While that's marginally than having to renew every year, it's still a $200 fee (plus accounting costs and the time to file the paperwork) that they don't have to pay now. And they'll face the same issue with each new gTLD. Still looks a lot like a protection racket.
And taking it permanently out of use might make sense for some brands/trademarks, but for others, that could be a problem. If the company who owns a trademark goes out of business, or stops using it and eventually stops renewing the trademark when it's no longer useful to them, it should be available to others.
This is correct. From the Earth's reference frame, this supernova just occurred, and it occurred 21M LY away. As I demonstrate with an example below, it is misleading and meaningless to talk about how long ago it occurred, or in which order things occurred using any other frame of reference.
Suppose a supernova 1000LY away had two stars near enough that the supernova had an effect on them, and one of those stars (star B) was 5 LY from the supernova and one (star C) was 15 yr from the supernova. However, star C is 990 LY from earth, while star B is 1005 LY from earth. The high energy rays from the supernova will have an effect on star C 15 years after the supernova, and we'll observe that effect 990 years afterward for a total 1005 years after the supernova. Star B will be effected 5 yrs after the supernova, and we'll observe it 1005 years after that, or 1010 years after the supernova. So, 1010 years after the supernova, we will have seen all three events reach earth, but not in the order in which they occurred relative to the supernova. We observe the effect on star C 5 years before we observe the effect on star B, even though star B was 10 LY closer to the supernova and "happened first" or "longer ago".
Now suppose (purely hypothetically, since we don't know that it's even possible) that stars B & C both emit deadly gamma ray bursts directed at earth as a result of the supernova. The burst from star C would reach us 5 years after we observe the supernova, and 5 years before we even observe the effect on star B. We would be dead and never see the effect on star B. It doesn't matter that B also emitted a deadly burst, or that "it happened first". What matters is the order in which they effect the destination, and as this example shows, that doesn't depend upon what order they occurred in from another reference frame (e.g. the frame of the supernova), or "how long ago" they happened. The effect on star B clearly happened "10 years before" star C, but what had an effect on earth first was star C, therefore making the effect on star B irrelevant to earth's frame of reference. While it's accurate that from earth's reference 10 yrs after we observe the supernova that the effects on star B happened 1005 years ago while star C was 995 yrs ago, it's also misleading and meaningless because the "more recent" event is the one that first caused a problem on earth. Causality is only relevant at the destination frame of reference, and everything occurs when it is observed, not "xx years ago".
The physical universe is called space-time for a reason, you can not refer to space and time independently except from a single reference frame. Causality in relativistic frames (and all frames in space-time are relativistic, even if you're not moving at relativistic speeds), requires that all events be sequenced by the frame of the observer, otherwise you will encounter paradoxes of causality where some observers in different reference frames (different places in space-time) will observe two effects a and b in the opposite order. Each is correct from the frame of reference, yet it's inconsistent to say that a occurred before b, or that b occurred before a, and it's misleading to say that a occurred x years ago and b occurred y years ago because the effects on the observer are based upon their arrival at the observer's frame of reference, not the order in which they occurred in any other reference frame.
If a trademark owner has to pay again each year to prevent their registered trademark from being used in each TLD, that sounds like a "protection racket" to me. And when they keep adding new TLDs, the cost and effort keeps rising each year. I don't know what the solution is, but the current system definitely resembles "paying for protection".
You can argue semantics all you want, but losing the ability to collect past royalties (which on tech patents may very well be the majority of royalties) is effectively losing the ability to enforce the patent. How much you lose depends upon the specifics of each case. You can argue the point all you want, but losing the ability to collect royalties IS IN FACT losing the ability to enforce the patent for the infringed time & products, no matter how you try to spin it. You may not lose all royalties, but you can lose some, potentially most, and in extreme cases, essentially all. Spin that however you want, you've still lost the ability to collect some royalties, and that loss is permanent, even if it doesn't affect future royalties.
If you can't collect royalties, and you didn't stop competitors from using your invention, what exactly is it you think you've enforced? When laches applies, you have lost the ability to enforce your IP rights against a specific company for a specific timeframe. Period, end of discussion.
If someone were able to deny you your earnings for the past 6+ years, you would consider that a loss, even if they can't stop future earnings. The effect is still the same and you would still be very upset about the loss. It's a permanent loss of the ability to collect, and any attempt to spin it another way is semantic gamesmanship.
switch to "plain text" mode in your account settings. It's not really plain text, it's the same as HTML, but it auto adds a br tag where you add line breaks. You still have all the html formatting options, you just don't have to manually add break tags
Actually, if you read the decisions, even taking action within a short time of your learning of the infringement may not be sufficient, if the court determines that you should have known ("constructive knowledge") about the infringement years earlier. It's more accurate to say you must take action within a reasonable timeframe after which you should have been aware of possible infringement.
Which is completely consistent with what I said in the first post that you disagreed with. Quote from my first post If a patent holder doesn't try to enforce it when they believe it's been infringed upon, they [may] lose the ability to enforce it. The word "may" was omitted from my first post, and while that makes it more accurate, my initial statement is still valid without it. Losing the ability to collect past royalties IS losing the ability to enforce it (for some timeframe). The patent has a limited lifetime, and the technology it embodies may have an even more limited window of market value, therefore, losing the ability to collect past royalties can significantly decrease, or even eliminate the value of the patent. This is especially in a rapidly changing field such as the market for computers.
Keep reading to section III, B, 2, "The Wanlass Cases". The fact that the courts (indeed, the same court in the two cited cases) have ruled in a seemingly contradictory fashion when the patent holder did not even know about the infringement dictates that it's prudent for a patent holder to pursue all cases of potential or suspected infringement in a timely fashion or risk loss of protection from laches. It's obviously not nearly as clear cut as you imply, therefore, a patent holder must take prompt action to ensure continued enforceability. Bottom line, failure to actively pursue potential infringement can allow, and has in fact has allowed, laches to apply.
No, you're incorrect. Laches can effectively nullify the enforceability of a patent in the US. It's not an automatic exemption defense, however, it is an affirmative defense that can have the effect of nullifying the enforceability in some circumstances. Therefore, a rights holder must defend all known infringement of either patents, copyrights, or trademarks in a timely fashion or risk losing the ability to enforce it against that infringer, as well as other infringers.
In this case, waiting until the Samsung or Motorola products were well established in the marketplace would definitely increase the likelihood of a laches defense being allowed. Apple did have to take action to protect their interests in the patent.
Please read FM article (or don't) and research the case law yourself. In this instance (and I know it doesn't happen often), FM is correct.
This specific legal action and article is 100% about removing the F/RAND covered patents from the counterclaims. That's 6 of Motorola's 18 patents in the counterclaim, and 5 or 6 of the 13 patents in Samsung's counterclaim. Remove those patents and this issue is settled and the original suit and counterclaims can be decided in court (or settled out of court).
No, because they VOLUNTARILY submitted their patented technology to be an essential part of the standard (and thus guaranteed themselves royalties from ALL competitors using that standard), they agreed to F/RAND licensing, part of which means they can't use those patents in disputes over non-essential technologies because doing so is discriminatory licensing, thus violating the Non-Discriminatory part of F/RAND. Samsung and Motorola both know this as they have both made the EXACT SAME argument Apple is making in prior cases where Moto/Samsung were the plaintiffs.
Your comments are about the facts of original lawsuit Apple filed, and have nothing to do with the issues addressed in this article.
This article is about a legal issue where Samsung and Motorola are attempting to use patents they own that are part of the GSM wireless standard as a defense against Apple's claim. That's not allowed because it's discriminatory licensing, and one of the agreements of putting your patented technology into an essential part of a standard is that your must offer F/RAND licensing of those patents. It's established law that such patents can't be used in such a situation, and even Samsung and Motorola have both made the same claim in previous cases, yet they refuse to remove those patents from their counterclaim. On the issues addressed in this article and legal filing Apple is clearly correct.
Once those 6 (of 18) Motorola and 5 or 6 (of 13 I believe) Samsung patents have been removed, the original claim and counterclaim can be addressed. That is where your comments will be addressed, but they don't apply to this specific situation because they're not at the point of trying the facts yet.
Seriously, are you really suggesting we believe in Florian Muller?...
He is always wrong,...
No, I'm suggesting you check the facts. In this case, FM is correct (thus disproving your followup statement). Mostly, I ignore posts from FM, but every once in a while he gets things correct.
I did not know Mr. Mick but I've read the text and the comments and they are not much different from slashdot's post and comments.
DailyTech is site loaded with Apple haters, including Jason Mick, (and some Apple fans), so it's much like/. And like/., many commenters don't bother to RTFA or research the facts, they comment based upon their existing prejudices, so it's no surprise that the comments are similar. However, if you read the comments from the people how have bothered to do the research, read the actual case filings, read the precedent's cited, you'll see that this filing is actually quite straight forward. It's making a legal point about excluding specific patents from the counterclaims because they're covered separately under F/RAND rules since they're essential to the implementation of the GSM wireless standard. Once those are separated, the original case and counterclaims can proceed. Motorola and Samsung both know those claims should be separate as they've used the same argument successfully in cases where they filed the initial suit against others. Purely a legal point, and nothing more.
Apple has a patent. Whether you believe the patent should have been granted or not is a separate issue, the fact is that the USPTO issued the patent. If a patent holder doesn't try to enforce it when they believe it's been infringed upon, they lose the ability to enforce it. The only options they had when they believed that Samsung infringed on their patent(s) were to either get Samsung to license the patent(s) (arguably a better option, but that's a business decision), sue Samsung for infringement, or risk losing the ability to enforce that patent. That's what the law says, if you don't like the law, work on changing it.
If you believe that the (US) patent system is broken, work on changing it. In the meantime, stop blaming companies for following the laws as currently written. They must follow the laws as they exist, and they must protect their IP or they have failed their fiduciary responsibility to the stockholders. I don't like it, I think the US patent system is seriously broken, but it's what we've got right now, so this is the way things (don't) work.
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".
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.
And yes, I know that the second blog is by Florian Mueller, and I can't believe I'm actually agreeing with or referring to one of his posts as a an informative discussion of the issues. Still, that is the case in this instance.
The first link is a DailyTech Blog by Jason Mick, an author well known for factual inaccuracies in every post, and for continual Apple bashing. Consider the source, and double check all facts before drawing any conclusions from it.
The second link includes an informative discussion of the actual issues. The core of Apple's argument, that Samsung is asserting that Apple is violating "standards essential" patents, for which Samsung has offered no F/RAND licensing, which is a clear violation of antitrust regulations in the US and EU (a fact which Samsung itself has repeatedly asserted in previous lawsuits when they were the defendant). Apple hasn't disputed those patents, only that they must be separated from the suit because they are standards essential patents which must be offered under F/RAND in order to prevent them from being an illegal monopoly under antitrust regulations. Therefore, they can not be considered as part of the suit potential injunction based upon the other non-"standards essential" patents, but must be considered as a separate issue and Samsung must offer F/RAND licensing terms for those "standards essential" patents.
You thought wrong. Their policy at the time was not to redact or withhold documents. I'm also not referring to the first release of documents from the current group of cables, but rather the release of the previous group of cables approximately 1 year before the current "cablegate".
Ok, I didn't actually say it's ok to change positions in my initial post, but it was implied by my comments about apologizing for any issues caused by their previous position.
As I said in my initial post, changing position is fine. However, when you change your (in this case very public) position, you should publicly acknowledge that you have done so, and take responsibility for any issues your prior position caused. To my knowledge, they have done none of that. Last I heard from them is that they were "right" to release the unredacted cables in the past, and "it didn't matter because no harm was done". That's an irresponsible position to take. If they have apologized or accepted responsibility for their earlier irresponsibility, please direct me to it, because I not seen it. Until then, I still consider them to be irresponsible hypocrites.
Leaking unredacted documents is exactly what wikileaks was widely criticized for in their first big release (~70k cables). In that case, they staunchly defended the practice. Now they're complaining, and even suing over the exact same thing, only they weren't the ones to expose them this time. When did they change their position on this issue? And if they have changed it, are they now prepared to apologize for their prior behavior?
Slashdot Mirror
While that's marginally than having to renew every year, it's still a $200 fee (plus accounting costs and the time to file the paperwork) that they don't have to pay now. And they'll face the same issue with each new gTLD. Still looks a lot like a protection racket.
And taking it permanently out of use might make sense for some brands/trademarks, but for others, that could be a problem. If the company who owns a trademark goes out of business, or stops using it and eventually stops renewing the trademark when it's no longer useful to them, it should be available to others.
This is correct. From the Earth's reference frame, this supernova just occurred, and it occurred 21M LY away. As I demonstrate with an example below, it is misleading and meaningless to talk about how long ago it occurred, or in which order things occurred using any other frame of reference.
Suppose a supernova 1000LY away had two stars near enough that the supernova had an effect on them, and one of those stars (star B) was 5 LY from the supernova and one (star C) was 15 yr from the supernova. However, star C is 990 LY from earth, while star B is 1005 LY from earth. The high energy rays from the supernova will have an effect on star C 15 years after the supernova, and we'll observe that effect 990 years afterward for a total 1005 years after the supernova. Star B will be effected 5 yrs after the supernova, and we'll observe it 1005 years after that, or 1010 years after the supernova. So, 1010 years after the supernova, we will have seen all three events reach earth, but not in the order in which they occurred relative to the supernova. We observe the effect on star C 5 years before we observe the effect on star B, even though star B was 10 LY closer to the supernova and "happened first" or "longer ago".
Now suppose (purely hypothetically, since we don't know that it's even possible) that stars B & C both emit deadly gamma ray bursts directed at earth as a result of the supernova. The burst from star C would reach us 5 years after we observe the supernova, and 5 years before we even observe the effect on star B. We would be dead and never see the effect on star B. It doesn't matter that B also emitted a deadly burst, or that "it happened first". What matters is the order in which they effect the destination, and as this example shows, that doesn't depend upon what order they occurred in from another reference frame (e.g. the frame of the supernova), or "how long ago" they happened. The effect on star B clearly happened "10 years before" star C, but what had an effect on earth first was star C, therefore making the effect on star B irrelevant to earth's frame of reference. While it's accurate that from earth's reference 10 yrs after we observe the supernova that the effects on star B happened 1005 years ago while star C was 995 yrs ago, it's also misleading and meaningless because the "more recent" event is the one that first caused a problem on earth. Causality is only relevant at the destination frame of reference, and everything occurs when it is observed, not "xx years ago".
The physical universe is called space-time for a reason, you can not refer to space and time independently except from a single reference frame. Causality in relativistic frames (and all frames in space-time are relativistic, even if you're not moving at relativistic speeds), requires that all events be sequenced by the frame of the observer, otherwise you will encounter paradoxes of causality where some observers in different reference frames (different places in space-time) will observe two effects a and b in the opposite order. Each is correct from the frame of reference, yet it's inconsistent to say that a occurred before b, or that b occurred before a, and it's misleading to say that a occurred x years ago and b occurred y years ago because the effects on the observer are based upon their arrival at the observer's frame of reference, not the order in which they occurred in any other reference frame.
If a trademark owner has to pay again each year to prevent their registered trademark from being used in each TLD, that sounds like a "protection racket" to me. And when they keep adding new TLDs, the cost and effort keeps rising each year. I don't know what the solution is, but the current system definitely resembles "paying for protection".
You can argue semantics all you want, but losing the ability to collect past royalties (which on tech patents may very well be the majority of royalties) is effectively losing the ability to enforce the patent. How much you lose depends upon the specifics of each case. You can argue the point all you want, but losing the ability to collect royalties IS IN FACT losing the ability to enforce the patent for the infringed time & products, no matter how you try to spin it. You may not lose all royalties, but you can lose some, potentially most, and in extreme cases, essentially all. Spin that however you want, you've still lost the ability to collect some royalties, and that loss is permanent, even if it doesn't affect future royalties.
If you can't collect royalties, and you didn't stop competitors from using your invention, what exactly is it you think you've enforced? When laches applies, you have lost the ability to enforce your IP rights against a specific company for a specific timeframe. Period, end of discussion.
If someone were able to deny you your earnings for the past 6+ years, you would consider that a loss, even if they can't stop future earnings. The effect is still the same and you would still be very upset about the loss. It's a permanent loss of the ability to collect, and any attempt to spin it another way is semantic gamesmanship.
My big ten inch
Record of a band that plays the blues.
I think it's a great idea, keep up the good work heise.de
switch to "plain text" mode in your account settings. It's not really plain text, it's the same as HTML, but it auto adds a br tag where you add line breaks. You still have all the html formatting options, you just don't have to manually add break tags
Actually, if you read the decisions, even taking action within a short time of your learning of the infringement may not be sufficient, if the court determines that you should have known ("constructive knowledge") about the infringement years earlier. It's more accurate to say you must take action within a reasonable timeframe after which you should have been aware of possible infringement.
Which is completely consistent with what I said in the first post that you disagreed with. Quote from my first post If a patent holder doesn't try to enforce it when they believe it's been infringed upon, they [may] lose the ability to enforce it. The word "may" was omitted from my first post, and while that makes it more accurate, my initial statement is still valid without it. Losing the ability to collect past royalties IS losing the ability to enforce it (for some timeframe). The patent has a limited lifetime, and the technology it embodies may have an even more limited window of market value, therefore, losing the ability to collect past royalties can significantly decrease, or even eliminate the value of the patent. This is especially in a rapidly changing field such as the market for computers.
Keep reading to section III, B, 2, "The Wanlass Cases". The fact that the courts (indeed, the same court in the two cited cases) have ruled in a seemingly contradictory fashion when the patent holder did not even know about the infringement dictates that it's prudent for a patent holder to pursue all cases of potential or suspected infringement in a timely fashion or risk loss of protection from laches. It's obviously not nearly as clear cut as you imply, therefore, a patent holder must take prompt action to ensure continued enforceability. Bottom line, failure to actively pursue potential infringement can allow, and has in fact has allowed, laches to apply.
No, you're incorrect. Laches can effectively nullify the enforceability of a patent in the US. It's not an automatic exemption defense, however, it is an affirmative defense that can have the effect of nullifying the enforceability in some circumstances. Therefore, a rights holder must defend all known infringement of either patents, copyrights, or trademarks in a timely fashion or risk losing the ability to enforce it against that infringer, as well as other infringers.
In this case, waiting until the Samsung or Motorola products were well established in the marketplace would definitely increase the likelihood of a laches defense being allowed. Apple did have to take action to protect their interests in the patent.
Please read FM article (or don't) and research the case law yourself. In this instance (and I know it doesn't happen often), FM is correct.
This specific legal action and article is 100% about removing the F/RAND covered patents from the counterclaims. That's 6 of Motorola's 18 patents in the counterclaim, and 5 or 6 of the 13 patents in Samsung's counterclaim. Remove those patents and this issue is settled and the original suit and counterclaims can be decided in court (or settled out of court).
That's something to be decided as the facts of the case and/or settled out of court. It has nothing to do with the issue at hand.
No, because they VOLUNTARILY submitted their patented technology to be an essential part of the standard (and thus guaranteed themselves royalties from ALL competitors using that standard), they agreed to F/RAND licensing, part of which means they can't use those patents in disputes over non-essential technologies because doing so is discriminatory licensing, thus violating the Non-Discriminatory part of F/RAND. Samsung and Motorola both know this as they have both made the EXACT SAME argument Apple is making in prior cases where Moto/Samsung were the plaintiffs.
Your comments are about the facts of original lawsuit Apple filed, and have nothing to do with the issues addressed in this article.
This article is about a legal issue where Samsung and Motorola are attempting to use patents they own that are part of the GSM wireless standard as a defense against Apple's claim. That's not allowed because it's discriminatory licensing, and one of the agreements of putting your patented technology into an essential part of a standard is that your must offer F/RAND licensing of those patents. It's established law that such patents can't be used in such a situation, and even Samsung and Motorola have both made the same claim in previous cases, yet they refuse to remove those patents from their counterclaim. On the issues addressed in this article and legal filing Apple is clearly correct.
Once those 6 (of 18) Motorola and 5 or 6 (of 13 I believe) Samsung patents have been removed, the original claim and counterclaim can be addressed. That is where your comments will be addressed, but they don't apply to this specific situation because they're not at the point of trying the facts yet.
Seriously, are you really suggesting we believe in Florian Muller? ...
He is always wrong,...
No, I'm suggesting you check the facts. In this case, FM is correct (thus disproving your followup statement). Mostly, I ignore posts from FM, but every once in a while he gets things correct.
I did not know Mr. Mick but I've read the text and the comments and they are not much different from slashdot's post and comments.
DailyTech is site loaded with Apple haters, including Jason Mick, (and some Apple fans), so it's much like /. And like /., many commenters don't bother to RTFA or research the facts, they comment based upon their existing prejudices, so it's no surprise that the comments are similar. However, if you read the comments from the people how have bothered to do the research, read the actual case filings, read the precedent's cited, you'll see that this filing is actually quite straight forward. It's making a legal point about excluding specific patents from the counterclaims because they're covered separately under F/RAND rules since they're essential to the implementation of the GSM wireless standard. Once those are separated, the original case and counterclaims can proceed. Motorola and Samsung both know those claims should be separate as they've used the same argument successfully in cases where they filed the initial suit against others. Purely a legal point, and nothing more.
There are already capacitive styluses available that work with an iPad, no need for a pressure sensitive one.
Apple has a patent. Whether you believe the patent should have been granted or not is a separate issue, the fact is that the USPTO issued the patent. If a patent holder doesn't try to enforce it when they believe it's been infringed upon, they lose the ability to enforce it. The only options they had when they believed that Samsung infringed on their patent(s) were to either get Samsung to license the patent(s) (arguably a better option, but that's a business decision), sue Samsung for infringement, or risk losing the ability to enforce that patent. That's what the law says, if you don't like the law, work on changing it.
If you believe that the (US) patent system is broken, work on changing it. In the meantime, stop blaming companies for following the laws as currently written. They must follow the laws as they exist, and they must protect their IP or they have failed their fiduciary responsibility to the stockholders. I don't like it, I think the US patent system is seriously broken, but it's what we've got right now, so this is the way things (don't) work.
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".
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.
And yes, I know that the second blog is by Florian Mueller, and I can't believe I'm actually agreeing with or referring to one of his posts as a an informative discussion of the issues. Still, that is the case in this instance.
The first link is a DailyTech Blog by Jason Mick, an author well known for factual inaccuracies in every post, and for continual Apple bashing. Consider the source, and double check all facts before drawing any conclusions from it.
The second link includes an informative discussion of the actual issues. The core of Apple's argument, that Samsung is asserting that Apple is violating "standards essential" patents, for which Samsung has offered no F/RAND licensing, which is a clear violation of antitrust regulations in the US and EU (a fact which Samsung itself has repeatedly asserted in previous lawsuits when they were the defendant). Apple hasn't disputed those patents, only that they must be separated from the suit because they are standards essential patents which must be offered under F/RAND in order to prevent them from being an illegal monopoly under antitrust regulations. Therefore, they can not be considered as part of the suit potential injunction based upon the other non-"standards essential" patents, but must be considered as a separate issue and Samsung must offer F/RAND licensing terms for those "standards essential" patents.
You thought wrong. Their policy at the time was not to redact or withhold documents. I'm also not referring to the first release of documents from the current group of cables, but rather the release of the previous group of cables approximately 1 year before the current "cablegate".
Ok, I didn't actually say it's ok to change positions in my initial post, but it was implied by my comments about apologizing for any issues caused by their previous position.
As I said in my initial post, changing position is fine. However, when you change your (in this case very public) position, you should publicly acknowledge that you have done so, and take responsibility for any issues your prior position caused. To my knowledge, they have done none of that. Last I heard from them is that they were "right" to release the unredacted cables in the past, and "it didn't matter because no harm was done". That's an irresponsible position to take. If they have apologized or accepted responsibility for their earlier irresponsibility, please direct me to it, because I not seen it. Until then, I still consider them to be irresponsible hypocrites.
Leaking unredacted documents is exactly what wikileaks was widely criticized for in their first big release (~70k cables). In that case, they staunchly defended the practice. Now they're complaining, and even suing over the exact same thing, only they weren't the ones to expose them this time. When did they change their position on this issue? And if they have changed it, are they now prepared to apologize for their prior behavior?
Steinbeck's "Of Invisible Mice and Men".