or Connect
New Posts  All Forums:

Posts by Cash907

  There is. Donna is in the hot seat.   Here's my question: why did no one notice that the report that magically showed up AFTER the suit was brought against Harvey and the firm was claimed to have never been written by the author, when she was confronted by Harvey? That plot hole has been driving me crazy for two weeks now.
200 bucks for an additional 8 gigs of ram, which can be purchased from Newegg for 43 dollars right now? That's insane, even for Apple's standards.   Apple can keep their Retina display nonsense, just stick the higher resolution screen that the 13" MBA ships with into the 13" MBP (or at least give me the damn option to upgrade at purchase) and I'd be happy. I'm getting ready to upgrade from a 2009 MBP, and as much as I love that higher resolution screen in the MBA,...
And if the iPad were a PC. these numbers would be relevant.   It's not, so they aren't. I notice that the same people who poo poo'ed Netbooks as not being real PC's just a few years ago are largely behind this move to mainstream the iPad as a computing device, and not a glorified iPod Touch with a larger screen, interestingly enough.
There was no court order prohibiting them from doing this.
Unless the judge specifically forbade them from making rejected evidence public, it's completely lawful.   Seems to me like Samsung is playing the long game here, and doesn't expect a favorable outcome from this judge. These tactics seem like they are setting up evidence that they were discriminated against, which they can use during the appeal, as well as building up their image in the court of public opinion.
  I see you're new here.
  Apple is patenting the wedge, and tech that other companies have already had on the market for years, but they're the INNOVATIVE ones?   Yup, chug that Koolaid, because you clearly swallowed any objectivity you had a long time ago.
  So you're saying it's ok even if it looks and functions the same, as long as the underlying mechanism is different? I think you need to rethink your statement, because you just completely invalidated Apple's suit against Samsung.
  It would certainly be more honest.   Not that I expect honesty from any company, mind you, even the oh so shiny house that Jobs built.
  But of course. This naturally explains Apple's 40% gross profit margin... their pursuit of quality.   *rolls eyes*   I have no problem with corporations making money. Hell, that's what corporations are SUPPOSED to do, but it really irks me when folks like Ive try to have it both ways here. That's naturally what is spurring Apple's ridiculous litigious actions of the last few years: Quality. We can't have other companies making "quality" products for less, now, can we?
New Posts  All Forums: