or Connect
New Posts  All Forums:

Posts by KPOM

Only if you drink beer while flying on airplanes.
This is probably a case of socioeconomic factors. Apple products appeal to the affluent, while Android devices appeal to the masses. Those with money drink wine, fly airplanes and are more likely to buy Apple products. Those on a budget drink beer, take public transportation, and are more likely to buy cheaper technology.
She tripled the value of Burberry in 7 years. Could you or i have done that? Probably not. So, if anyone is worth that much, she is.
That's not how patent law works. Google doesn't make phones and they don't charge for Android software. $0 revenue times anything is still $0. Apple can't directly go after Google's ad revenue.
 What's weird is that Samsung succeeded in devaluing its own patents, but not in devaluing Apple's (at least not to the extent that they wanted to). Overall, it's a much better day for Samsung than the last trial, but the larger message is that both sides have a stronger reason to reach a permanent settlement. They have a duopoly on smartphones right now and it's shaping up that way on the tablet side, as well. Neither is going to knock the other out of the game with IP.
Not really. Sure, it's a lot better than last year's result, but the patents have value, which is what their counterclaim for $6.2 million was attempting to refute. More likely this puts pressure on both sides to reach a cross-licensing agreement of some sort. Maybe $2-4/phone net to Apple (less than what Apple gets from HTC, but over a larger volume).
What it probably does is put pressure on both sides to finally reach a settlement. The patents this time around were worth a lot less, at least according to the jury, and as time goes on Samsung is working around the patents more and more. Microsoft took a "license" approach rather than a "sue" approach, and perhaps we'll see Apple trend toward that. They've done that with HTC. My guess is that with Samsung it was personal given that they are a significant supplier and...
ReCode is saying the jury awarded $119 million, though that can be increased since it was "willful." So it's a mixed bag. Apple gets another jury verdict and gains a little bit more leverage in final negotiations. I'm sure they didn't think they'd really get $2.2 billion, given that they only got $900 million last time and this case was far more nuanced.
Another, far more realistic possibility is that the jury finds for Apple but awards a relatively small amount (something north of $38 million and well south of $2.2 billion).
 Maybe it was buggy and they pulled the feature from the RTM build. Given the demand and the fact that it had taken so long already, maybe Microsoft didn't want to wait any longer and decided to release Office for iPad before it was finished. Apple did the same with the iWork applications, making major additions a few weeks after launch.
New Posts  All Forums: