|
| Authored by: Zox on Wednesday, November 14 2012 @ 12:28 PM EST |
I don't seem to be able to see what you're talking about in the article above.
Could you give us a quote, or a link, or _something_ to provide context?
Extraordinary claims, after all, require extraordinary proof. And I don't see
anything resembling proof in your post.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, November 14 2012 @ 12:29 PM EST |
Glad you are trying to redefine abuse to fit your needs. Not
to mention that you are lacking any evidence to support your
claim that there is abuse.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: tknarr on Wednesday, November 14 2012 @ 12:32 PM EST |
Where's the abuse? Motorola here wants Microsoft to pay the same rate
everyone else in the industry is paying. Microsoft isn't even willing to
negotiate, they want a court to step in after the fact and change the rules
only for Microsoft to give it favorable rates while leaving everyone else
out of the deal. And they want it one way, Microsoft wants to be cut a special
deal when using everyone else's patents but they don't want anyone else to be
given the same deal on their patents. The abuse here seems to be on Microsoft's
side.
Frankly I put it down to Microsoft and Apple not being used to
being the underdogs in any area, they just don't know how to deal gracefully
with being in a situation where it's the other side that has all the leverage
and they have none. Instead they're throwing tantrums. It resembles a lot the
situation in the playground where there's one bratty kid who's always demanding
that everyone play by his rules or they can't play with his toys, and finally
the other kids all go "Fine, we've got plenty of toys ourselves." and go off to
play without the brat. Now the brat's unhappy that everyone's ignoring him so
he's going whining to the adults to try and get them to force all the
other kids to play with him on his terms. [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: SpaceLifeForm on Wednesday, November 14 2012 @ 01:07 PM EST |
---
You are being MICROattacked, from various angles, in a SOFT manner.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, November 14 2012 @ 01:40 PM EST |
What a strange world that person lives in where opening
negotiations is a type of abuse, whilst running to a court
before even attempting to negotiate or make an offer is
totally fine (all whilst earning money from selling
infringing products with unlicensed technology.)
Reminds me a bit of a certain blogger. Perhaps someone has
been reading his bought-and-paid-for work without critical
faculties engaged.
Alternatively just a troll.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: OpenSourceFTW on Wednesday, November 14 2012 @ 02:05 PM EST |
Please explain where this "abuse" occurred.
Was it when Microsoft refused to negotiate and instead turned to the courts to
"make Motorola play fair" (i.e. license their stuff cheap)? Because
that would appear to be abuse on Microsoft's part, and I would definitely agree
with you.
Or was it the fact that Microsoft first utilized the patents prior to even
considering that they might just need licenses for them, committing the patent
equivalent of piracy. Would definitely agree with you then.
Or finally, was it when the judge said that he would establish new criteria for
making patent deals, thus changing the rules mid-way through the game? I would
also agree with you here.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Wol on Wednesday, November 14 2012 @ 02:46 PM EST |
Motorola opened with a bid of 2.25%
Fair? How do you define fair?
Reasonable? Well, it's their STANDARD opening offer
Non-Discriminatory? Well, it's the offer they make EVERYONE
imho, that makes the *offer* pretty much RAND in the extreme. If MS (or Apple)
don't come back with an offer of their own in the same ballpark then that's
their problem, not Motorola's.
Incidentally, in the last story, Motorola apparently claimed MS had lost the
right to a FRAND deal. I agree. The agreement between Motorola and the standards
body was that Motorola would negotiate a FRAND deal with anyone who asked. MS
refused to negotiate, did not ask. The contract no longer applies ...
(Given that the Judge has said there is an implied contract between Motorola and
MS, could that be why Motorola is pressing this point?)
Cheers,
Wol[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: cjk fossman on Wednesday, November 14 2012 @ 02:47 PM EST |
Too concise.
But similarly bereft of accuracy.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: designerfx on Wednesday, November 14 2012 @ 02:53 PM EST |
really, that you can just troll and imply that somehow
Microsoft is being abused by FRAND instead of trying to abuse
FRAND, which is why we even have this court case?
:gobsmacked:[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: albert on Wednesday, November 14 2012 @ 04:05 PM EST |
Propagandists resort to ad hominum attacks when they no longer have any facts to
back up their positions.
This is just sad; they have no shame...[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: PJ on Wednesday, November 14 2012 @ 04:43 PM EST |
hehheh
Chill, bro.
First of all, there is no abuse established. That was
Microsoft's claim, but that part of its claim died already.
This very judge, in MS's back yard home court, already
ruled that what Motorola asked for in an initial
offer was not FRAND abuse.
So show your proof that Motorola is abusing FRAND
rules, why don't you? Oh. You can't? Tsk tsk, then
you probably need to cool it.
Or leave, whichever you prefer. Because if you post
anything like this again without some proof that you aren't
just making stuff up, I'll block you.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, November 14 2012 @ 05:40 PM EST |
| . [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, November 14 2012 @ 06:51 PM EST |
We got here on the back of Ms bully tactics over other patents and when
Motorola dug in they went running to the US courts[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, November 15 2012 @ 07:51 AM EST |
- bkd[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
