View Single Post
Old 08-25-2012, 02:08 PM   #304
fjtorres
Grand Sorcerer
fjtorres ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.fjtorres ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.fjtorres ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.fjtorres ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.fjtorres ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.fjtorres ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.fjtorres ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.fjtorres ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.fjtorres ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.fjtorres ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.fjtorres ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.
 
Posts: 11,732
Karma: 128354696
Join Date: May 2009
Location: 26 kly from Sgr A*
Device: T100TA,PW2,PRS-T1,KT,FireHD 8.9,K2, PB360,BeBook One,Axim51v,TC1000
Quote:
Originally Posted by Graham View Post
The bit I find odd is that this jury ruled that Samsung's patents were valid, but that Apple didn't infringe them. Isn't the argument in the other jurisdictions to do with whether they were FRAND and what the fair licensing amount should be?

In other words, isn't it accepted by Apple elsewhere that they're using the technology?

Graham
The antitrust violation found by the jury seems to be saying that Samsung did not play by the rules when the standard was being defined and in their approach to licensing the tech. Usual legal caveats here, but it seems to me that that finding is going to haunt Samsung big time.
fjtorres is offline   Reply With Quote