or Connect
New Posts  All Forums:

Posts by Gatorguy

Well obviously there's no "if" since Samsung clarified what the numbers concerned in a public statement published by leading news media and distributed to millions of readers.EDIT: In the next post Dick found real reasons to look at Samsung as unethical and a poor business neighbor. I probably don't like Samsung as a company any better than you do but with so many verified instances of Samsung executives shortcomings' and the company's proven questionable practices there's...
No, but you seem to have trouble reading the answers. There were no tablet numbers in the previous trial that I'm aware of. Did you have some I had missed?If you have information and/or facts to add to the discussion as I have done several times so far please do. There's honestly no shortage of snarkiness and insulting posts from others in the forums so why add to it? A long time and generally respected member such as yourself should be above that IMO.
You may have missed a previous thread post on whether Samsung lied about 2M unit sales or misled investors by failing to specify what that number represented.http://forums.appleinsider.com/t/178163/exclusive-apple-vs-samsung-docs-reveal-galaxy-tab-was-a-flop-and-samsung-knew-it#post_2514508
I think that's generally the law in Australia, but don't know if it's enforced. IIRC if a patented invention isn't produced by the applicant within 3 years then others may use it.EDIT: Here's a citation that explains how Australia views it.http://www.alrc.gov.au/publications/27-compulsory-licensing/compulsory-licensing
Numbers for what? There were none from the first trial AFAIK as it wasn't infringing (EDIT: Thanks Dansanman for finding a citation!) . As for the overall sales numbers cited again by DED I already linked the original 2 year old AI article on this very same subject several posts back.
Reminds me of someone I haven't seen here for a long time. . ....anonymouse
...and here's what Samsung would rather the jury use.http://www.scribd.com/doc/217313220/Samsung-s-Proposed-Verdict-FormOne big difference that's immediately obvious: Samsung wants it noted when Apple advised them that they were infringing on the pertinent Apple patent. Another major one is they want the jury's opinion on whether Apple has proved that accused components used in Samsung devices were inherently infringing and if not whether it was clear that supplying them...
Fair enough. Perception doesn't pay as much tho.
For those interested here's Apple's proposed jury verdict form: http://www.scribd.com/doc/217312959/Apple-s-proposed-verdict-form
You obviously don't read what I actually post then.
New Posts  All Forums: