate the smallest iota of evidence to raise a question in the first place. The notion that any and all facts must be proven with x number of links if questioned by someone who is ignorant is pure silliness — every discussion would be a regression to complete idiocy, burdened by citation after citation. Certainly, you wouldn't like responding to every question asked of your unlinked "claims," particularly those which are factual. "

Sometimes people are genuinely ignorant of, and surprised by, the facts. They should in an ideal world be thus prompted to go and check for themselves but are often too lazy.

Sometimes people don't like the facts and like to impugn their validity through the tedious rhetorical flourish of asking for 'proof'. Those people don't go looking because they think, correctly, that they won't like what they will find and are hoping you won't bother.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[6]: Not going well?
by itanic on Tue 13th Nov 2012 19:59 in reply to "RE[5]: Not going well?"
itanic Member since:
2008-08-03

Because logically speaking, it's impossible to prove that something does not exist. Therefore, the onus is on the person making an assertion to provide supporting evidence.

Just as it would have only taken 2 seconds for the person challenging the claim to verify it himself, it only took 2 seconds to verify it for him and to illustrate his ignorance on the topic in the process. Hardly a significant cost, in comparison to a situation where nobody is supporting any of their claims because everyone operates on the assumption that everyone else possesses all the same knowledge.

Reply Parent Score: 1