or Connect
New Posts  All Forums:

Posts by GregInPrague

So going from 3.5 to 4 inches screens in 2012 wasn't actually "bigger?" Can you name any examples of co-CEO's that were successful?  The only such arraignment I know of was at Blackberry and that was an unmitigated disaster.
They call it guidance because they are guiding shareholders. If it was found to be an intentional "ruse" as you suggest I'm sure they could be sued by their shareholder.
Since you read Cote's 60+ page brief this should be a piece of cake. http://tech.fortune.cnn.com/2013/08/05/apple-samsung-itc-pinkert/Again, if you were neutral you wouldn't use loaded statements like "Shockingly when it applies to an American company." That adds nothing to the arguement and makes your next sentence not believable.
 Because it couldn't be a boss who only gets involved when the failure of the subordinate is egregious...
 Whether you are one of them or not there are plenty of anti-Apple trolls that frequent this site and regularly post.  Many of them even start by saying "how much they love Apple products but can't abide by Apple's behavior in xxxx situation."  Why they join and spend their time making nuanced posts (beyond possibly being paid Samsung shills) is completely beyond me.  
  Well, this clearly shows that you're not coming at Apple related issues from a neutral perspective as you claim.  That situation was much more complex than you suggest and saying it's not shows how little you know about this issue in particular and calls into question your judgement on the other ~115 posts you've made on AI. The ITC is a part of the executive branch of the US government and is therefore subordinate to Obama.  He didn't "protect" Apple, he decided that...
Can you enlighten us on this government Apple protection?  Are you referring to the ITC veto?  If so I'm pretty sure it's you who needs to read more.
The paragraph above and the 50+ other comments you've made in this thread alone show that you're also not coming at this from a neutral perspective.Cote is wrong on this issue and will be told so by the appellate court in the near future. The fact that they have not had the opportunity to do so yet does not make her "right."
So now the ITC is a patent office?  I imagine people on here with similar feelings to you would appreciate it if you would stop making their "side" look so uneducated.  
New Posts  All Forums: