Forums
New posts
Articles
Product Reviews
Policies
FAQ
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Forums
Apple Mobile Products: iPhone, iPad, iPod
iOS and Apps
iPhone to Android - a Nightmare
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="chas_m" data-source="post: 1421767"><p>You can -- or more accurately you can have an intent to infringe. At the time, Google was under the impression that they needed a license. They decided to infringe anyway and work out a deal later if they got caught (this is a summary of their own email). Basically the "better to ask forgiveness than get permission" approach.</p><p></p><p>It worked out for them in the end, but that's still pretty ****ing of Google's intentions. And it comes to us from Google itself.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>You may want to read that article again. Apple not convicted of anything. Opted to settle rather than fight. You might INFER that they COULD have been infringing, but that's not a conviction, and we don't know that that's true at all. So in short, you couldn't find a conviction (as I predicted).</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>I certainly agree. But it's equally unfair to just lump them all together, pronounce everything trivial, and dismiss the lot.</p><p></p><p>IF you're going to have software patents at all (and that's another topic for another day), then the patent holder has a *legal obligation* to vigourously defend them. They don't actually have a choice in the matter. One could say that the whole idea of having judges who have backgrounds in law, not technology, to validate or invalidate patents is a bad idea. I'd certainly say that, and in fact this is one of Apple's chief arguments, not to mention the whole idea of why FRAND was invented in the first place.</p><p></p><p>You could argue that software patents are stupid and shouldn't exist. The EU doesn't recognize them, in fact, and recently Judge Posner (one of the most techo-savvy judges around, the guy who just heard the Oracle-Google case and didn't rip his own head off out of sheer boredom) is said to have come round to this view as well, arguing that the system is broken. Who am I to disagree with his genius legal mind?</p><p></p><p>But these cases (IMO) aren't as much about the patents as they are about forcing all parties to play by the rules. As far as I can see on this, the big picture is that Google and Motorola and Samsung have decided not to honour their FRAND obligations. They've stopped playing by the rules. Apple and Microsoft (primarily) are in court MOSTLY to get them to play by the agreed-upon rules so that we DON'T have to litigate every imaginable little patent.</p><p></p><p>This is the important part. If Apple and MS don't succeed in advancing this position (that FRAND should not be litigable unless the parties refuse to negotiate in good faith), then innovation in the industry will die, or the cost of consumer electronics will skyrocket.</p><p></p><p>So this is not a case of "these two companies [name any two] are in a ... um, yellow-snow-making contest" -- it's about whether FRAND survives and is enforced, or chaos and endless litigation wins out. That's the bigger question that's really playing out here. Tim Cook summarized Apple's view pretty well during his D10 talk, if you can view it I'd suggest you take a look (obviously covers a lot of other stuff, but he does get round to talking about the patent lawsuits to the extend he can).</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="chas_m, post: 1421767"] You can -- or more accurately you can have an intent to infringe. At the time, Google was under the impression that they needed a license. They decided to infringe anyway and work out a deal later if they got caught (this is a summary of their own email). Basically the "better to ask forgiveness than get permission" approach. It worked out for them in the end, but that's still pretty ****ing of Google's intentions. And it comes to us from Google itself. You may want to read that article again. Apple not convicted of anything. Opted to settle rather than fight. You might INFER that they COULD have been infringing, but that's not a conviction, and we don't know that that's true at all. So in short, you couldn't find a conviction (as I predicted). I certainly agree. But it's equally unfair to just lump them all together, pronounce everything trivial, and dismiss the lot. IF you're going to have software patents at all (and that's another topic for another day), then the patent holder has a *legal obligation* to vigourously defend them. They don't actually have a choice in the matter. One could say that the whole idea of having judges who have backgrounds in law, not technology, to validate or invalidate patents is a bad idea. I'd certainly say that, and in fact this is one of Apple's chief arguments, not to mention the whole idea of why FRAND was invented in the first place. You could argue that software patents are stupid and shouldn't exist. The EU doesn't recognize them, in fact, and recently Judge Posner (one of the most techo-savvy judges around, the guy who just heard the Oracle-Google case and didn't rip his own head off out of sheer boredom) is said to have come round to this view as well, arguing that the system is broken. Who am I to disagree with his genius legal mind? But these cases (IMO) aren't as much about the patents as they are about forcing all parties to play by the rules. As far as I can see on this, the big picture is that Google and Motorola and Samsung have decided not to honour their FRAND obligations. They've stopped playing by the rules. Apple and Microsoft (primarily) are in court MOSTLY to get them to play by the agreed-upon rules so that we DON'T have to litigate every imaginable little patent. This is the important part. If Apple and MS don't succeed in advancing this position (that FRAND should not be litigable unless the parties refuse to negotiate in good faith), then innovation in the industry will die, or the cost of consumer electronics will skyrocket. So this is not a case of "these two companies [name any two] are in a ... um, yellow-snow-making contest" -- it's about whether FRAND survives and is enforced, or chaos and endless litigation wins out. That's the bigger question that's really playing out here. Tim Cook summarized Apple's view pretty well during his D10 talk, if you can view it I'd suggest you take a look (obviously covers a lot of other stuff, but he does get round to talking about the patent lawsuits to the extend he can). [/QUOTE]
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Apple Mobile Products: iPhone, iPad, iPod
iOS and Apps
iPhone to Android - a Nightmare
Top