decoration decoration
Stories

GROKLAW
When you want to know more...
decoration
For layout only
Home
Archives
Site Map
Search
About Groklaw
Awards
Legal Research
Timelines
ApplevSamsung
ApplevSamsung p.2
ArchiveExplorer
Autozone
Bilski
Cases
Cast: Lawyers
Comes v. MS
Contracts/Documents
Courts
DRM
Gordon v MS
GPL
Grokdoc
HTML How To
IPI v RH
IV v. Google
Legal Docs
Lodsys
MS Litigations
MSvB&N
News Picks
Novell v. MS
Novell-MS Deal
ODF/OOXML
OOXML Appeals
OraclevGoogle
Patents
ProjectMonterey
Psystar
Quote Database
Red Hat v SCO
Salus Book
SCEA v Hotz
SCO Appeals
SCO Bankruptcy
SCO Financials
SCO Overview
SCO v IBM
SCO v Novell
SCO:Soup2Nuts
SCOsource
Sean Daly
Software Patents
Switch to Linux
Transcripts
Unix Books
Your contributions keep Groklaw going.
To donate to Groklaw 2.0:

Groklaw Gear

Click here to send an email to the editor of this weblog.


Contact PJ

Click here to email PJ. You won't find me on Facebook Donate Paypal


User Functions

Username:

Password:

Don't have an account yet? Sign up as a New User

No Legal Advice

The information on Groklaw is not intended to constitute legal advice. While Mark is a lawyer and he has asked other lawyers and law students to contribute articles, all of these articles are offered to help educate, not to provide specific legal advice. They are not your lawyers.

Here's Groklaw's comments policy.


What's New

STORIES
No new stories

COMMENTS last 48 hrs
No new comments


Sponsors

Hosting:
hosted by ibiblio

On servers donated to ibiblio by AMD.

Webmaster
Still not listing a single verifiable fact! Still avoiding answering! | 264 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
SCO had this problem, too
Authored by: cjk fossman on Wednesday, December 12 2012 @ 05:05 PM EST
They always seemed, as do you, to stumble on the bit about
specificity.

Since you've done all this research you must have some links
to share. Why not post them?

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

Still not listing a single verifiable fact! Still avoiding answering!
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, December 12 2012 @ 05:10 PM EST

The new question:

    What theories?
I'm aware of FRAND patent owners like Samsung and Motorola attempting to enter negotiations with a new player (Apple) in the market in order to license said technology. If you claim this is wrong, How is this wrong? FRAND - after all - does not equate to free! The F represents Fair.

I'm aware of FRAND patent owners suddenly being attacked by said new player (Apple vs Motorola) because said new player does not want to enter negotiations on fair terms and at least one of said cases was dismissed because said new player made it clear to the Court that if the Court found for more then 1$ per device, said new player would not honor the Court's findings. If you claim Motorola is wrong in this picture: How?

You've avoided providing anything specific beyond a claim and a future prediction. You seem to recognize I obviously have no idea what you're talking about even though I'm quite familiar with a few of the cases (not the Realtek one) and some of the facts in those cases. I'm obviously not putting together your conclusion with my available knowledge base.

And yet you still choose to not provide any specifics.

You still provide plenty of claims of wrong-doing:

The theories that, inter alia, Samsung is using to weaponize their FRAND patents are (IMO) an abuse.
Yet again: no actual evidence or even a single stated fact that can be verified. Just a general claim of wrong doing as though that claim is in-and-of-itself the evidence. Please present a fact that can be verified via the means:
    Identifying a specific "theory of weaponization" that you feel is wrong pointing to the specific location in Samsung's filings where Samsung has clearly outlined that theory!
I'm sorry sir, but unless you provide some verifiable fact - as opposed to continuing to be evasive - I'll have to conculde you are attempting to provide nothing more then FUD. I won't be responding any further in such an instance given this will be my third request for verifiable facts and your third refusal - the third strike with regards providing a single verifiable fact to support your conclusions/claims.

RAS

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

How is Samsung related to RealTek?
Authored by: jjs on Wednesday, December 12 2012 @ 07:25 PM EST
"They have done this in many other cases"

List, please. You make the accusation, you back it up with proof.


---
(Note IANAL, I don't play one on TV, etc, consult a practicing attorney, etc,
etc)

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

How is Samsung related to RealTek?
Authored by: PJ on Wednesday, December 12 2012 @ 07:44 PM EST
Hey. You need to read our comments policy. No
insulting comments. If you continue, I'll block
you.

Yup.

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

Groklaw © Copyright 2003-2013 Pamela Jones.
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners.
Comments are owned by the individual posters.

PJ's articles are licensed under a Creative Commons License. ( Details )