Forum Home | Log in | Signup | My Page | Rules | FAQ | Boards | Members | Search
« IDCC Home | Email msg. | Reply to msg. | Post new | Board info. Previous | Home | Next

Re: question 

By: zzfan in IDCC | Recommend this post (3)
Mon, 05 Aug 13 11:00 PM | 403 view(s)
Boardmark this board | InterDigital Communications 		Msg. 46873 of 48237
(This msg. is a reply to 46872 by bim24)
Jump:
Jump to board:
Jump to msg. #

Apple and big mouth Intel were not even interested in the standards. Intel had to buy Infineon in order to enter the market. Apple came on board once the inventors laid the foundation to fully operate the internet via cell phones. This is all bullshit. Manufacturers in the wireless sector have cross-licensed their portfolios from the beginning. IDCC needs to educate those involved in the daily exhibition of amateur hour in DC. They are clueless as to the habits and customs of the industry. To refer to a convenience license as a tying arrangement is just wrong. As a practical matter, I do not believe manufacturers should be granted bans against each other. They can hash out their monetary differences in cross-licenses in a court. They are making money via their product sales and are not irreparably harmed. Small inventors present a different scenario. They are not getting paid for their inventions by fat manufacturers who refuse to negotiate in good faith concerning a license. Nok has stonewalled for 14 years. IDCC has bent over backwards and even gave them a freeby period through 2006. Nok deserves a ban for the squeeze play they have orchestrated. They have influenced others to stonewall IDCC with their bad faith tactics.

MO
zz


 - - - - -
View Replies (1) »



» You can also:
- - - - -
The above is a reply to the following message:
question
By: bim24 in IDCC
Mon, 05 Aug 13 9:09 PM 		Msg. 46872 of 48237

who here thinks the it was the ITC the screwed up (clearly it has happened before ... see 613 cafc slapdown remand) by not applying the SAM/APPLE FRAND defense correctly and forced the overturn of the ban...

apparently, SAM not only demand 18 bucks/iphone but a cross license to apple's non sep patents.

... or who thinks the the obama admin screwed up by overturning the ban?

i'm beginning to leans towards the former as the license offer does not sound reasonable to me? or am i prejudiced by IDCC"s $1 - $2 per phone requests?

« IDCC Home | Email msg. | Reply to msg. | Post new | Board info. Previous | Home | Next