| |||||||||||||
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 7, 2012 10:01 UTC (Tue) by danielpf (subscriber, #4723)In reply to: Mueller: Apple's iterative approach to FRAND abuse is not for the faint of heart by hadrons123 Parent article: Mueller: Apple's iterative approach to FRAND abuse is not for the faint of heart
Indeed I would urge serious journal and web site editors to discard evoking pseudo-analysts who just spin about what they have been payed for.
(Log in to post comments)
Mueller: Apple's iterative approach to FRAND abuse is not for the faint of heart Posted Feb 7, 2012 20:15 UTC (Tue) by jra (subscriber, #55261) [Link]
Hear Hear. Florian Mueller is the Rob Enderle of patent technology analysts/self promoters. His business model is to take money to write articles that take the side his paymasters want to be seen as an "independent" analysis.
Giving him any attention at all merely helps him build this business.
Jeremy.
Mueller: Apple's iterative approach to FRAND abuse is not for the faint of heart Posted Feb 8, 2012 6:32 UTC (Wed) by cmccabe (guest, #60281) [Link]
The thing that bothers me about Florian Mueller is not that he's biased-- we all are, after all. It's just that he won't be honest about who is paying him and why. Unfortunately, there's a real dearth of actual lawyers willing to talk about issues like this.
Mueller: Apple's iterative approach to FRAND abuse is not for the faint of heart Posted Feb 10, 2012 11:35 UTC (Fri) by jtc (subscriber, #6246) [Link]
"It's just that he won't be honest about who is paying him and why"...
Well, we perhaps can't tell if this was accidental or not, but the BBC, at:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/mobile/technology-16960676
says:
"Florian Mueller, author of the Foss Patents blog who does consultancy work for Microsoft, wrote that " ...
Either Mueller admitted this to the BBC, or they found this out from a reliable source, or their source is unreliable and might be wrong. Their reputation suggests (to me, at least) that either of the 1st or 2nd possibilities are a lot more likely than the 3rd.
|
|||||||||||||