34 ms·

How does any of that make sense to you - I am too tired atm to restate the obvious but - a) Hyperbole - murder cases and patent cases don't compare. Convicted

How does any of that make sense to you - I am too tired atm to restate the obvious but - a) Hyperbole - murder cases and patent cases don't compare. Convicted of murder doesn't have any negotiation left - plenty of negotiation is possible in this case as I pointed out - HTC can use S3 patents to offset or even make up for what they might end up paying Apple if they lose the appeal. b) Patents are sad reality for everyone and anyone who wants to make and sell significant mobile product - Apple, Nokia, Microsoft, Google, HTC - all are at risk which they manage by paying up or making cross patent licensing deals. If it's bad news it is bad for everyone - not just Android. And HTC doesn't seem to be in a particularly bad position here - they got the ITC to invalidate some of Apple's claim and they have a favorable ruling in S3 case which they can use against Apple. c) See b) - You don't seem to fully grasp the patent scene - whatever it is - bad/worst/ugly - it is the same for everyone. Or are you saying Apple is somehow immune to all this?

Steko 15y ago
a) Exchange 'murder' with 'jaywalking' if you like, either way your argument that there can be no bad news because they can appeal is just silly. It doesn't even have to be the verdict -- not getting the juror you wanted, not getting that evidence/testimony/witness in, not getting a continuance, these are all bad news decisions. The fact that you can appeal any of them doesn't change them being bad news. b) that is your opinion about the overall patent industry but today's specific news is not about general patent industry. It's about this finding by the ITC. It is most certainly good news for Apple and bad news for HTC and Android. Do you think HTC was happy when they heard this? I think they were disappointed to hear this. That is bad news by definition. c) I think your view is clouded by your Patent Derangement Syndrome. No Apple is not immune to anything, they could benefit or pay horribly like anyone else. When they infringe on people's (valid) patents I believe Apple should pay the appropriate penalty. Conversely when other companies infringe on Apple's (valid) patents I believe they should pay the appropriate penalty. Thirdly patents that should not have been issued (i.e. many of them) should be deemed invalid. What happened today was a preliminary finding that Android maker HTC infringes on several of Apple's patents. There could be worse news but this is unquestionably bad news for HTC and Android.
- blinkingled 15y ago
  Let's say court ruled Person X stole ThingA from Person Y. Let's also say court ruled that Person Y also stole from Person X, they stole ThingB -> You are stopping here - uh oh bad news for Person Y. We don't know what ThingA values vs. ThingB - You are still saying it's net bad news for Person Y without seeing the full picture - it might not be bad for anyone if it all cancels out for the most part. So yes patent infringement is bad for the party doing it - only if the party claiming the infringement does not also infringe on their patents. In this case Apple infringes S3 patents.
  - Steko 15y ago
    You're trying to take last month's news and net it out with todays news. This is absurd. Let's take is as a given that Person Y stole something from Person X and was found guilty of that last month. Now there's a question about whether Person X also stole something from Person Y. If the judge today rules for Person X that is bad news for X. If the judge rules for Person Y that is bad news for Y. It's that simple. If the Cavs beat the Mavricks in game 1, losing Game 2 is bad news for them because they would have been up 2-0 instead of tied 1-1.

Steko 15y ago

a) Exchange 'murder' with 'jaywalking' if you like, either way your argument that there can be no bad news because they can appeal is just silly. It doesn't even have to be the verdict -- not getting the juror you wanted, not getting that evidence/testimony/witness in, not getting a continuance, these are all bad news decisions. The fact that you can appeal any of them doesn't change them being bad news. b) that is your opinion about the overall patent industry but today's specific news is not about general patent industry. It's about this finding by the ITC. It is most certainly good news for Apple and bad news for HTC and Android. Do you think HTC was happy when they heard this? I think they were disappointed to hear this. That is bad news by definition. c) I think your view is clouded by your Patent Derangement Syndrome. No Apple is not immune to anything, they could benefit or pay horribly like anyone else. When they infringe on people's (valid) patents I believe Apple should pay the appropriate penalty. Conversely when other companies infringe on Apple's (valid) patents I believe they should pay the appropriate penalty. Thirdly patents that should not have been issued (i.e. many of them) should be deemed invalid. What happened today was a preliminary finding that Android maker HTC infringes on several of Apple's patents. There could be worse news but this is unquestionably bad news for HTC and Android.

blinkingled 15y ago
Let's say court ruled Person X stole ThingA from Person Y. Let's also say court ruled that Person Y also stole from Person X, they stole ThingB -> You are stopping here - uh oh bad news for Person Y. We don't know what ThingA values vs. ThingB - You are still saying it's net bad news for Person Y without seeing the full picture - it might not be bad for anyone if it all cancels out for the most part. So yes patent infringement is bad for the party doing it - only if the party claiming the infringement does not also infringe on their patents. In this case Apple infringes S3 patents.
- Steko 15y ago
  You're trying to take last month's news and net it out with todays news. This is absurd. Let's take is as a given that Person Y stole something from Person X and was found guilty of that last month. Now there's a question about whether Person X also stole something from Person Y. If the judge today rules for Person X that is bad news for X. If the judge rules for Person Y that is bad news for Y. It's that simple. If the Cavs beat the Mavricks in game 1, losing Game 2 is bad news for them because they would have been up 2-0 instead of tied 1-1.