[BBThemes]

Have you read this thread and seen how many times I've been abused, derided and mocked, just for trying to get serious intellectual debate going on this subject? I was hoping to get more common ground than the barrage I received. But it's water off a duck's back. It is amazing how many posters defend Apple and their anticompetitive practices. Truly bizarre in this forum.

Posted via CB10

no I haven't read every comment, but i have seen you calling people trolls and apple shills, wether you`ve been abused derided or mocked or not (im simply quoting your words and making no assertions to if you have or haven't been), that doesn't mean you can then mock others by calling them trolls and shills.

As my dad always says, 2 wrongs don't make a right.

[sonic_reducer]

Indeed, let's have that serious intellectual discussion now. Do you agree that Samsung had previously volunteered to license the patent in question here?



Are you saying that anyone with an interest in Blackberry should automatically be hostile to Apple?

How's this for common ground: would you agree that the correct outcome is this case is for Apple to pay Samsung for the license to use these technologies?

Undoubtedly Apple should pay, but they deny infringement even though courts have upheld the infringement in jurisdictions around the world.

Posted via CB10

[app_Developer]

Undoubtedly Apple should pay, but they deny infringement even though courts have upheld the infringement in jurisdictions around the world.

Would you kindly address the first question? Do you agree Samsung volunteered to license this patent under FRAND terms?

[sonic_reducer]

no I haven't read every comment, but i have seen you calling people trolls and apple shills, wether you`ve been abused derided or mocked or not (im simply quoting your words and making no assertions to if you have or haven't been), that doesn't mean you can then mock others by calling them trolls and shills.

As my dad always says, 2 wrongs don't make a right.

I made the calls based on behaviour. For instance the first 5 or 6 posts made several false claims against me and they hadn't even read the linked article with the evidence (there are access to content issues but if you don't know then don't post). Given the rabid defence of Apple's behaviour it was the work of shills or someone out to try and start an argument or a wind up. Hence the labels, which seem appropriate.

Posted via CB10

[chapa6sigma]

Apple and Obama are crap, and are a disgrace. . OP you are conversing with posters who are not worth your time.

Champ

[BBThemes]

I made the calls based on behaviour. For instance the first 5 or 6 posts made several false claims against me and they hadn't even read the linked article with the evidence (there are access to content issues but if you don't know then don't post). Given the rabid defence of Apple's behaviour it was the work of shills or someone out to try and start an argument or a wind up. Hence the labels, which seem appropriate.

Posted via CB10

like I said, im not making any judgement on any posts, but 2 wrongs don't make a right, so id disagree that the response was appropriate. a better response would either of been a well structured counterpoint, or simply not to respond.

[sonic_reducer]

Would you kindly address the first question? Do you agree Samsung volunteered to license this patent under FRAND terms?

Had to read up on this detail so apologies for the delay. The FRAND claim by Apple is by no means clear cut and it has been rejected in the EU as part of its defence for the infringement of the Samsung patents.

I can only assume that the ITC full review judges came to a similar conclusion because they found Apple guilty of infringement. If they accepted the FRAND defence then there wouldn't be an infringement in their judgment.

Posted via CB10

[sonic_reducer]

like I said, im not making any judgement on any posts, but 2 wrongs don't make a right, so id disagree that the response was appropriate. a better response would either of been a well structured counterpoint, or simply not to respond.

I'm not responding any more. Made a big mistake starting this thread last night but that's when the story broke. Tried to be a good OP by respecting all posters initially and ended staying awake all night to field timely replies. I always get frustrated when folk ask questions of an OP and there's no response for days. Anyway the fort was manned for a good 10 hours and I need to shutdown and reboot.

Toodle pip, even to the wandering trolls, shills, orcs, wizards, hobbits and dragons. I like everyone at CB, even the baddies are quite nice here.

Posted via CB10

[salimdeaibes]

I don't know anything about this, but I hope Samsung ends up giving Apple a permanent form of payment

[sinsin07]

Can we stick on IP because this is a distraction going nowhere.

Posted via CB10

Like this whole thread. What's taking place in the US is a first world problem. When you get to first world status the US will email you on how to proceed.

[reeneebob]

It was a stupid ruling and deserved to be overturned.

Period.

[darkehawke]

Again, I'm not "in the know" on all this stuff, but a quick search certainly paints a different picture than you're presenting. In fact there's a whole wikipedia section dedicated to the Samsung/Apple disputes.

Apple Inc. v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

Looks like there was no block from selling in Japan or Australia as you earlier stated. And the block in "Europe" was actually just Germany. These claims that Samsung is using against Apple in the USA were also rejected in other lawsuits across the globe.

I'm also still not seeing these "billions" that Samsung had to pay Apple.

If I didn't know better, I'd say your self-proclaimed disdain for Apple was making you post less than true "facts"

The block in Germany effectively cut off distribution in Europe.

Posted via CB10

[darkehawke]

It was a stupid ruling and deserved to be overturned.

Period.

Maybe so. But it is disturbing that an international body can be rendered useless by one head of state.
What happens if the next decision isn't so stupid?
One head of state should not have the power to overrule these decisions

Posted via CB10

[Branta]

Enough is enough!

The OP will be taking a few days break from the forum, and will not be able to respond to further comments. The thread will now close.