Again, you miss the point. I assume that is because you are emotionally vested in this (swearing doesn't make you sound more forceful, just more emotional) and your emotions must be clouding any sense of consistent logic. The "it's not fair" argument works well for little kids, but this is more of an adult topic than playground teasing. It's about business, law, etc.

Apple never agreed to charge a reasonable price for the pinch and zoom patent. They applied for it, and were granted it. If you have issue with them getting that patent fine (I don't like it was granted to them either, and I agree its a stupid patent in the first place, however... that is another conversation). The fact remains is they were granted it, and it is not a patent they agreed to license at a fair price. Samsung however did agree to license certain patents at a fair price, and they are trying to charge some vendors (who compete more aggressively and charge them a lot for patents, e.g. Apple) significantly different terms than others. In other words, it would appear they are trying to "get back at apple" by abusing patents they agreed they wouldn't abuse.

It doesn't matter if Apple charges a billion dollars a phone for pinch and zoom. They never agreed to license it to anyone in the first place. If you want to be mad at someone, be mad at the USPTO office, but not Apple for leveraging their IP. Samsung and Google's abuse of patent essential patents risks upending all standards for everyone. If they can abuse them, why can't everyone who holds a patent essential patent. Once you open that door, who would ever develop a product using standards... you risk $$$$$$ abuse once the standard is established.

Being controlled by your emotions when making decisions can be a very reckless thing... i'd suggest you take a longer look at your miss-guided opinion.

I think you guys don't understand what “standards essential” patents are and how they came to become STANDARDS essential. You seem to think common patents = standards essential patents, and that just isn’t the case.

So for the record, Apple really isn't abusing standards essential patents like Samsung/Motorola. When a standard is being debated, and before it's agreed on by a standard body, the patent owner is consultant and (in virtually all cases where it becomes a standard) the owner agree to license that patent fairly and without discrimination (meaning to competitors). Microsoft and Apple aren't abusing their PATTENT ESSENTIAL patents. They are just making people pay up for using their other patents that happen to provide common functionality.

In other words, Apple and Microsoft aren't in the position Samsung and Google/Moto are in. They have patents on things that, while seem standard or essential, they didn't agree to license them with any "standards" body. They are just really popular things that everybody wants.

Maybe some examples will help you understand. Motorola agreed to certain wifi and video patent licensing before their patented technologies where included by the governing standards body. Microsoft agreed to ZERO licensing agreements for their proprietary product ActiveSync technology (not exactly true anymore, since the EU got involved, but that would be another debate). However, Apple didn't agree to allow pinch and zoom as a standard and the EU hasn’t forced them to license it. It’s just pinch and zoom is really cool and everyone copied them. Fast forward and Google-Motorola is pissed that Apple and Microsoft won't let them use their active sync and pinch and zoom patents for free so they are breaking their promise on the wifi/video patents and charging absurd rates for those patents. It’s not the pot calling the kettle black. You just don't understand the back story.

Apple may have cleared him. but the SEC hasn't. I suspect Apple is only clearing him because of the speculation, rumors, and falling stock.

The internet is buzzing withspeculation that Steve Jobs may step down over reports that he profited $7.5 million in stock options by falsifying an executive board meeting. The financial times has a good overview of the unfolding story.

From the Article:

"Steve Jobs, chief executive of Apple Computer, was handed 7.5m stock options in 2001 without the required authorization from the company's board of directors, according to people familiar with the matter.

Records that purported to show a full board meeting had taken place to approve Mr Jobs' remuneration, as required by Apple's procedures, were later falsified. These are now among the pieces of evidence being weighed by the Securities and Exchange Commission as it decides whether to pursue a case against the company or any individuals over the affair, according to these people."