REVscene - Vancouver Automotive Forum


Welcome to the REVscene Automotive Forum forums.

Registration is Free!You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join our community today! The banners on the left side and below do not show for registered users!

If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact contact us.


Go Back   REVscene Automotive Forum > Automotive Chat > Vancouver Off-Topic / Current Events

Vancouver Off-Topic / Current Events The off-topic forum for Vancouver, funnies, non-auto centered discussions, WORK SAFE. While the rules are more relaxed here, there are still rules. Please refer to sticky thread in this forum.

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 11-29-2012, 11:03 PM   #326
Ready to be Man handled by RS!
 
dangonay's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Burnaby
Posts: 1,798
Thanked 1,502 Times in 506 Posts
So people read over a stupid Gizmodo article that has barely 3 sentences and start to jump to conclusions about what's going on?

This ruling was first made last year. This recent hearing is a permanent injunction where the other one was a preliminary injunction. All they did was uphold the previous decision and make it permanent. There's nothing new here. Since Samsung has already modified their devices after the previous preliminary ruling they will still be allowed to sell them.

People need to learn the difference between an injunction and a ban. An injunction is a ruling that prevents a company from doing something specific (like selling a product). A product ban would be the enforcement of an injunction. An injunction can't be enforced unless the company is performing an action the injunction states they aren't allowed to do.

Since Samsung isn't doing anything wrong, there will be no enforcement and no ban of any of their products. And since they aren't doing anything wrong they won't be paying any fines either. These are just conditions of the ruling that states what could happen if Samsung doesn't comply with the injunction.
Advertisement
dangonay is offline   Reply With Quote
This post thanked by:
Old 11-29-2012, 11:11 PM   #327
(╯□)╯聽不到 ╮(□╮)
 
Tim Budong's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: The Womb
Posts: 16,813
Thanked 10,865 Times in 2,127 Posts
^why do you fight so hard?
Tim Budong is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-29-2012, 11:16 PM   #328
Banned By Establishment
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Richmond
Posts: 12,489
Thanked 2,090 Times in 773 Posts
when is he gonna start making android apps
Meowjin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-30-2012, 10:06 PM   #329
Need my Daily Fix of RS
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: in a hole.
Posts: 253
Thanked 15 Times in 11 Posts
twstd_reality is offline   Reply With Quote
This post thanked by:
Old 11-30-2012, 10:23 PM   #330
Cant Stop Modding Fat Cars w/ Cheap Pasts!
 
StylinRed's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: CELICAland
Posts: 23,046
Thanked 9,234 Times in 3,293 Posts
did i hear correctly that in the UK? the courts demanded that apple post in the newspaper the words that "samsung did not copy" ?
StylinRed is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-30-2012, 11:14 PM   #331
MG1
Fathered more RS members than anybody else. Who's your daddy?
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 18,758
Thanked 8,249 Times in 3,274 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by darthchilli View Post
^why do you fight so hard?
I, for one, am glad he does...........
__________________
Quote:
"there but for the grace of god go I"

substitute the word "god" with Allah, Mohammed, Buddha, Odin, your parents, whathaveyou..........
MG1 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 11-30-2012, 11:18 PM   #332
The Lone Wanderator
 
Graeme S's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Burnaby
Posts: 12,089
Thanked 4,367 Times in 1,137 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by StylinRed View Post
did i hear correctly that in the UK? the courts demanded that apple post in the newspaper the words that "samsung did not copy" ?
The words, no. The message, yes. And they were also ordered to put the same on their website.

There was a bit of a kerfuffle when apple first did it too, because they didn't just say "Samsung didn't copy", they did this whole "The judge has found samsung didn't copy, but he did say that Apple was cooler than Samsung. Oh, and we just won a legal case where Samsung had to pay us a lot of money. So even though Samsung didn't copy, don't forget about the other stuff" (I paraphrase and am being a bit of an ass about it)


The judges were not amused, and as a result, they had to change the website message (though I'm not sure if the timer was "reset" or not).
Graeme S is offline   Reply With Quote
This post thanked by:
Old 11-30-2012, 11:30 PM   #333
Ready to be Man handled by RS!
 
dangonay's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Burnaby
Posts: 1,798
Thanked 1,502 Times in 506 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by darthchilli View Post
^why do you fight so hard?
My post count defending Apple is lower than the people bashing Apple. This very thread wasn't even started by me. Likewise, the numerous posts about Apple court cases/news in this thread have all been made by someone other than myself. Seems others are fighting harder than I am.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Meowjin View Post
when is he gonna start making android apps
I worked extensively with the Android SDK alongside the iOS SDK. Only have time to develop for one and picked the obvious choice. Android is too much of a mess. I know there are several iOS developers on RS, but haven't seen anyone say they develop for Android yet.

Quote:
Originally Posted by StylinRed View Post
did i hear correctly that in the UK? the courts demanded that apple post in the newspaper the words that "samsung did not copy" ?
Really? This is very old news. Apple initially posted a notice, but pissed off the court by making fun of the ruling. They modified it but still not enough to satisfy the courts. Then modified it again, but the judge got pissed and Apple now has to pay Samsung's court fees as punishment. It appears Apple is the first company ever in the UK to have to resort to publishing a notice (outside of slander by tabloids). It's a brand new law in the UK that hasn't been "tested" yet, so of course Apple is going to fight it.

Now the EU has a problem. A ruling in an EU court in Germany (for example) is supposed to be binding in all EU member countries. What do you do when an EU court in one country decides in Samsung's favor while another EU court in a different country decides in Apple's favor? How can a ruling be binding in all EU countries when two countries made different decisions? This case has much broader implications than the spat between Apple and Samsung.
dangonay is offline   Reply With Quote
This post thanked by:
Old 12-03-2012, 07:54 PM   #334
Ready to be Man handled by RS!
 
dangonay's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Burnaby
Posts: 1,798
Thanked 1,502 Times in 506 Posts
There are three stances (official positions) the major companies involved in mobile have regarding FRAND patents:

1. That FRAND patents should never be used to seek a sales ban (injunction). In the case of a license dispute (or failure to negotiate a license), the companies should go to court to seek a settlement and the court can decide the FRAND royalty rate. This is the position held by Apple, Microsoft, IBM, Intel, HP and Cisco.

2. That FRAND patents should be used to seek a sales ban after all attempts of negotiations have failed. This is the position held by Nokia and Ericsson.

3. That FRAND patents can be used to seek sales bans under any circumstances. This is the position held by Samsung and Motorola.



Now this is where things are getting really interesting.

Ericsson has just filed to have pretty much all of Samsung's mobile devices barred from sale in the US. This is because Ericsson claims Samsung has refused to license their patents (apparently Samsung had a license that has expired and have not renewed). Ericsson took Samsung to court the last time and Samsung only licensed after Ericsson filed (see a pattern here?).

Of interest is that the patents Ericsson is suing Samsung over are the same patents Apple has also licensed. Since we know there was no court battle between Ericsson and Apple it's safe to assume that Ericsson wasn't asking a high rate (like Samsung and Motorola are) and that Ericsson and Apple came to an agreement "the normal way" (meaning they negotiated without going to court).

The timing couldn't be worse for Samsung.

Samsung claims Ericsson's demands are too high. Apple has a license from Ericsson for the same patents. So Apple can now take the rates they pay Ericsson (which Samsung thinks are too high) and show them to the court to compare to what Samsung is demanding from Apple.

Samsung is caught in the middle. They have to justify to one court why Apple should be paying much higher than normal FRAND rates and at the same time tell the other court why Ericsson's FRAND rates are too high and they should pay less. It's a catch-22 for Samsung.

grabs popcorn
dangonay is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -8. The time now is 10:09 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
SEO by vBSEO ©2011, Crawlability, Inc.
Revscene.net cannot be held accountable for the actions of its members nor does the opinions of the members represent that of Revscene.net