Linked by Thom Holwerda on Thu 3rd Jan 2013 20:04 UTC
Legal "As was widely expected, the Federal Trade Commission announced this morning that it has reached a settlement agreement with Google, bringing the commission's antitrust investigations into the search giant to a close. Two different areas of Google's business were being explored: the way it prioritized search results, and the way that Google had sought injunctions against devices that were thought to have infringed upon standards-essential patents from Motorola." Would have loved to see the FRAND system crumble, though. Let the patent mess explode - to change the system, we need disruption, not appeasement.
Thread beginning with comment 547178
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Member since:

Or do you think it's beneficial to innovation that rounded corners and crazy software patents can block entire products and lead to billions of dollars in damages, while Apple can just freely take whatever it wants from Samsung's FRAND patents without having to pay a dime - for years now?

You can't see the utter delusion, propaganda, and falsehood in this statement can you? You don't realize that there is no logic there so you have to resort to the rhetoric, do you?

There have not been substantial, meaningful bans; there is not billions of dollars in damages (slightly more than 1, likely to decrease, and for a business with tens of billions of dollars annually). Apple isn't free to take whatever it wants, etc. Apple has had victories, legally upheld ones, but they haven't had the chilling affect you need to proclaim is happening.

Reply Parent Score: 2

Thom_Holwerda Member since:

"Can". Read up on the definition of the verb.

Reply Parent Score: 1

jared_wilkes Member since:

Arguing based on on the force of a hypothetical possibility rather than the reality surrounding you... This is rhetoric and propaganda.

Theoretically, Samsung COULD have banned all Apple products the world over for something they agreed to deny no one, but fortunately governments and judicial systems sometimes work as they should.

Considering your massive misreading of today's decision and your utter hatred and misunderstanding of the American legal system, I will get my prescriptions for what CAN and, actually, WILL happen in ongoing legal battles from someone else, thank you.

(Seriously, you claim everyone agrees with you BUT the twelve people on the US jury? You keep calling the US judicial system "medieval" as if the context doesn't merely refer to the age of its longevity rather than what Marcellus Wallace would deem "medieval"? Can you state anything without massive levels of rhetoric and propaganda?)

Edited 2013-01-04 01:02 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 2