Authored by: ukjaybrat on Wednesday, December 12 2012 @ 03:49 PM EST |
Try to analogize it to property. Think of it in terms of 30
different ways to get across a river. One person says, "Hey,
if you use my
bridge, I'll let everyone pass for a low toll.
Promise." So everyone says this
is a good idea, and the
bridge owner gets a steady stream of income, and
everyone's
happy, and the other 29 bridges get dynamited. 10 years
later, the
bridge owner then says, "Hey, my bridge is the
MOST valuable because without
it, no one can cross the
river."
Standards are not formed by 1
of 30 people saying "i will charge a low fee if you use my stuff" and the other
29 going away.
Standards are set so that the 29 others go away purposefully
and there is only 1 way of doing things. It's sole purpose is for
interoperability between tech.
The low fee is only there so that the
original inventor of the standard can not financially prevent others from using
his standard. but HE IS ALLOWED to charge that fee.--- IANAL [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
- bad analogy - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, December 12 2012 @ 03:53 PM EST
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, December 12 2012 @ 03:50 PM EST |
Of course Samsung would throw Android under a bus if it was profitable to do so,
that doesn't mean we shouldn't support there side in this case though. In this
specific case we are talking about is largely Samsung defending Android and
other things based on good principles (ie arguing against the 'tap to zoom'
patent which hurts everyone and is a obvious idea). So in this case we should
support them. Which is all we are really doing here.
Also even if we weren't supporting Samsung because they are arguing the side we
like here, we should still be supporting them against this extremely unfair and
biased trial. Which is really what that part of this article was about.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, December 12 2012 @ 05:03 PM EST |
Quote: Here it is in a nutshell- a lot of what
we love about tech is built
on the shoulders of giants.
You took the above quote from Microsoft,
sadly that's where
I stop reading, I do not have any respect for anyone who
come
her to preach the Microsoft doctrine.
- C[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: cjk fossman on Wednesday, December 12 2012 @ 05:31 PM EST |
Samsung will throw
Android under the bus as soon as it is
profitable to do so.
My guess is it won't be too long.
Right.
Samsung has this huge army of elves, secretly
laboring
under a mountain to create a brand new OS and thousands of
applications for their new app store.
All this because they are eager to
walk away from a free
(as in beer) OS, the huge catalog of apps that runs on
that
OS and all those Java developers who can write even more
apps.
Oh,
wait, maybe that's wrong. Maybe they're ready to
join Nokia on the Windows 8
rocket. [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, December 12 2012 @ 10:57 PM EST |
you make bad assumptions. You assume, somehow, that these
FRAND patents are being used offensively, but that is like
saying someone who was being attacked offensively shot the
attacker.
These are defensive uses of FRAND.
Even still there is nothing against using FRAND offensively,
and if people find the FRAND too expensive they can always use
their own standards.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: PJ on Thursday, December 13 2012 @ 06:55 AM EST |
You misunderstand our interest in the case.
I could explain, but why bother?[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, December 14 2012 @ 05:02 AM EST |
I'm glad you came up with the bridge analogy as bridges must be something about which you know
a lot. [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|