or Connect
New Posts  All Forums:

Posts by Gatorguy

So all the products Apple has in development are side-lined since we don't know the exact launch date if ever?
That little "NEXT" thing of yours is kinda habit-forming. "And in parallel, Google Glass was met with giddy optimism for years, despite never actually launching for real until it was sidelined as a product entirely."It's not sidelined.
Well one truth is that Google Glass is still very much alive.http://www.forbes.com/sites/theopriestley/2015/07/04/how-google-glass-v2-could-change-the-enterprise/That doesn't mean the NYT article was anything more than poorly constructed click-baiting built on a flawed premise.
Fingerprint tech can now be built directly into the display. I imagine Apple isn't too far behind in doing so for themselves. http://thenextweb.com/insider/2015/07/21/sonovation-has-bonded-3d-fingerprint-sensors-to-gorilla-glass-kiss-your-home-button-goodbye/
"Viewing the smartphone as a single “article of manufacture,” the panel held that the statute (289) required it to award the total profit where the “innards of Samsung’s smartphones were not sold separately from their shells as distinct articles of manufacture to ordinary purchasers." Can you see a possibility, however remote, that this could negatively affect Apple in some future hearing? Can you imagine a court being "required" to to award the total profit from all...
You cited precedence as a factor often when you and I were discussing SEP licensing. It mattered to you then. Sadly I'm pretty sure I understand why you want to say it doesn't matter now.
In actual fact you are arguing that Section 89 DOES apply. I believe you may not have read it yet.
So for future cases involving smartdevices they should be considered simple devices, subject to profit disgorgement for design patent infringement despite the intent or level of it in your opinion. Intent won't necessarily matter and may not be something a "future judge' may think he can decide. You do understand that right? Once set precedent can be very difficult to overcome.
Does section 289 allow for "intent"? No sir it does not AFAIK. It's pretty cut and dried if you read it.http://www.wipo.int/wipolex/en/text.jsp?file_id=130046Seeing as it's an interpretation that will likely be used a precedent in other cases do you believe that the Amicus Brief is appropo?
Your opinion is just as relevant as anyone's here. You don't typically shy away from offering one. You've even offered opinions in this thread on why you think Google is involved*. Why avoid offering your opinion on my question now? Saying it won't affect the judge's decision and that's why you won't offer one is dodging.*which would have zero to do with the Oracle lawsuit as it doesn't involve design patents.
New Posts  All Forums: