Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook


Forgot your password?
Check out the new SourceForge HTML5 internet speed test! No Flash necessary and runs on all devices. ×

Comment Re:But the Qualcomm product is worth it (Score 1) 61

Absolutely not. Consider -for example- the crime of manslaughter. The relatives of the slain can often press civil charges against the killer for his conduct. That fact has _absolutely no bearing_ on the criminal charges available to and evidentiary standards for The State's criminal case against the killer.

That's an entirely different situation. In a case of man slaughter, the victim is dead (so he cannot seek relief). The state does not brings criminal charges to correct the wrong done to the relatives. It does it to correct the wrong done to the victim.

It actually _does_ mean that.

That would mean that by agreeing to a "reasonable compensation" they agree to not have any say in what is or isn't "reasonable." "Non-Discriminatory" is also difficult to parse because it has to mean like compensation in like situations. But every company's business model is different so it would be hard (although not impossible) to find 2 "like" situations.

You should also read at least the first few sections of the law that establishes the FTC's mandate to understand what it can and cannot do.

I am fairly sure this would be the 1st time that FTC brings monopoly abuse charges against someone trying to re-negotiate licensing of a granted patent.

Comment Re:But the Qualcomm product is worth it (Score 1) 61

Let's be clear. Just because they agreed to accept payments by licensing under RAND does not mean they gave up their to determining how much is owed under RAND. And if some parties were to shortchange them, they would be within their rights to refuse licensing. And until those parties sued for breach and won, FTC has no business jumping to the conclusion that market-wide harm was caused. In fact, even if some parties won a claim of breach, FTC still would have shaky standing because IP ownership of patent holders is unquestionable and absolute while SEP participation is voluntary (and may or may not be argued to be revocable with no penalties other than the ones explicitly outlined when entering into the SEP agreement). Certainly the fact that the "harmed" parties already have means of redress makes the bar to prove that market place was harmed much higher.

Comment Re:But the Qualcomm product is worth it (Score 1) 61

They -uh- have?

Not in court. My point remains that the parties which were purportedly damaged have a way to redress their grievances through court without FTC. And only the damaged parties have standing to ask for redress. FTC cannot claim damage to overall marketplace until after a court has ruled that there were some parties damaged through a breach of a contract.

Comment Re:would be more credible (Score 1) 309

It says right in the summary that the investigation has been going on for years already. And the timing makes little difference here, and if Trump gets involved it would be a scandal for many reasons unrelated to race.

Well, by all means, then they must be appalled (appalled!) that there is gambling... I mean DISCRIMINATION going on there. Clearly, they had enough evidence create a sham, but not enough to charge, and they had it a while ago and just decided to deploy it at the very moment when it would be most politically damaging to the incoming administration.

Comment would be more credible (Score 4, Insightful) 309

If they filed before the election instead of the day before inauguration of a President from the opposing party. Once again, if Trump drops the suit, he is racist. If Trump wins the suit, it's Trump persecuting the tech sector while Obama protected minority rights. Who are these jokers kidding?

Comment Re:But the Qualcomm product is worth it (Score 1) 61

Had Qualcomm not entered into an agreement to license its SEPs at RAND rates, in exchange for the inclusion of its tech in widely-used telecom standards; had they simply kept their patents to themselves and forced the standards body to make due without Qualcomm's patented tech, FedGov would not have a case.

Is it common practice for FTC to sue to enforce contracts? Shouldn't the suit be brought by the parties which suffered because of the breach? Unless, FTC is a party to SEP agreement, then it should have not standing to sue for the breach. Even if it were a party, FTC would not be able to demonstrate damages to the FTC, so it would not have standing to sue. The only standing it can show in this case is as an entity entrusted with ensuring that monopoly power is not abused. But using government-granted limited-time monopolies for bargaining purposes is not an abuse of a monopoly. It is the intended purpose of patents.

This is FedGov suing an inventor that has lied, cheated, and violated both contracts and trust in order to advance its own position at the expense of others and do serious damage to the market in the process.

Wouldn't some of the parties damaged by the breach of trust have to show that the breach has occurred before a claim can be made that the marketplace as a whole was damaged?

Comment Re:But the Qualcomm product is worth it (Score 1) 61

But patents, as such, are government-granted monopolies. It is a bit (just a bit) mind-boggling that the government would grant monopolies and then sue the inventors whose monopolies are successful. Ownership (of anything) is the right to deny use. It's the only bargaining power an owner has with those to whom he rents the right to use. If they should not try to profit from it, then what's the point of granting these ownership rights?

Comment Re:Wait - we still have an antitrust agency? (Score 1) 61

You are probably right. The move is most likely motivated by politics than by any desire to do the right thing. An agency filing a suit 2 days before the head of the new boss comes in? That seems more like loosening the screws in all the chairs in the office. If Trump's FCC drops the suit, Democrats get to yell that he is favoring bad business practices. If he allows it to continue, Democrats get to roll their eyes claiming that the suit was filed under Obama and Trump is just trying to take credit.

Comment as a language designer (Score 5, Interesting) 338

Since you have been involved with 2 lauded languages, you are in a good position to answer the following question: "are modern languages forced to rely on language run-time to compensate for the facilities lacking in modern operating systems?" In other words, have the languages tried to compensate for the fact that there are no new OS-level light-weight paradigms to take advantage of multi-core processors?

Comment Re:Fix Cluelessness (Score 1) 196

Security needs to be designed into the protocols from the start.

That's almost too cute. Except they need to be secure enough to be usable by consumers and not have en masse exposure to criminals who can come in physical contact with them. What protocols do you use to secure them during physical access?

Slashdot Top Deals

I have a theory that it's impossible to prove anything, but I can't prove it.