|
|
|
| Authored by: calris74 on Friday, July 27 2012 @ 01:44 AM EDT |
I agree with the view that this article can come across as
biased towards Samsung. I think that, at least, the text of
the apple pre-trial brief should be included in the article.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, July 27 2012 @ 02:04 AM EDT |
Considering he's summarizes the claims made by Samsung, one
struggles to think how that task could be accomplished without
favoring the authoring party, right?
The question is, are the claims made by Samsung reasonable and
valid. They certainly sound reasonable to me. And heaven
forbid if the judge/jury don't, then I hesitate to imagine how
terrible the market will become with a sanctioned monopoly
handed to benevolent cum malevolent dictatorial company in
charge of tending the "walled garden". [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, July 27 2012 @ 07:13 AM EDT |
Broadcom's chips aren't in original iPhone, iPhone 3G and
iPhone 4 and that's all that's mentioned now. Since Apple had
a hissy fit and forced Broadcom to reveal that Samsung was
working on suspending their license, because it did not
account for Apple increased number of sales.
But this is on patents that Apple has steadfastly refused to
pay anything on. Although prior to 2009, on one of Samsung's
SEP's they had licensed till the switch. That's when Samsung
finally broke their silence (not wanting to upset a major
customer) and demanded they pay FRAND.
They're not even asking for any outrageous fees either. Just
what every other phone maker pays. Apple thinks they because
they're high volume they deserve a far lower fee per device.
But Samsung believes this is all just a ploy to make them look
like the bad guy in wanting to get paid! [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, July 27 2012 @ 07:25 AM EDT |
If simply reporting the facts appears to be anti-Apple to you, I think that
tells you something about Apple.
I've never paid for Apple product despite many friends being total fanboys for
many years as I've always considered them to be overpriced and overhyped.
But the recent litigious nature of Apple makes me wonder if they're jealous of
Micro$ofts "evil empire" reputation and are trying to out-do them in
nastiness.
These attacks on Samsung aren't doing Apple's reputation any good at all - if
simply making the best product is no longer enough for them, you've got to
wonder if Apple have peaked.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, July 28 2012 @ 05:02 AM EDT |
I may be recalling
wrong but I thought Apple's arguments were that
the frand patents that
use are sub-licensed by Broadcom who's chips Apple
purchase and use,
so they already have licenses for these
patents.
Well, one annoying thing about patents is that each
manufacturer of products is responsible for royalties and
non-infringement.
If patented unlicensed technology can be found in a
product (and did not just contribute to creation of the product), the patent
bearer can sue for royalties/damages. While the defendant might sue the
manufacturer for remuneration in case he had reasonable cause to consider the
product free from the rights of others, it does not help the case brought by the
patent holder.
If the scope of the patent is not exhausted in a
particular circuit, then people who use this circuit in circumstances covered by
the patent need to negotiate their own use licenses.
For example, if I sell
a camera circuit for use in a mobile phone, and somebody has a patent on using
camera circuits in a mobile phone, it is the responsibility of the buyer to
acquire the necessary licenses, even though the circuit is intended for
use in phones and may claim so in its application notes and have suitable
interfaces and form factor. [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
