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.
Still not listing a single verifiable fact! Still avoiding answering!
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 | # ]

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 )