or Connect
New Posts  All Forums:

Posts by hjb

As usual, you pouring out full of nonsense here. Samsung is saying that they developed F-700 and even registered patent in 2006 before the first iPhone was released. Sticky to the point and make it short and precise. Don't waste your and others valuable time.
Sure, but you can not simply ignore non-us rulings, IMO.
We are talking about a design patent. Of course, Samsung should be looking for prior arts as many as possible. Nothing wrong with that.Prior art does not have to be actual products, as I understand. In this case, there are plenty of actual products as prior arts, see the Uk ruling. I think you need to research what the design patents are.
Thanks for this long response. Sorry for this late. It is 11pm on Friday here, I have been out with my family.Samsung said F-700 is crucial to this case. What they are saying is that they developed F-700 in 2006 and registered it in Korea Patent office in 2006 December. Would you want to here what they are saying in the court? I think they will present the Korea patent along with ther argument in the court.If they could prove that they developed F-700 in 2006, then...
I am not a lawyer, but isn't it a perfect prior art for the design patent Apple registered?The Apple patent here is nothing more than simple drawing with a brief description. It was not a product or alike, not even possible to have since the technology was not upto it. (iPad came out six years after the patent was issued)Again I am not a lawyer, but I think the Judge made a mistake or instructed or consulted by someone?
  You do not have to wait me replying you.  If you can not see that yourself, then I do not have anything to show you since, I think, you are blind.
  Why not, it is better than the Olympic. Hahaha.  
  If you see the table in here, you would see that Koh would have denied F-700 anyway.  Basically all crucial evidence in this case rejected by the Judge.  How would it be fair?
So, basically all evidence of prior art re Apple patents are excluded by the Judge in the court.  It is simple not fair.  Yes, I think, the Judge has already made herself it to be a mistrial.   Samsung can not present crucial evidence that they did not copy Apple.  Samsung could not present perfect and legitimate prior art evidence against Apple patent.  Hilarious. 
  I thought China is a growing market for Apple.  Even though it is not, Apple should protect its IP there in China.  Not?
New Posts  All Forums: