or Connect
New Posts  All Forums:

Posts by hjb

Depend on which. I just got a White Galaxy Note for my wife from Hong Kong. It is a top tablet, phone, photo & video camera, note, media player... I could not shut my mouth during the whole time with this Galaxy Note. Great user friendly. Fast. Amazing display. Although there is a bit time delay when using S pen (a stylus), but that is about it. Nothing else to complain about. I am sure this would be a big hit. I would say to you forget about IPhone 4s and bring it...
First, why this is win to Samsung? By March next year, Samsung Galaxy Tab 10.1 would be dead. Someone in MacRumor site said that the husband of the Judge Annabelle Bennett is a senior council member of 5 Wentworth which representing Apple in Annabelle Bennett's own court. See this link, http://www.5wentworth.com.au/site/people/ Among the 6 senior council members, Stephen Burley SC is the barrister representing Apple in this court. And David Bennett AC QC is...
No, what I am saying is that conflict of interest existed in the injunction decision, as someone questioned. So, you are saying there is no issue there?I think Apple maybe ok, although the connection may have played in Apple heading to Wentworth 5. But the judge should have declared it and made herself unavailable, IMHO.
MacRulez, I understand what you are saying. That person, as you could read, were not expressing an opinion, it was like stating a fact. Sure, I should have reseached it myself before I post that here. Now I have done that research and I beleive what that person in MacRumours site said. First, I googled 'Wentworth 5'. Click the first result that leads to Wentworth 5 website, and click 'People'. Among the first 6 senior council members, you could see Stephen Burley SC...
Sure the judge should have declared it and made herself unavailable, if the allegation is true. No that does not mean she would give up her job, but the job. If you not understand this, then surely you are a diehard Apple fan who supports whatever Apple does or whoever sided with Apple. I can not beleive this.
Someone in Macrumors said "Things to note: - The injunction against Samsung stands on one product and one product only. Samsung is free to sell any of its upcoming tablets. - The judge that granted an injunction is married to one of the senior counsel members of Wentworth 5- the barrister firm representing Apple in the court case. Conflict of interest? " If what he said true about the Judge, of course there has been conflict of interest. Now I my curiousity...
Samsung actually invests close to $10 billion every year in R&D. Compare that with millions by Apple. And they do create many unique in wide areas not just design or touch jestures. It seems that Samsung is the real tech company whereas Apple is a design company with excellence in marketing.
Never say never. Have you heard Galaxy Note? It is amazing, just youtube it. Sure it is definately not for me because it is too girlish. But if you have a girl friend or wife, I think it is perfect present for them. (I like the pen input, Samsung has vastly improved on this)
Well, this is my understanding. Douth court basically dumped most of Apple claims (9 out of 10). Ok, they awarded an injuction but not really is it? So, Apple lost. German court, yes Apple won based on the Community Design registered in 2004. Now, Samsung 1 : Apple 1. However, the Community Design would likely be invalidated by the court action by Samsung, IMHO. Australian court, yes Apple won based on some multitouch jestures. Now Samsung 2 : Apple 1. I...
Samsung might bring to Australia GT 10.2A (A for Ausie) without Apple multitouch patents, but with equivalant multitouch. I hope they do. http://www.smh.com.au/digital-life/t...014-1loez.html
New Posts  All Forums: