or Connect
New Posts  All Forums:

Posts by tooltalk

 No, much of their marketing spending ends up in the hands of retailers or consumers as rebates, promotion, spiff, etc, etc, not ads.  Sure, everyone, including Apple copies shamelessly.  That's what everyone does in this business. Now, I keep hearing that Xiaomi is backed by the Chineses gov't at other sites like Arstechnica.com again and again by someone with the same namehandle -- and then repeated by other lemmings elsewhere.  Do you have any evidence that supports...
 Sure, and where in FRAND, does it say if the apportionment rule (component) or the entire market value rule (end user product) applies in this case? Your argument is a red herring. Further, it's common industry practice for SEP holders to charge royalty rates based on end-user devices (eg, Qualcomm, Moto, or pretty much the whole wireless industry). The question really comes down to whether patented features create the basis for market demand for an entire product.  In...
 @ECats:  Sure, so then I'm guessing you strongly disagree with DED's assertion that Apple A8's "significant performance lead in both areas" -- as there is really no cross-platform mobile benchmark good enough to quantify CPU performances ?
 @JBDragon : Sure, and Qualcomm, Mediatek, Samsung, etc will have their next generation AP's by the time A9 is out. Now, as for your multicore comment, there is a good reason why almost all processor makers stopped competing for higher clock frequency in favor of multi-cores in mid 2000: power efficiency.  Adding more cores reduces power consumptions and heat dissipation for the same performance, not the other way around.  According to a IEEE article by Phillip Ross :  
 Well, I don't follow these things, but that appears to be the case :      
 @Frood :  No, the vast majority of that verdict was for three copied designs ($399M) and the trademarked look ($382M) -- ie, copying the iPhone.  The pinch-to-zoom has been invalidated by USPTO -- Apple appealed last year, but the USPTO upheld their previous decision and declared it invalid.  
 @formosa : Sure, but all of Samsung's infringing devices have been discontinued long ago or are no longer for sales in the US.   As for your "cupholder" comment, Apple used the same legal argument against Samsung in the 2012 ITC case -- Apple argued that Samsung's patent royalty rate should be based on the cost of infringing component (ie, cupholder), not end-user device (ie, car) and that Samsung was entitled to 0.000000000..x% per device royalty rate. Not...
 Well, if you are referring to Samsung's US attack ads, they should probably continue with that ad campaign.  According to the same WJS article, Samsung's S5 sales in the US market is actually up!  There is zero evidence that they are being squeezed by Apple though.
another unsubstantiated creative writing from DED.
 That must be why DED writes about Samsung and Samsung phones obsessively. LOL
New Posts  All Forums: