Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Apple Claims Samsung and Motorola Patent Monopoly

Posted by Unknown on from the patent-vs-patent dept.

esocid writes with a bit in Daily Tech about the ongoing spat between Apple and the rest of the mobile world. From the article: "Apple lawyers are crying foul about Samsung, and ... Motorola's allegedly 'anticompetitive,' use of patents. ... Apparently Apple is irate about these companies' countersuits, which rely largely on patents covering wireless communications, many of which are governed by the 'fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory' (F/RAND) principle, as they were developed as part of industry standards. ... Apple takes issue with the fact that Motorola in its countersuit declines to differentiate the 7 F/RAND patents in its 18 patent collection. ... Regardless of what Florian Mueller says, it's hard to dispute that the 'rules' of F/RAND are largely community dictated and ambiguous."

51 of 381 comments (clear)

  1. How dare they sue us! by Kenja · · Score: 5, Insightful

    We where just minding our own business, suing them, and then THEY SUED US for no reason!

    --

    "Have you ever thought about just turning off the TV, sitting down with your kids, and hitting them?"
    1. Re:How dare they sue us! by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 5, Funny

      It's really very unfair. Here we were, just defending our rightful monopoly over all things rectangular with screens on the front, and these uppity bastards with their "patents" on "foundational RF technologies" that they supposedly "invented" are getting all touchy about it. WTF?

    2. Re:How dare they sue us! by h4rr4r · · Score: 2

      Too bad the court disagreed and even named a tablet that looked quite similar. Thicker, but that was only due to technology limits at the time. The icon layout does not look default on those Samsung devices, someone rigged it to look similar.

    3. Re:How dare they sue us! by dc29A · · Score: 2

      Have you watched ST:TNG? Or 2001 Space Odyssey? Of course every company making blatant copies of this 'awesome' Apple patent.

    4. Re:How dare they sue us! by Kenja · · Score: 2

      There have been thousands of tablets before the iPad. Many of them looked very simular. Your single counter example does not negate this. Technology progresses, devices get lighter and thinner. If only Apple is allowed to have a rectangular device with icons, what exactly would you suggest others use. And keep in mind that there have been tablet computers since the late 80s.

      --

      "Have you ever thought about just turning off the TV, sitting down with your kids, and hitting them?"
    5. Re:How dare they sue us! by recoiledsnake · · Score: 2

      It's really very unfair. Here we were, just defending our rightful monopoly over all things rectangular with screens on the front, and these uppity bastards with their "patents" on "foundational RF technologies" that they supposedly "invented" are getting all touchy about it. WTF?

      Problem with your thinking is....no tablet looked anything remotely like the ipad until the ipad came out. Look at the picture at the bottom of the link to see the blatant copying Samsung did. http://www.appleinsider.com/articles/11/08/30/apple_accuses_motorola_samsung_of_monopolizing_markets_with_patents.html

      http://techcrunch.com/2009/06/03/crunchpad-the-launch-prototype/

      http://lawpundit.blogspot.com/2011/08/samsung-digital-picture-frame-2006-is.html

      --
      This space for rent.
    6. Re:How dare they sue us! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      You do realize the 'tablets' shown in this movie were display only (a monitor) and had no means of input whatsoever, even in the movie?

    7. Re:How dare they sue us! by recoiledsnake · · Score: 3, Interesting

      http://techcrunch.com/2008/07/21/we-want-a-dead-simple-web-tablet-help-us-build-it/

      --
      This space for rent.
    8. Re:How dare they sue us! by gstoddart · · Score: 2

      Everyone had some sort of bulky case thingy that held the display, no one had a flat surfaced tablet. Tablet Designs Before and After the iPad [osxdaily.com].

      Oh, come on ... I have an iPad, and I'm hard pressed to see how any of these are different.

      Here's my short take on this ... unless it's radically different in shape from an Etch-A-Sketch, or a tablet of paper ... how the hell is the shape of an iPad even something you could consider having any protection on?

      The Greeks had stone tablets, and a mathematical ratio of an appealing size. This whole debate is stupid -- it's a fscking rectangle.

      --
      Lost at C:>. Found at C.
    9. Re:How dare they sue us! by Runaway1956 · · Score: 2

      I think you err. Stanley Kubrick and Arthur C. Clarke were both smart enough to remove the inputs and the icons to avoid being sued by Apple. Frigging GENIUSES, weren't they?

      --
      "Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
    10. Re:How dare they sue us! by Runaway1956 · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I don't remember where I first heard this - possibly from a teacher in junior high school. "If you're not part of the solution, then you're part of the problem." I'm another person who is sick of these patent wars. One day, you want to cheer this side, or the other side, the next day you want to cheer the interlopers who file those "friend of the court" briefs, then a week later, you want to see the real low-life trolls burnt at the stake. It's an endless drama among the lawyers trying to milk the techworld.

      And, I'm just sick of it. Apple hasn't been part of the solution, nor has Microsoft, or Samsung, or Motorola, or IBM, or - well, I could go on. Everyone who has ever filed a software and/or frivolous design patent like basic description of the Apple iPad is part of the problem. Most patents need to be done away with. I can't remember now what the numbers were, but apparently more patents have been granted in the past ten years, than were granted in all of patent history. It's ridiculous. Worse, it's insane.

      Idiots sitting at a corporate conference mull the need to patent a shape, because they might use that shape sometime in the unforseeable future. Preposterous.

      --
      "Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
    11. Re:How dare they sue us! by node+3 · · Score: 3

      Apple has been on lawsuit-rampage during the last 6 months, its nice to see at last some action from Google. This is going to be fun!

      Define "rampage". They've sued Samsung in multiple jurisdictions for copying the iPad and iPhone. And they've got maybe one or two other suits, that aren't merely countersuits, against other companies.

      So, where's this "rampage" you speak of?

    12. Re:How dare they sue us! by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 2

      Besides, just look at the Galaxy Tab from the front. It looks almost exactly like an iPad.

      It looks like a black rectangle with rounded edges, filled with a touchscreen covered by a panel. This is exactly how all other Honeycomb tablets look - e.g. Xoom looks the same from the front, and so does Asus Transformer. The idea that such a look can be patentable is ridiculous on its face.

      For that matter, it quite obviously doesn't look "exactly like an iPad" because it doesn't have the signature hardware home button of the latter. Furthermore, the frontal camera is oriented such that it is centered when the laptop is held in landscape mode (as that is the "default" mode for Honeycomb tablets), whereas on iPad 2 frontal camera is oriented to be used in portrait mode.

      They are claiming the rights to a rectangular tablet with a certain, recognizable design.

      Can you pinpoint the design element that are part of iPad's "certain, recognizable design" other than "rectangular", "rounded edges", and "full glass cover in front"?

  2. World Class Hypocrisy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    So when Apple sues its competitors with overly broad patents it's "protecting its innovations"

    When the targets of Apple's anti-competitive lawsuits counter-sue Apple cries "anti-competitive" monopoly.

    Apple gets more evil every day.

    1. Re:World Class Hypocrisy by Culture20 · · Score: 3, Funny

      Steve Jobs wouldn't have allowed this to happen. I blame Tim.

    2. Re:World Class Hypocrisy by Joce640k · · Score: 3, Informative

      Here's Steve Jobs explaining his point of view on design

      --
      No sig today...
    3. Re:World Class Hypocrisy by phantomfive · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Apple (lawyers) are saying (lawyers don't actually get irate as long as they get paid and the court time lasts longer and longer) that the patents were part of a standard. That Motorola et al purposely made their patents part of a standard, and are now using them to extort concessions out of Apple. This is unfair, because there is no way to work around the patents: you can't use a GSM network without using Motorola patents. So when the standard was made, all players agreed to license their patents for a reasonable cost.

      This is different than the Apple patents, which theoretically can be worked around. Apple doesn't even want to license them, they want to prevent competitors from using the stuff they invented. Other people should go invent their own stuff. And legally, patents give them that right. It's great, isn't it? (sarcasm) But not hypocritical, unless you have no understanding of the issue.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    4. Re:World Class Hypocrisy by E+IS+mC(Square) · · Score: 4, Insightful

      So wait - Motoroal who invented something which is integral part of a mobile phone should not ask for any return on that from Apple and Apple should use such core technology for free, but Apple can charge anybody for rectangles and others should bend over and pay them???

      And also, Apple's lawyers do all this without Apple's wish?

      *head explodes*

    5. Re:World Class Hypocrisy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Most F/RAND patent licenses include retaliation clauses. A patent retaliation clause allows a company who is being sued over patent infringement to revoke licenses to its IP. I don't know about you, but generally when I sign a piece of paper I look at it what it says and think before I act because it may cost me.

      Not only that, Apple seems to think they own rectangular device with an LCD touchscreen. Most of these Apple patents shouldn't even be valid. They "Just want" their competitors not to make phones with touch screens or process phone numbers to link them directly to the call function, or use an "Object oriented messaging system". Take your pick, most of these patents are crap.

    6. Re:World Class Hypocrisy by gstrickler · · Score: 2

      No, Motorola and Samsung should be paid for their patents that are part of the GSM (and other essential wireless standards), no one has claimed they shouldn't be. What they aren't allowed to do is use those patents to coerce/extort Apple or others into granting rights to non-essential patents (those which aren't part of a standard required for compatibility or interoperability) held by the other party. Patents which are part of an essential standard must be licensed under terms that are fair, reasonable, and non-discriminatory (F/RAND), it's a choice you commit to when you submit your patented technology for inclusion in an an industry standard. If you won't want to offer F/RAND terms, don't submit your patents for inclusion in a standard. Demanding cross licensing of non-essential patents that you want to use (rather than work around) is not F/RAND. F/RAND says that anyone can license and use the patents by paying the established licensing fee. Withholding F/RAND licensing for essential patents has been found to be anti-competitive, discriminatory, and in violation of US and EU antitrust regulations.

      --
      make imaginary.friends COUNT=100 VISIBLE=false
    7. Re:World Class Hypocrisy by gstrickler · · Score: 2

      Wrong, GSM and CDMA are government mandated standards, their use is required to distribute cell phones in various countries. All of the patents required to implement GSM and CDMA must be offered for license under F/RAND terms because of their inclusion in these "essential standards".

      --
      make imaginary.friends COUNT=100 VISIBLE=false
    8. Re:World Class Hypocrisy by Scragglykat · · Score: 4, Funny

      Maybe they'd be interested in trading their wireless radio technology for Apple's rectangle technology.

  3. For Chrissakes by MightyMartian · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Look, you pack of fucking navel-gazing fucktards. Put down the fucking guns, agree to pool your resources to buy sufficient hookers and Caribbean vacations for Congresscritters to have the existing patent system tossed out the door. We get it that you all sort of started out accruing vast numbers of patents, some good, some bad, some absolutely fucking moronic, in no small part to fend off attacks from each other and from evil little patent trolls, but look at how it's complicating your lives. You couldn't roll out a steaming turd without someone somewhere trying to claim you infringed on a patent they own.

    Apple, you're now one of the biggest companies around. If anyone can afford the required number of prostitutes, golf club memberships, or whatever it is those corrupted evil bastards in Congress have an appetite for. Google, come on, you could help out here, same with Samsung. Then you can, you know, compete on the quality of your products, rather than trying to stuff newspaper down each others throats in what can only be described as the bonfire of the idiots.

    --
    The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    1. Re:For Chrissakes by SiChemist · · Score: 2

      Florian Mueller is not a patent lawyer. From the wikipeida entry:

      "He blogs frequently about patent issues and gives legal advice, despite having no formal legal training."

      So, appeals to his authority are suspect at best.

      --
      God is imaginary
    2. Re:For Chrissakes by stating_the_obvious · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I don't think you understand Apple's business model. They're entire growth strategy is based on novel innovation and a locking up of supply chains to keep them 1-2 years ahead of product offerings from competing companies.

      The expectation of backlash suits was likely expected as less innovative companies scan their patent portfolios in a desperate attempt to limit the innovation gap between their company and Apple. You can only lose a patent argument a few times before the patent becomes toothless against precedent.The current end game from litigation is that Apple will likely win more battles than they lose and Apple will stay 1-2 years ahead of competing product offerings. The current end game for the industry overall isn't yet known -- either other companies will replicate Apple's mix of innovation and supply chain control and compete against Apple, or they'll settle to be 2nd tier technology companies.

      You're "real manufacturer" comment is off the mark. Apple uses it's war chest of cash to finance the build out of supply chain fab plants in return for first choice / monopoly supply. the "real manufacturers" you're referring to (I assume Taiwanese ODMs) can't get the parts to replicate.

      Either way, geeks who love new toys win -- so long as you're not an apple hater.

    3. Re:For Chrissakes by X.25 · · Score: 2

      The expectation of backlash suits was likely expected as less innovative companies scan their patent portfolios in a desperate attempt to limit the innovation gap between their company and Apple.

      So, creating easy-to-use UI is "innovation", and Motorola (and probably others) is one of "less innovative companies"?

      You are a retard.

    4. Re:For Chrissakes by erroneus · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Apple's "bigness" is pending their continued popularity. The moment they cease to be popular, they will implode. They are not diversified enough to sustain itself as the market changes. Given that they base themselves exclusively on the consumer market, there may never be such a thing as "critical mass" in any of Apple's market places.

      Critical mass is crucial to successful staying power. As it is, nothing that Apple offers is "necessary" and the cost of moving away from Apple at any point in time is trivial. Let's make the argument that Apple's iDevice apps have created something that resembles critical mass which I am sure many people would try to argue. Let's look at the money that users actually put into the software. $2 here, $5 there... $25? Unheard of for the most part. The numerous apps attract consumers to buy the iDevices, but the sunk costs aren't quite high enough to keep people married to them.

      Now if we were talking about serious enterprise investments, even those nickel-and-dime expenses could equal something big, but Apple doesn't market to the enterprise and I have yet to see an iPhone deployment in a business that resembles deployments like blackberry. The same goes for Apple computers. I recall one jerk who used Apple itself as an Apple enterprise deployment. Dear god... that simply does not qualify.

      Apple, I believe, has strategically limited itself so that it does not fall under various antitrust and other law/rules so that it can continue its "style" of business/abuse.

  4. Pot, meet Kettle by Kagetsuki · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Remember that little kid that hit the other kids, but as soon as another kid hit back he'd start crying? Apple is now that kid.

  5. Coincidense? by Mensa+Babe · · Score: 5, Insightful
    1. 1. Apple frivolously sue companies using Google's software using its bogus patents for rectangles.
    2. 2. Google buys Motorola to use its patent portfolio defensively to protect themselves against such companies like Apple.
    3. 3. Apple attacks Motorola who used to be so great in the past (Apple would never use the inferiour intel CPUs, right?) and now it is Motorola that is being a problem with their patents?! Make up your mind, Apple. Make up your mind.
    --
    Karma: Positive (probably because of superiour intellect)
  6. hoist by their own petard by YesIAmAScript · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Apple's unyielding patent attack has to come to trouble for them eventually. It's bad enough MS wants $15 from every Android phone, but Apple just plain is trying to bar companies from competing.

    The industry will eventually respond with the only tool they have, more patent garbage.

    Perhaps this is the start of that.

    It's going to take a long time before Apple realizes they can't win this legal battle and they should have just kept competing in the marketplace instead. They're pretty good at that, I'm not sure why they want to try to turn the business into a web of red tape for everyone instead of just pushing forward.

    --
    http://lkml.org/lkml/2005/8/20/95
    1. Re:hoist by their own petard by yodleboy · · Score: 2

      well, the message Apple should be getting from this is "if you're going to be a dick and patent the only shape anyone is likely to use for a tablet and then sue everyone as if you're some great visionary then we're going to take our patents on something a bit more substantial and that we've so far been gracious enough not to ask you about and make you regret your decision."

      Apple is honestly convinced that the rules really don't apply to them because they are soooo cooool. They are ALWAYS the victim...even when they aren't.

  7. What's good for the goose is good for the gander by sandytaru · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Or the pot is calling the kettle black. Honestly, the only people all these lawsuits are really helping are the corporate lawyers. Why don't all the technology companies just agree to drop ALL the lawsuits and instead invest that money into R&D? We could have had the next iPad killer by now if they weren't wasting time and money on lawsuits!

    --
    Occasionally living proof of the Ballmer peak.
  8. Hey Apple by L473ncy · · Score: 2

    Here's a tissue.

  9. Didn't you learn anything as a kid, Apple? by poofmeisterp · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Apple is irate about these companies' countersuits, which rely largely on patents covering wireless communications, many of which are governed by the 'fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory' (F/RAND) principle, as they were developed as part of industry standards

    And yours are all artistic and nothing else, eh? The industry shouldn't use any of your mechanisms for compatibility or interchange, right?

    Grow up. You started the sh**, now deal with it.

    1. Re:Didn't you learn anything as a kid, Apple? by Antisyzygy · · Score: 2

      Whats funny about this is that had they not tried to sue in the first place, they could have probably out-competed them in the marketplace.

      --
      That brings me to an interesting point, / . is just "the ramblings of socially-inept, technology-literate news-mongers".
    2. Re:Didn't you learn anything as a kid, Apple? by yodleboy · · Score: 2

      well exactly. if you poke a hornets nest when it's just sitting there not hurting you, don't be shocked when you get stung. It's not that Apple wants to win, they want everyone else to lose. It almost seems Apple sees competition as "stealing" customers. The truth is the only way they'd have had these customers is if there was NO competition at all.

      Personally, I don't know anyone with an iPad that seriously considered another device and i don't know anyone that picked another device that seriously considered an iPad. For both groups the fact that it was Apple was reason enough to buy or not buy an iPad.

  10. Re:What's good for the goose is good for the gande by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

    We could have had the next iPad killer by now if they weren't wasting time and money on lawsuits!

    This is precisely what Apple doesn't want.

  11. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 2

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  12. Re:Did they do that with a straight face? by chomsky68 · · Score: 2

    With the help of a few shots of well aimed bottox.

    --
    I'm Not Antisocial, I'm Just Not User Friendly
  13. There, finally by DaleGlass · · Score: 2

    The insanity of the software patents seems to be finally blowing up in an extremely public way.

    I really hope that the lawsuits against Apple result in very harmful for them consequences, ideally something ridiculous like forcing them to pull iPhones and iPads from the shelves.

    Why? Because if that happens, there's no way it will stand. It will be discussed all over the world, and everybody will agree it's a crappy state of affairs. Maybe then some sanity can be introduced by eliminating them.

    That might be a bit too optimistic, but still this is a perfect example of what's wrong with the system. At least it'll make a good explanation of why software patents are a bad idea, and should be kept out of the places that don't yet have them.

    1. Re:There, finally by Thagg · · Score: 4, Informative

      The patent that Apple has used to pull Samsung Galaxy Tabs from the shelves isn't a software patent. It's a design patent for a thin, rounded-rectangle, flatscreen computer. It's even more absurd.

      --
      I love Mondays. On a Monday, anything is possible.
  14. Re:One point - FRAND was a promise to ALL by gubers33 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Yes, but Motorola has no interest going after the little guy or any of the other companies that are minding their business. They are going after the guy who starting poking them with the stick. This isn't a lawsuit they placed out of no where. It is a counter-suit, meaning it is a reaction. Motorola has no interest in screwing over the phone interest. Apple essentially kicked a sleeping dog and has to pay the price.

    --
    Just because you are wrong and I called you out on it doesn't mean I am a Troll.
  15. Re:One point - FRAND was a promise to ALL by Baloroth · · Score: 2
    Except that, as the linked article states, Apple is claiming they own the entire design of modern smartphones (with patents on the rounded design, touchscreen gestures, and a whole host of other things, pretty much none of which, I should point out, Apple actually invented) in order to push Motorola, Samsung, and others out of the market. Motorola is simply responding by saying "OK, you attack us with patents that are patently BS, you can't use our legitimate patents. Everyone else can, you can't. Because you're being an asshole." This isn't a patent troll: had Apple actually played nice, Motorola would have continued to let them use their FRAND patents. Just as they are letting others keep using them.

    FRAND is a community agreement. Apple is basically saying "fuck the community" by taking the IP they want, and suing others them back (the same people whose IP they benefit from using.) It'd be like kids agreeing everyone can use a playground, then having one person demand that not only can he use the whole playground, no one else can use the monkeybars. Because he says so. And because he has lots of lawyers.

    --
    "None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license." --John Milton
  16. Re:One point - FRAND was a promise to ALL by voss · · Score: 2

    Exactly FRAND is a community agreement, and when Apple starts acting like its part of a community then it will get access to those patents again.

    Apple is basically trying to reargue the "look and feel" case it lost against Windows.

  17. Re:Hypocrisy by chaboud · · Score: 2

    Let's say that you're a small company with FRAND patents and one product. Someone strolls in and sues to block the sale of this *one* product with patents (bogus or otherwise) that they have for their competing product. Blocking the sale of your one product will kill your company. Furthermore, their competing product uses your FRAND patents without license.

    Are you, at this point, going to license at a reasonable rate and risk getting nuked? Hell no. Now, extrapolate to a larger company.

    Apple even goes so far as to build *revocation* of the free license of MiniDisplayport into the license as a protection against IP claims. These are called defensive patents for a reason. When a bully walks in and starts kicking the sandbox sand in everybody's faces, it helps to remind them that you have the shovel.

  18. Re:Nokia vs Samsung (Has anyone RTFAs ?) by Aighearach · · Score: 2

    I find dubious DailyTech calling Florin Mueller "a pro-Apple blogger" for his patent litigation analysis... while Florian Mueller *IS* the professional expert on patents.

    To be a "professional expert" your profession would have to be "lawyer." Florian Mueller's professions include lobbyist and blogger, but not lawyer.

  19. Apple set an example by spiritshare · · Score: 2

    Great Apple is being innovative in their legal posturing also. But, Apple cannot make such a claim first because apple was not part of the community that developed those technologies. If Motorola and Samsung are wrong Apple should set an example by making their patents on multitouch F/RAND, and show every body how this should work.

  20. Re:Devils Advocate by C0vardeAn0nim0 · · Score: 2

    the LG prada phone was anounced before the iphone, LG even acused apple of stealing it's design.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LG_Prada_(KE850)

    read the "iphone controversy" section.

    --
    What ? Me, worry ?
  21. Sounds like MS Document Standards by Kamiza+Ikioi · · Score: 2

    I might be mistaken, but Microsoft tried to make their office document formats standard AND proprietary. In other words, extortion. "Comply with the standard, FOSS, but pay the oh so small fee for the patent."

    The Apple claim is still BS, though. Motorola could claim that GSM can be worked around by using wifi and software... which is about as effectual as working around a thin rectangular screen tablet by making it a circle (and some idiot actually suggested that on another forum).

    --
    I8-D
  22. Re:One point - FRAND was a promise to ALL by gubers33 · · Score: 2

    You can't change the basic nature of Apple fanboys either. I by no means hate Apple I have a iPod and MacBook Pro. I do hate how Apple thinks they own the exclusive rights to make Tablet PCs and Smart Phones with a touch screens. I mean they have touch screens that looked like the iPad in Startrek and many other SciFi films 20+ years ago.

    --
    Just because you are wrong and I called you out on it doesn't mean I am a Troll.
  23. Please get a clue by mjwx · · Score: 2
    And dont use Florian Mueller as an authoritative source. It only proves you are easily misled.

    If you proposed a "Fair, Raisonnable And Non-Discriminatory" (FRAND) licence scheme

    The problem is Apple uses patents that are not covered by FRAND and are claiming that FRAND licensing gives them access to non FRAND patents. They tried this line for years with Nokia until finally having to settle for cash.

    FRAND only covers essential GSM patents. I.E. only the patents you need to create a GSM phone, not all the fruit that is built into a modern smartphone. FRAND's scope is limited.

    Kindly know what you are on about, before posting about it. Mueller does not know what he's on about, he's a lobbyist, not a patent lawyer or even examiner which means he's pushing an agenda regardless of the truth and has continually been found to be publishing outright fabrications during the SCO-Novell case.

    --
    Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.