3 ms·

> But that's certainly not a "moral" difference, which seems to be the terrain you're standing on in your argument. No, it's a moral difference. The whole poin

> But that's certainly not a "moral" difference, which seems to be the terrain you're standing on in your argument. No, it's a moral difference. The whole point of the FRAND designation is to protect organizations from lawsuits. It's not all fair game and equal. Suing someone over a regular patent is like shooting someone on your property after putting up an explicit "No Trespassing" sign. You might not agree with it or think it was fair but (in some places) the owner is protected. Suing someone over a FRAND patent is like shooting someone that comes onto your property after you put up a giant "Visitors Welcome" sign. The terms were clear & public knowledge and you went back on them. Both can still be considered awful even though more people would agree the second one is unquestionably morally wrong.

ajross 14y ago
That's an absolutely ridiculous analogy, given that Apple shot first. You're point only makes sense if you're talking about unrelated cases. It's hardball. I said this elsewhere, but if you insist on taking sides here you are part of the problem.
- CountSessine 14y ago
  Complete nonsense. Samsung and Motorola are betraying the TIA/ITU process that they participated in in good faith by citing these patents in the dispute. They're setting fire to the whole system that they themselves helped to build. Why would Qualcomm et. al. want anything to do with these clowns in the next round of 4G standardization negotiations? Bearing in mind that Qualcomm has invented more of the actually useful patents in 3GPP technologies than Samsung and Motorola put together, and that Samsung and Motorola are now claiming that Qualcomm's customers effectively don't have a license to those same 3GPP technologies? Somehow everyone agreed just how gross and mendacious this was back when Rambus stabbed everyone in JEDEC in the back. Now that Samsung and Motorola are doing it, it's ... better? Apple shot first? Give me a break.
- flyinRyan 14y ago
  Your response here is beyond ridiculous. I think you should try to separate your emotions from the discussion. If Apple has a "no trespassing" sign one would expect them to shoot first. That doesn't give others who have a "visitors welcome" sign the right to shoot people on their property.

ajross 14y ago

That's an absolutely ridiculous analogy, given that Apple shot first. You're point only makes sense if you're talking about unrelated cases. It's hardball. I said this elsewhere, but if you insist on taking sides here you are part of the problem.

CountSessine 14y ago
Complete nonsense. Samsung and Motorola are betraying the TIA/ITU process that they participated in in good faith by citing these patents in the dispute. They're setting fire to the whole system that they themselves helped to build. Why would Qualcomm et. al. want anything to do with these clowns in the next round of 4G standardization negotiations? Bearing in mind that Qualcomm has invented more of the actually useful patents in 3GPP technologies than Samsung and Motorola put together, and that Samsung and Motorola are now claiming that Qualcomm's customers effectively don't have a license to those same 3GPP technologies? Somehow everyone agreed just how gross and mendacious this was back when Rambus stabbed everyone in JEDEC in the back. Now that Samsung and Motorola are doing it, it's ... better? Apple shot first? Give me a break.
flyinRyan 14y ago
Your response here is beyond ridiculous. I think you should try to separate your emotions from the discussion. If Apple has a "no trespassing" sign one would expect them to shoot first. That doesn't give others who have a "visitors welcome" sign the right to shoot people on their property.