Exactly. Studies have showed that after 8 hours of work our production suffers massively, after a while you start to get into negative production because you have to keep fixing the mistakes you made due to exhaustion.
How is it a fallacy? What they coulda done is irrelevant, only that apple claims that the patents are priceless, yet put a price on them for another person.
I believe Apple owns a patent on the connector otherwise many other will use it as well. Also my Asus laptop, 1600 blows my friends 2500 macbook laptop out of the water and when we each had issues with our computers apple was much harder to deal with then Asus.
Except I am not sure what version of the iphone is built well, every one I have seen and the 2 I have owned have been trash, and I can get a laptop with similar specs to a macbook for half the price and a better warranty .
It helps because there are patents apple states it cannot and will not license to others because of the harm it would cause them. If they licensed them to HTC then that proves at worst they were wrong, and at worst they lied to the court.
First Samsung has copied no more from apple then apple has from samsung, actually probably less.
Also the fact that you are ignoring apples first attempt at the court order shows how much of a fanboy you are.
They invalidated the Germans ruling by requiring Motorola to not enforce it. It is kinda like how the US government does not set speed limits, but by tying funding for interstates to set speed limits how they want they actually do set speed limits
And if they say chipsets value to that device is 2.25% of the device then how is that a misuse of the system?
Also that is one POSSIBLE implication, it could also imply that you must treat everyone equally in negotiations. Who are you to decide what possible implication is the proper one? I think the standards body who made the terms are the proper ones to decide that.
That is actually not how the discriminatory part of frand works. There is nothing that states you cannot charge different amounts for patents for one person to another, otherwise there would be a set price for the patents.
No, that would not. Also no one is charging 2.25%, that is a negotiating price. In negotiations the seller starts slightly high and the buyer starts slightly low and you move to the center which is the best fair price. This is without taking into accounts other people cross licensing deals.
you can look at those peoples rates in cross licensing deals as 2 separate deals combined into one, one for motorola's patents and one for say nokias patents. What you get is a combined price that comes from the different aspects of the 2 deals.
When you have no patents to offer then you dont get the benefit of a combined separate deal that lowers the price, that does not defeat the purpose of the non discriminating price because when you seperate the 2 deals in the first option you still get about the same price.
Also nothing int eh FRAND terms says you have to charge the 2 people the same price, just that it has to be fair and non discriminating. So if you start at 2.25 for everyone and then come down from their you are still being non discriminating even if you come to different prices since not all negotiating teams are equal.
That is not exactly how it goes. If you are cross licensing and charging some people.5% and others 1% it can still be considered fair depending on the patents that are being cross licensed.
If someone does not want to cross license then 2.25% can still be considered fair, since that person does not want to offer anything and the body determines what is fair.
Also we are not talking about the price being charged but the price being offered. It would effectively end the negotiation and given an unfair advantage to people who do not want to cross license.
Nice try redefining abuse. Abuse is not something you dont like happening. Abuse of an FRAND patent is defined in the contract that the holder has with the body. That contract Motorola is following. If they were failing to uphold that contract and actually abusing then the standards body would be chiming in as well.
Say what? First how are the promises not being upheld. The promises are defined in the contract, not by MS. There is not a specific rate that must be offered, and negotiations are allowed as part of that promise.
Also something does not have to be part of a standards body to be a standard. At this point certain shapes that have been known to work best are defacto standards, and not using them means inferior products.
Killing is wrong, but if people are trying to kill you then killing them to protect yourself is not considered wrong. It is the same thing. MS and Apple are trying to kill google. Google does not like patents or patent wars, but will use them to defend themselves.
Slashdot Mirror
Exactly. Studies have showed that after 8 hours of work our production suffers massively, after a while you start to get into negative production because you have to keep fixing the mistakes you made due to exhaustion.
Except that is not where most of the claim of infringement came from, it was for utilities.
How is it a fallacy? What they coulda done is irrelevant, only that apple claims that the patents are priceless, yet put a price on them for another person.
I believe Apple owns a patent on the connector otherwise many other will use it as well. Also my Asus laptop, 1600 blows my friends 2500 macbook laptop out of the water and when we each had issues with our computers apple was much harder to deal with then Asus.
Except I am not sure what version of the iphone is built well, every one I have seen and the 2 I have owned have been trash, and I can get a laptop with similar specs to a macbook for half the price and a better warranty .
And if they dont want to pay that amount? Your system seems identical to how the system works now, with just a small and insignificant change
It helps because there are patents apple states it cannot and will not license to others because of the harm it would cause them. If they licensed them to HTC then that proves at worst they were wrong, and at worst they lied to the court.
May want to look at a more reliable source when it comes to litigation. If Samsung was happy with the redacted version it would not have went to oral arguments: http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=2012112121031884
First Samsung has copied no more from apple then apple has from samsung, actually probably less. Also the fact that you are ignoring apples first attempt at the court order shows how much of a fanboy you are.
Where does it state this in the FRAND agreement? If the wifi patent is worth 2.25% why should they not have to?
They invalidated the Germans ruling by requiring Motorola to not enforce it. It is kinda like how the US government does not set speed limits, but by tying funding for interstates to set speed limits how they want they actually do set speed limits
And if they say chipsets value to that device is 2.25% of the device then how is that a misuse of the system? Also that is one POSSIBLE implication, it could also imply that you must treat everyone equally in negotiations. Who are you to decide what possible implication is the proper one? I think the standards body who made the terms are the proper ones to decide that.
The implicit conclusion I made in my post was that google was not gouging anyone, not that the poster was accusing them of doing so.
Not even remotely close to being the definition to reasonable.
I did not state you were, I stated IF you were then evidence would be great, Instead of logging attacks maybe you should be using some logic.
It is a starting point they use for everyone.
they are not gouging anyone, some evidence of this would be great if you are accusing them of this.
That is actually not how the discriminatory part of frand works. There is nothing that states you cannot charge different amounts for patents for one person to another, otherwise there would be a set price for the patents.
you can look at those peoples rates in cross licensing deals as 2 separate deals combined into one, one for motorola's patents and one for say nokias patents. What you get is a combined price that comes from the different aspects of the 2 deals.
When you have no patents to offer then you dont get the benefit of a combined separate deal that lowers the price, that does not defeat the purpose of the non discriminating price because when you seperate the 2 deals in the first option you still get about the same price.
Also nothing int eh FRAND terms says you have to charge the 2 people the same price, just that it has to be fair and non discriminating. So if you start at 2.25 for everyone and then come down from their you are still being non discriminating even if you come to different prices since not all negotiating teams are equal.
If someone does not want to cross license then 2.25% can still be considered fair, since that person does not want to offer anything and the body determines what is fair.
Also we are not talking about the price being charged but the price being offered. It would effectively end the negotiation and given an unfair advantage to people who do not want to cross license.
Nice try redefining abuse. Abuse is not something you dont like happening. Abuse of an FRAND patent is defined in the contract that the holder has with the body. That contract Motorola is following. If they were failing to uphold that contract and actually abusing then the standards body would be chiming in as well.
Say what? First how are the promises not being upheld. The promises are defined in the contract, not by MS. There is not a specific rate that must be offered, and negotiations are allowed as part of that promise.
Also something does not have to be part of a standards body to be a standard. At this point certain shapes that have been known to work best are defacto standards, and not using them means inferior products.
Do you understand what a proxy is? How does a patent act as a proxy for a company. How does a company act as a proxy for itself.
Killing is wrong, but if people are trying to kill you then killing them to protect yourself is not considered wrong. It is the same thing. MS and Apple are trying to kill google. Google does not like patents or patent wars, but will use them to defend themselves.
No more then a judge would not have the power over other countries judgement, oh wait that already happened in the microsoft case.