| |||||||||||||
Mueller: Apple's iterative approach to FRAND abuse is not for the faint of heartMueller: Apple's iterative approach to FRAND abuse is not for the faint of heartPosted Feb 6, 2012 22:11 UTC (Mon) by jcorgan (subscriber, #47213)In reply to: Mueller: Apple's iterative approach to FRAND abuse is not for the faint of heart by hitmark Parent article: Mueller: Apple's iterative approach to FRAND abuse is not for the faint of heart It also demonstrates how much of a pipe dream the idea of a unregulated market really is. Heh, imagine that--someone thinking that patents, which are government-granted monopolies, are part of an "unregulated market."
(Log in to post comments)
Mueller: Apple's iterative approach to FRAND abuse is not for the faint of heart Posted Feb 7, 2012 0:33 UTC (Tue) by dgm (subscriber, #49227) [Link]
Patents, like many other goods, are traded. And those movements are not subject to any kind of law, limit or regulation. Prices change freely responding to supply and demand. That's the definition of "unregulated market", and the fact that they are government-granted is irrelevant.
Mueller: Apple's iterative approach to FRAND abuse is not for the faint of heart Posted Feb 7, 2012 1:01 UTC (Tue) by bojan (subscriber, #14302) [Link]
Actually, if you read Florian's analysis, you will in fact find that many patents (at least in Germany) and their "trade" is subject to many rules.
Mueller: Apple's iterative approach to FRAND abuse is not for the faint of heart Posted Feb 7, 2012 1:36 UTC (Tue) by drag (subscriber, #31333) [Link]
> Patents, like many other goods, are traded. And those movements are not subject to any kind of law, limit or regulation. Prices change freely responding to supply and demand. That's the definition of "unregulated market",
No it is not. Being able to buy and sell and change prices based on demand is just the definition of 'market'. It does not indicate whether or not there is regulation present. You seem to be ignoring the definition of your adjective (at least in the context), or are using it in a bizarre manner.
> and the fact that they are government-granted is irrelevant.
No... the fact that they are 'government-granted' means that it's regulated. It is _extremely_ relevant.
Saying that government granted monopolies on the ability to distribute and use software in a marketplace is not regulation on software marketplaces because you have the ability buy and sell these monopoly rights just doesn't make a lot of sense.
I am very sorry, but the level of absurdity here makes it difficult to even refute. One has a hard time even figuring out were to start!
Mueller: Apple's iterative approach to FRAND abuse is not for the faint of heart Posted Feb 7, 2012 4:06 UTC (Tue) by ghane (subscriber, #1805) [Link] > I am very sorry, but the level of absurdity here makes it difficult to even refute. One has a hard time even figuring out were to start!Das ist nicht nur nicht richtig, es ist nicht einmal falsch! -- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Not_even_wrong
Mueller: Apple's iterative approach to FRAND abuse is not for the faint of heart Posted Feb 8, 2012 10:37 UTC (Wed) by alecs1 (guest, #46699) [Link]
A candidate for quotes of the week, but a bit too serious.
I wonder if drag had "not even wrong" in mind, or at least had prior knowledge of it. I surely hear about it for the first time.
|
|||||||||||||