<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Verdict in Apple v. Samsung</title>
	<atom:link href="http://mrpogson.com/2012/08/25/verdict-in-apple-v-samsung/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://mrpogson.com/2012/08/25/verdict-in-apple-v-samsung/</link>
	<description>One man. Closing, all the windows.</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Tue, 21 May 2013 11:38:39 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.5.1</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: oiaohm</title>
		<link>http://mrpogson.com/2012/08/25/verdict-in-apple-v-samsung/#comment-94548</link>
		<dc:creator>oiaohm</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 26 Aug 2012 13:17:19 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://mrpogson.com/?p=13851#comment-94548</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[oldman
&quot;Really? As you have pointed out in one of your walls of bloviation. They are bound by FRAND aren’t they?&quot;
Not this time.  That prior post applied to the prior set of patent being used. 

Motorola have found Motorola stack of patents that Apple infringes with no FRAND agreement covering them.

So Motorola is only bound by FRAND on some of their patents not all of them oldman.
http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20120820182004477

All of the following are Motorola patents not one is used by any existing Standard so FRAND does not apply.
No. 5,883,580, titled &quot;Geographic-Temporal Significant Messaging,&quot; which issued on March 16, 1999;
No. 5,922,047, titled &quot;Apparatus, Method and System for Multimedia Control and Communication,&quot; which is sued on July 13, 1999;
No. 6,425,002, titled &quot;Apparatus and Method for Handling Dispatching Messages for Various Applications of a Communication Device,&quot; which issued on July 23, 2002;
No. 6,493,673, titled &quot;Markup Language for Interactive Services And Methods Thereof&quot;, which issued on December 10, 2001;
No. 6,983,370, titled &quot;System For Providing Continuity Between Messaging Clients And Method Therefor,&quot; which issued on January 3, 2006;
No. 7,007,064, titled &quot;Method And Apparatus For Obtaining And Managing Wirelessly Communicated Content,&quot; which issued on February 28, 2006;
No. 7,383,983, titled &quot;System And Method For Managing Content Between Devices In Various Domains,&quot; which issued on June 10, 2008.

Motorola patent stock pile is deep.  Oldman the prior patents Motorola used were under Frand.  Since Motorola has been told they cannot use them they have just dug out another set that are all not protected by Frand.

Of course you can bet Motorola has many more rounds in reserve.

The simple way to prevent Motorola from keeping on hitting you is take Motorola universal patent agreement.  Where you agree only to use your own patents defensively so becoming allowed to use all Motorola patents.  Apple forced to agree to Motorola terms basically forces to stop charging people.

Microsoft is in exactly the same boat.  Motorola has not stayed in the phone game this long without being able to defend itself in patent battle.

They nasty part here is Motorola has apple because if it had settled the frand patents the way Motorola asked they would have settled these patents as well.  So Apple and Microsoft blew their chance to settle by fighting.

Motorola sucker punch.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>oldman<br />
&#8220;Really? As you have pointed out in one of your walls of bloviation. They are bound by FRAND aren’t they?&#8221;<br />
Not this time.  That prior post applied to the prior set of patent being used. </p>
<p>Motorola have found Motorola stack of patents that Apple infringes with no FRAND agreement covering them.</p>
<p>So Motorola is only bound by FRAND on some of their patents not all of them oldman.<br />
<a href="http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20120820182004477" rel="nofollow">http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20120820182004477</a></p>
<p>All of the following are Motorola patents not one is used by any existing Standard so FRAND does not apply.<br />
No. 5,883,580, titled &#8220;Geographic-Temporal Significant Messaging,&#8221; which issued on March 16, 1999;<br />
No. 5,922,047, titled &#8220;Apparatus, Method and System for Multimedia Control and Communication,&#8221; which is sued on July 13, 1999;<br />
No. 6,425,002, titled &#8220;Apparatus and Method for Handling Dispatching Messages for Various Applications of a Communication Device,&#8221; which issued on July 23, 2002;<br />
No. 6,493,673, titled &#8220;Markup Language for Interactive Services And Methods Thereof&#8221;, which issued on December 10, 2001;<br />
No. 6,983,370, titled &#8220;System For Providing Continuity Between Messaging Clients And Method Therefor,&#8221; which issued on January 3, 2006;<br />
No. 7,007,064, titled &#8220;Method And Apparatus For Obtaining And Managing Wirelessly Communicated Content,&#8221; which issued on February 28, 2006;<br />
No. 7,383,983, titled &#8220;System And Method For Managing Content Between Devices In Various Domains,&#8221; which issued on June 10, 2008.</p>
<p>Motorola patent stock pile is deep.  Oldman the prior patents Motorola used were under Frand.  Since Motorola has been told they cannot use them they have just dug out another set that are all not protected by Frand.</p>
<p>Of course you can bet Motorola has many more rounds in reserve.</p>
<p>The simple way to prevent Motorola from keeping on hitting you is take Motorola universal patent agreement.  Where you agree only to use your own patents defensively so becoming allowed to use all Motorola patents.  Apple forced to agree to Motorola terms basically forces to stop charging people.</p>
<p>Microsoft is in exactly the same boat.  Motorola has not stayed in the phone game this long without being able to defend itself in patent battle.</p>
<p>They nasty part here is Motorola has apple because if it had settled the frand patents the way Motorola asked they would have settled these patents as well.  So Apple and Microsoft blew their chance to settle by fighting.</p>
<p>Motorola sucker punch.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Ivan</title>
		<link>http://mrpogson.com/2012/08/25/verdict-in-apple-v-samsung/#comment-94518</link>
		<dc:creator>Ivan</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 26 Aug 2012 04:16:40 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://mrpogson.com/?p=13851#comment-94518</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[I don&#039;t know what everyone is whining about.  &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.aljazeera.com/business/2012/08/201282452423992519.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Samsung&lt;/a&gt; clearly didn&#039;t copy anything from the iPhone.

The fact that the Galaxy II looks like an iPhone, with only minor differences in the UI, with many of the patented features of iOS that weren&#039;t licensed, is clearly a red herring.  

Consumers that want a counterfeit iPhone have lost, woe is them!  Oh woe is them!  Won&#039;t anyone think of consumers that want counterfeit products?!?]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I don&#8217;t know what everyone is whining about.  <a href="http://www.aljazeera.com/business/2012/08/201282452423992519.html" rel="nofollow">Samsung</a> clearly didn&#8217;t copy anything from the iPhone.</p>
<p>The fact that the Galaxy II looks like an iPhone, with only minor differences in the UI, with many of the patented features of iOS that weren&#8217;t licensed, is clearly a red herring.  </p>
<p>Consumers that want a counterfeit iPhone have lost, woe is them!  Oh woe is them!  Won&#8217;t anyone think of consumers that want counterfeit products?!?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: kozmcrae</title>
		<link>http://mrpogson.com/2012/08/25/verdict-in-apple-v-samsung/#comment-94509</link>
		<dc:creator>kozmcrae</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 26 Aug 2012 01:26:56 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://mrpogson.com/?p=13851#comment-94509</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[In a patent war a win for (insert your favourite corporation) is a lose for everyone, except the lawyers.

It doesn&#039;t matter who wins, we all lose.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>In a patent war a win for (insert your favourite corporation) is a lose for everyone, except the lawyers.</p>
<p>It doesn&#8217;t matter who wins, we all lose.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: oldman</title>
		<link>http://mrpogson.com/2012/08/25/verdict-in-apple-v-samsung/#comment-94489</link>
		<dc:creator>oldman</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 25 Aug 2012 16:05:27 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://mrpogson.com/?p=13851#comment-94489</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[&quot;Google taking ownership of Motorola has created a nightmare basically.&quot;

Really? As you have pointed out in one of your walls of bloviation. They are bound by FRAND aren&#039;t they?]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>&#8220;Google taking ownership of Motorola has created a nightmare basically.&#8221;</p>
<p>Really? As you have pointed out in one of your walls of bloviation. They are bound by FRAND aren&#8217;t they?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: oldman</title>
		<link>http://mrpogson.com/2012/08/25/verdict-in-apple-v-samsung/#comment-94488</link>
		<dc:creator>oldman</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 25 Aug 2012 16:03:45 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://mrpogson.com/?p=13851#comment-94488</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[&quot;oldman you are presuming everyone wants cash. Motorola wants patents for patents. Motorola is not interesting in a cash settlement.&quot;

That is a fact not in evidence.

You are presuming as well sir.  How about we see how this plays out eh?]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>&#8220;oldman you are presuming everyone wants cash. Motorola wants patents for patents. Motorola is not interesting in a cash settlement.&#8221;</p>
<p>That is a fact not in evidence.</p>
<p>You are presuming as well sir.  How about we see how this plays out eh?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: oiaohm</title>
		<link>http://mrpogson.com/2012/08/25/verdict-in-apple-v-samsung/#comment-94483</link>
		<dc:creator>oiaohm</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 25 Aug 2012 15:09:38 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://mrpogson.com/?p=13851#comment-94483</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[oldman
&quot;Sure there is… Samsung pays, Apple pays and we go on from here.&quot;

Samsung was not playing MAD.  Motorola is playing the MAD card.
oldman 
&quot;IN the meanwhile Samsung lost.&quot;

Did they really.  With Apple on the path  of ending up with all products blocked from sale due to Samsung loss making the Motorola case stronger.  Yes that Motorola design patents can be applied since Apple managed to prove those are valid patents.  Only a percentage of Samsung items effected where all Apple products are on the line with Motorola.  Motorola is also playing the card that Apple has had all the time it should have required to settle.

This is not a loss for Samsung really.  You are aware iphone and ipad infringe Motorola design patents that the Samsung vs Apple case just proved are valid in a court of law.

This is not a win for Apple they have dug themselves into a hole.

oldman what settlement does Motorola want.  All products by Motorola or Google protected from patent assault in exchange apple gets to use Motorola payments.

In other words all the patents over Android Samsung pays to Apple if Motorola/Google gets their way Apple will have to refund.

Problem is Motorola is willing to go MAD completely  all Motorola products blocked from sale time as all apple products blocked.  Does this effect Google advertising business not one bit.

oldman its too soon to say Samsung has lost.  Its the Motorola vs Apple case we have to watch.  Motorola is in a position it does not have to make a profit from devices to remain in existence.

Micorsoft vs Motorola.  Microsoft is also not getting that Motorola does not have to settle and it will not matter how much pressure Microsoft applies Motorola will not be forced.

Google taking ownership of Motorola has created a nightmare basically.

oldman you are presuming everyone wants cash.  Motorola wants patents for patents.  Motorola is not interesting in a cash settlement.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>oldman<br />
&#8220;Sure there is… Samsung pays, Apple pays and we go on from here.&#8221;</p>
<p>Samsung was not playing MAD.  Motorola is playing the MAD card.<br />
oldman<br />
&#8220;IN the meanwhile Samsung lost.&#8221;</p>
<p>Did they really.  With Apple on the path  of ending up with all products blocked from sale due to Samsung loss making the Motorola case stronger.  Yes that Motorola design patents can be applied since Apple managed to prove those are valid patents.  Only a percentage of Samsung items effected where all Apple products are on the line with Motorola.  Motorola is also playing the card that Apple has had all the time it should have required to settle.</p>
<p>This is not a loss for Samsung really.  You are aware iphone and ipad infringe Motorola design patents that the Samsung vs Apple case just proved are valid in a court of law.</p>
<p>This is not a win for Apple they have dug themselves into a hole.</p>
<p>oldman what settlement does Motorola want.  All products by Motorola or Google protected from patent assault in exchange apple gets to use Motorola payments.</p>
<p>In other words all the patents over Android Samsung pays to Apple if Motorola/Google gets their way Apple will have to refund.</p>
<p>Problem is Motorola is willing to go MAD completely  all Motorola products blocked from sale time as all apple products blocked.  Does this effect Google advertising business not one bit.</p>
<p>oldman its too soon to say Samsung has lost.  Its the Motorola vs Apple case we have to watch.  Motorola is in a position it does not have to make a profit from devices to remain in existence.</p>
<p>Micorsoft vs Motorola.  Microsoft is also not getting that Motorola does not have to settle and it will not matter how much pressure Microsoft applies Motorola will not be forced.</p>
<p>Google taking ownership of Motorola has created a nightmare basically.</p>
<p>oldman you are presuming everyone wants cash.  Motorola wants patents for patents.  Motorola is not interesting in a cash settlement.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: oldman</title>
		<link>http://mrpogson.com/2012/08/25/verdict-in-apple-v-samsung/#comment-94479</link>
		<dc:creator>oldman</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 25 Aug 2012 14:31:37 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://mrpogson.com/?p=13851#comment-94479</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[&quot;MAD patent battle there is no way to win.&quot;


Sure there is... Samsung pays, Apple pays and we go on from here.


IN the meanwhile Samsung lost.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>&#8220;MAD patent battle there is no way to win.&#8221;</p>
<p>Sure there is&#8230; Samsung pays, Apple pays and we go on from here.</p>
<p>IN the meanwhile Samsung lost.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: oiaohm</title>
		<link>http://mrpogson.com/2012/08/25/verdict-in-apple-v-samsung/#comment-94475</link>
		<dc:creator>oiaohm</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 25 Aug 2012 13:22:22 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://mrpogson.com/?p=13851#comment-94475</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Clarence Moon really samsung will fight the loss.

There is a problem as well the Apple win against Samsung makes the Motorola case against Apple stronger.

MAD patent battle there is no way to win.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Clarence Moon really samsung will fight the loss.</p>
<p>There is a problem as well the Apple win against Samsung makes the Motorola case against Apple stronger.</p>
<p>MAD patent battle there is no way to win.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Clarence Moon</title>
		<link>http://mrpogson.com/2012/08/25/verdict-in-apple-v-samsung/#comment-94470</link>
		<dc:creator>Clarence Moon</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 25 Aug 2012 12:07:45 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://mrpogson.com/?p=13851#comment-94470</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[&lt;b&gt;Too soon to say its over.&lt;/b&gt;

Can you say &lt;a&gt;&quot;Black Knight&quot;&lt;/a&gt;, Mr. O?  :-)]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><b>Too soon to say its over.</b></p>
<p>Can you say <a>&#8220;Black Knight&#8221;</a>, Mr. O?  <img src='http://mrpogson.com/wp-includes/images/smilies/icon_smile.gif' alt=':-)' class='wp-smiley' /> </p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: oiaohm</title>
		<link>http://mrpogson.com/2012/08/25/verdict-in-apple-v-samsung/#comment-94469</link>
		<dc:creator>oiaohm</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 25 Aug 2012 11:55:35 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://mrpogson.com/?p=13851#comment-94469</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Chris Weig Motorola is currently pushing to have every one of Apple products blocked from sale.

Too soon to say its over.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Chris Weig Motorola is currently pushing to have every one of Apple products blocked from sale.</p>
<p>Too soon to say its over.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
