|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, December 12 2012 @ 07:31 PM EST |
The argument is there, as are citations (if you know where to look, sigh).
Listen, as I keep trying to explain, this stuff is kind of baseline law stuff.
Nimmer- you know, treatise. Case law. Basic anti-trust. This is not a hard
argument to follow.
That's why I sometimes question the net benefit of this website. On the one
hand, full disclosure of court documents, in as wide a venue as possible, is
always a good thing (which is why forcing people to pay for documents via
PACER is awful).* But the slight caution is that most of these things need
context.
Same here; this argument is extremely easy to follow- I've already made it
several times! People, apparently, just don't want to hear it.
But, again, to answer your general disbelief (and some of the others raised in
this thread):
1. This doesn't make Apple et al "right".
2. This has nothing to do with the validity of Apple's patents, or whether the
patent laws are good or bad.
3. This is a more basic point; that to me, there is a qualitative difference
between the regular, ongoing, petty disputes that we see, and will continue
to see, until the patent system is reformed between large tech companies**
and the "weaponization" of FRAND patents. Should this theory become
accepted, this will lead to even worse problems in the tech industry from a
legal p.o.v., which, if you're into that sort of thing, you should be very
worried about.
In summation- it's perfectly fine to hate business process patents, and
software patents, and hate Apple's litigation strategy. But please, please,
please hate FRAND abuse as well. If that genie gets out of the bottle, there
will be a lot bigger problems to worry about than whether "double tap to
zoom" is a valid patent.
*Google scholar, for example, is great, but it doesn't give you access to the
many documents on the docket- just selected published opinions and some
orders; moreover, it doesn't tell you the validity of the case cited as paid
service do.
**Non-practicing entities and other issues are exempted from this comment[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
- Still not listing a single verifiable fact! Still avoiding answering! - Authored by: PJ on Wednesday, December 12 2012 @ 07:38 PM EST
- Still not listing a single verifiable fact! Still avoiding answering! - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, December 12 2012 @ 08:03 PM EST
- Still not listing a single verifiable fact! Still avoiding answering! - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, December 12 2012 @ 10:06 PM EST
- Still not listing a single verifiable fact! Still avoiding answering! - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, December 12 2012 @ 10:50 PM EST
- when an legal, aka monetary, remedy, would suffice - Authored by: Wol on Thursday, December 13 2012 @ 10:32 AM EST
- when an legal, aka monetary, remedy, would suffice - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, December 13 2012 @ 10:56 AM EST
- when an legal, aka monetary, remedy, would suffice - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, December 13 2012 @ 11:15 AM EST
- when an legal, aka monetary, remedy, would suffice - Authored by: Wol on Thursday, December 13 2012 @ 06:22 PM EST
- when an legal, aka monetary, remedy, would suffice - Authored by: yacc on Friday, December 14 2012 @ 08:19 AM EST
- Still not listing a single verifiable fact! Still avoiding answering! - Authored by: ukjaybrat on Thursday, December 13 2012 @ 01:32 PM EST
- Still not listing a single verifiable fact! Still avoiding answering! - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, December 13 2012 @ 09:56 AM EST
|
|
|
|
