|
| Authored by: Gringo_ on Thursday, January 03 2013 @ 06:15 PM EST |
How does this impact the current trial, Microsoft vs
Motorola?[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
- The result - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, January 03 2013 @ 07:22 PM EST
- The result - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, January 03 2013 @ 07:42 PM EST
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, January 03 2013 @ 06:30 PM EST |
Nice!
Now I hope the FTC turns their attention to the entities that
were screaming loud and hard about such an evil Google and examines how those
entities are behaving.
For example, it would be sweet for the FTC to turn
it's attention to whether or not Apple/Microsoft are willing to enter
negotiations in the first place :)
Suggestion for the FTC: Don't just get
a yes/no from Apple/Microsoft:
Actually sit in on the negotiations to
observe their willingness in Act and not just Word.
RAS[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, January 03 2013 @ 07:13 PM EST |
Of course, if a company wasn't willing to license the technology (perhaps
because they claimed they weren't infringing it it or for some other reason),
Google could still seek an injunction. But if the company is willing to license
the technology under FRAND terms, Google has to allow them to do it. All the
consent decree says is that Google will honor their commitments, as Google
promised and as Google says it has been doing, anyway.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, January 03 2013 @ 07:30 PM EST |
| Did we really think that MS calling Google out for Anti-
trust when they
themselves don't dedicate resources towards
open standards, when Google does.
MS might think that
YouTube should be using Silverlight, and if it doesn't then
Google is being unfair?
Or - it's just another of a long list of MS
tactics...
Microsoft Dirty
Tricks history - Grokdoc (at Groklaw)
how many know of this hosted at
Groklaw?
http://www.grokdoc.net/index.php/Dirty_Tricks_history
And, the
list isn't even updated with some of the "COMES"
case jems..., of past
Microsoft behavior, that, we now
have due to the many long hours of outstanding
work by many
Groklaw volunteers.
Contents - see link above for
full history (reading)
1 A History of MS' Standards 'Dirty Tricks'
1.1
Standards Bodies and Windows APIs
1.2 Standards covered
2 MS
OfficeOpenXML
2.1 Licensing
2.2 (In-)Compatibibility with other
standards
2.3 Office2007 implementation
2.4 Alternative
Implementations
2.5 Summary and epilogue
3 MPEG
4 OpenDoc
5
HTML and WWW
6 Kerberos standard with proprietary extension
7 The
Sender ID flap
8 Ecmascript
9 RTF
10 LDAP
11 CIFS
12
OpenGL
13 C#/CLI
14 .NET
15 Java
16 ODBC API
17 ActiveX
standardization
18 NTP, the Network Time Protocol
19 RIFF (WAV)
20 VFAT
21 C++
22 RC4 encryption 23 Rdesktop 24 Boot sector pain
25 PNG
The list goes on.... [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
