|
|
|
| Authored by: jplatt39 on Friday, July 27 2012 @ 09:53 AM EDT |
Please put the correction in the title as in
Mistake -> Correction[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: jplatt39 on Friday, July 27 2012 @ 09:54 AM EDT |
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: jplatt39 on Friday, July 27 2012 @ 09:56 AM EDT |
Please make links clickable. Read the Important Stuff at the bottom of the Post
a Comment Page. In this thread on-topic posts are likely to be ignored.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- "Twitter joke" appeal granted - Authored by: jmc on Friday, July 27 2012 @ 10:27 AM EDT
- How to spot a pedantic programmer - Authored by: ailuromancy on Friday, July 27 2012 @ 11:26 AM EDT
- Ubuntu not the darling anymore - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, July 27 2012 @ 11:59 AM EDT
- Gnome: "Staring into the Abyss" - Authored by: jplatt39 on Friday, July 27 2012 @ 03:34 PM EDT
- Just My 2 cents ... - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, July 27 2012 @ 07:12 PM EDT
- Ditto - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, July 27 2012 @ 07:54 PM EDT
- I'm surprised that it took so long - Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, July 28 2012 @ 11:30 AM EDT
- The Irony - Authored by: artp on Saturday, July 28 2012 @ 12:47 PM EDT
- The Irony - Authored by: N_au on Saturday, July 28 2012 @ 04:25 PM EDT
- Faster than MS-Windows - Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, July 28 2012 @ 04:57 PM EDT
- The Irony - Authored by: Wol on Saturday, July 28 2012 @ 06:10 PM EDT
- The Irony - Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, July 29 2012 @ 11:01 AM EDT
- The Irony - Authored by: UncleVom on Sunday, July 29 2012 @ 11:56 AM EDT
- Don't change your audience - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, July 30 2012 @ 01:06 PM EDT
- Off Topic Here - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, July 27 2012 @ 04:20 PM EDT
- Off Topic Here - Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, July 28 2012 @ 11:59 AM EDT
- Microsoft has ugly FAT - Authored by: SpaceLifeForm on Friday, July 27 2012 @ 05:15 PM EDT
- Twitter double-fault or pwned? - Authored by: SpaceLifeForm on Friday, July 27 2012 @ 06:30 PM EDT
- Rich Guys Say: "GIVE US MORE MONEY ... NOW!" - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, July 27 2012 @ 10:15 PM EDT
- RIAA Knows (But Tried To Hide) That Most 'Unpaid' Music Acquisition Comes From Offline Swapping - Authored by: artp on Saturday, July 28 2012 @ 01:11 AM EDT
- Microsoft’s Lost Decade? - Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, July 28 2012 @ 12:59 PM EDT
- Chinese iPad suit not settled yet - Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, July 28 2012 @ 07:36 PM EDT
- Music Labels Won’t Share Pirate Bay Loot With Artists - Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, July 29 2012 @ 10:59 AM EDT
- Astronaut Sally Ride's partner won't receive government death benefits. - Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, July 29 2012 @ 03:44 PM EDT
| |
| Authored by: jplatt39 on Friday, July 27 2012 @ 09:57 AM EDT |
| [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: cbc on Friday, July 27 2012 @ 10:07 AM EDT |
Don't third parties often get extra consideration on confidentiality since they
are not directly represented and have less control of evidence presented?[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: designerfx on Friday, July 27 2012 @ 10:38 AM EDT |
seeing a near zero patent settlement agreement from MS is
actually not as likely as seeing one where MS is paying the
licensees. After all, why else would they settle when they
know that the costs are nothing and the patents are bogus? I
can't imagine companies are that clueless about patent
shakedowns by now.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: tiger99 on Friday, July 27 2012 @ 11:27 AM EDT |
| That is what it is about. M$ have been bullying half the world and extorting
money from them, mostly in secret. They dare not let the details be seen. Once
the world knows, their extortion plan may be in great difficulty, because
everyone will expect to pay the same rate as the least, not any more. Worse than
that, for M$, maybe even the patents which are allegedly violated will be
exposed, to public ridicule and comprehensive demolition by finding lots of
prior art. M$ are finding their bogus business model under direct attack
here, and not before time.... [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, July 27 2012 @ 12:53 PM EDT |
The judge will note that M$ is currently involved in a lawsuit over reasonable
patent license fees, and point out that hiding such fees behind court orders
does call into question their good faith.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Wrong court. - Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, July 29 2012 @ 05:30 AM EDT
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, July 27 2012 @ 03:23 PM EDT |
PJ makes a very good point: the MS patent strategy of "everything is under
NDA" disadvantages businesses that MS wants to abuse, who would be well
served by exposing their licensing terms. But it goes farther than that: the
strategy also disadvantages consumers, and it's doing so RIGHT NOW, not in the
future.
I would like to see an amicus from someone like Public Interest or FSF making
this exact point. This seems like a good opportunity to attempt to shine some
much-needed light on all those mysterious agreements.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, July 27 2012 @ 03:38 PM EDT |
Well, my guess (worth one share of SCO stock) is that once Wall Street sees the
pittance MS is really getting for patents, the shareholders will not be pleased.
After all, if MS is getting royalties from 70 percent of Android sales, and MS's
share price is still going nowhere, what will the stock price do when it becomes
known that MS may be only charging a pittance for patent compliance? On the
other hand, since MS's share price is going nowhere, maybe Wall Street already
knows. I suspect there are very few secrets Wall Street doesn't know.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, July 27 2012 @ 03:43 PM EDT |
In fact a number of third parties have also filed emergency
motions, RIM and Motorola and Qualcomm most recently, because Samsung has
been
notifying them that they intend to use the licenses the parties signed for
Samsung's FRAND patents at trial, so everyone is going nuts about their trade
secrets.
Sorry, I'm lost here. If Apple's offer to pay something
(undisclosed amount, and
refused) is evidence in this trial, then hanging
everybody's washing out on the
same line would be excellent for judge, jury and
Joe Luser, and could produce
well deserved red faces at several board tables.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, July 27 2012 @ 04:13 PM EDT |
RIM's submission is redacted in various sensitive places.
Qualcomm's appears
wide open, with percentages of net selling price...
Someone who knows what
this means might explain?
Docs from
Justia
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- not found - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, July 27 2012 @ 07:00 PM EDT
- aaargh - Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, July 28 2012 @ 12:12 AM EDT
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, July 28 2012 @ 10:10 AM EDT |
Given how much the FAT filesystem has to be used in storage
systems in order to be compatible with the Windows platform,
I think the FAT patents should be labelled FRAND and be
subject to the same licensing terms as other FRAND patents. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, July 28 2012 @ 06:33 PM EDT |
I seriously want to see those license terms, and I'd go so far
as
to suggest that the public has a right to know what those terms are,
particularly future victims of Microsoft's patent strategy, and I know you
want to know this too, because we've all heard the rumors that Microsoft
licenses on very, very low royalties, just to be able to say to the world that
Android/Linux folks are paying Microsoft for its patents. I'd love to know if
that is true. Plus, if Microsoft paid for Samsung's FRAND patents the fee
Samsung is asking Apple for, on what basis would Microsoft argue in its
litigation against Motorola, that FRAND patents should be paid for at a
greatly reduced royalty?
Based on reading Microsoft's SEC
filings, I believe that when dealing with
certain large companies, which
include Samsung, that Microsoft may have
actually paid them for the
license.
This may sound ridiculous, but I challenge you to find
Microsoft's licensing
income anywhere in their
10Q.
Wayne
http://madhatter.ca
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, July 29 2012 @ 04:52 PM EDT |
Why are NDAs even allowed on patent licensing terms? Patents are supposed to be
public. The terms of their usage/licensing should also be public.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- HERE, HERE! - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, July 30 2012 @ 12:19 PM EDT
- HERE, HERE! - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, August 02 2012 @ 06:02 PM EDT
- Also - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, July 30 2012 @ 04:43 PM EDT
|
|
|
|
