or Connect
New Posts  All Forums:

Posts by tooltalk

 @Macky the Macky : his article was not published as an "op-ed", rather as, a "hand-on."  Then he cited bogus footnotes, benchmarks and, most laughably, his own article, as primary source.  My point here is that all his articles should be treated as "op-ed;" not based on facts or reality, but one  blogger's opinion grounded on wishful thinking. No, stop making stuff up. LOL!!   All mobile SOCs are LP, low-power, but only a few are dual "power-saving" arch.  In Samsung's...
 This op-ed is full of errors and exaggeration as usual.  In his last cpu comparison "op-ed", he compared the performance of the A8 and the Exynos 7420 -- and, of course, DED's Exynos benchmark was based on the power-saving A53 quad. In this particular article, take, for instance, his claim that :  now, if you know anything about Apple's GPU strategy, they have long outsourced their GPU design to Imgtech and the last three or fours A SOCs had no fewer than 4+ GPU cores --...
 and nobody with right mind would buy Teslas without any tax breaks.  And that's what Apple is probably betting on -- even greater "green" tax incentive from the US gov't to finance consumer purchase. 
 @lymf : I think Samsung should request an en banc. If not, the SCOTUS. 
 The autocorrect patent is also strange in that it's not even used by Apple.  And that's one of the main reasons why the district court refused to grant an injunction on this case.   The legal standards for granting an injunction in the US is fairly high and patent holders must prove infringement and irreparable harm (eg, lost sales) to ban a product here.  By reversing the lower court's ruling, the majority in this case pretty much reversed their own legal precedents they...
 @DaveN :  this split decision in the appeals case deals with a very specific issue -- whether a sales injunction is an appropriate remedy for Samsung's infringement, not whether Apple has to share their patents.
 @Mechanic : Sure, and very few cases have the support of legal community / academics and interests from a broad range of major companies from manufacturing to tech industries that Samsung enjoys this time around.   I'd say the chance is very high. 
 @spanading : most of Apple's patents asserted against Samsung during the first trial have been invalidated or are up for retrial; those from the second trial are still under review and I am very skeptical that too many of them would survive, when all said and done.  Most of Apple's claims are based on design, trade dress and utility patents, I doubt Apple's empty litigations would interfere much on Samsung's mobile platform ambition. Let's not forget, Apple also...
 The Bloomberg article refers to three "inventions" : Apple’s slide-to-unlock, autocorrect and quicklinks features.  I don't think however these are very strong patents.  Slide-to-Unlock for instance has been invalidated pretty much everywhere, but the US.  But, with the recent Alice vs CLS Bank ruling, it's fairly safe to say the utility patent is pretty much dead at this point. 
 @wood1208 : Sure, and what part of Asia are you referring to? TSMC has been manufacturing Qualcomm chips as long as I remember -- even before Samsung started their foundry business. 
New Posts  All Forums: