quote: It is quite simply outrageous that you think that a completely distinct and separate legal case can IN ANY SITUATION justify FRAND abuse. Here's a top tip for you - it DOESN'T.
quote: Once again, it is quite simply outrageous that despite my very clear, concise explanation above to this very question
quote: that you still just don't get it
quote: Design patents, on the other hand, which are every bit as valid have NO SUCH OBLIGATIONS WHATSOEVER.
quote: I'm struggling to understand how anyone can be so stupid not to realise that it's easier to workaround non-essential patents.
quote: It's simply a logical fact.
quote: Um.... no? Do you know how patents work? The patent is the patent. Whatever you filed for, and had approved, is where the 'goalposts' are fixed. If anyone does something in a different way, it isn't covered by the patent.
quote: While this sentence has no basis in fact whatsoever and is merely your irrelevant opinion, it also doesn't address a single claim I made.
quote: Simply nonsense.
quote: If I've got a patent, I'm already protected so nobody can copy. Similarly, you can't successfully file for a patent if there is already an existing patent for the same thing.
quote: What actually did happen is that Apple patented technology which hadn't been patented by anyone , after they developed it, and they proceeded to sue people who infringed upon that patent after it was filed.
quote: Thus, any successful patent or court case must by definition, NOT be illegal. Thus your sentence, while true, is completely irrelevant since it's not what is happening.
quote: Ritualm, meet monkey.
quote: So how do you justify Apple suing people left and right with design patents? Except you can't. You are already intoxicated by that cyanide-flavored Apple Kool-Aid to see the difference.
quote: Bullshit. Design patents are so overly broad, they can be applied on anything and everything. Getting Galaxy Tabs banned just because it's a tablet... that looks like a tablet. Gee, why haven't we banned every television screen out there? They all use inch-thick bezels, exactly what is being used on the iPad!
quote: What exactly are these workarounds? Do something different than Apple, thus ensuring they will fail commercially?
quote: Yes I do know how they work. You don't. Apple's patent filings are so vague and ambiguous, they leave a lot to interpretation. Hence the goal posts.
quote: What valid patents? Design patents? Those are invalid.
quote: But keep arguing they are valid because you could not afford to lose arguments.
quote: provided said patents are valid (which I wont provide any opinion on )
quote: 1 - Sony did a wedge design on some of their laptops but did not file a patent on it. They don't see a need for it. 2 - Apple made their Macbook Airs look like a wedge and wanted to patent that. 3 - What are they gonna do next? Of course, sue every manufacturer under the sun for violating the wedge design patent! 4 - You cannot make something look like a wedge because it is patented by Apple. 5 - You cannot make something with beveled edges because it is patented by Apple. 6 - You cannot make something with rounded rectangles and inch-thick bezels because it is patented by Apple. 7 - Of course you think these are perfectly valid patents because Tim Cook says "Do or else". Apple plays as a victim when it is actually a bully. Copy features directly out of Android and call them "invented by Apple", but Google doing the same and you sue them for piracy.
quote: Wrong, as Apple has already proven otherwise with its COPYCAT patents.
quote: What actually did happen is that Apple patented technology which had ALREADY been patented by someone else , and they proceeded to sue people who infringed upon that copycat patent after it was filed.
quote: Admission of guilt - you have confessed that whatever Apple's been doing in court is illegal. Therefore, what I said is completely relevant since it's what is happening.