or Connect
New Posts  All Forums:

Posts by tooltalk

 @freediverx: that's totally false. According to last ITC ruling (the Commission Opinion) p.60-p.61: "...Apple also criticizes Samsung's attempt to negotiate a cross-license of both parties' mobile telephone patent portfolios. We cannot say that Samsung's offers in this regard are unreasonable. The record contains evidence ofmore than 30 Samsung licenses that cover the '348 and '644 patents. See RX-173C, RX-178C, RX-188, RX-189C, RX-191C, RX-193C to -209C, RX-421C,...
 I'm also willing to switch back to Apple, but only if the price doesn't exceed $199 with a 2-yr contract. 
 @freedivertx: that particular article is from 2009 and is not related in anyway to the current lawsuit (ie, steering mech patent) Dyson recently DROPPED. http://www.wired.co.uk/news/archive/2014-02/17/dyson-samsung-lawsuit: Last August Dyson issued proceedings against Samsung for a patented appliance steering mechanism on its MotoSync range, which it claimed the Korean manufacturer was infringing. When Samsung's lawyers presented prior art, which it maintained belonged to...
  Go read the original article by Benedict Evans DED cited.  The title of the article goes, "700m smartphones & tablets in China."  So it's not just the iPhones, but also the iPads, etc -- in another word, they are comparing all Android devices vs all iOS devices, not Android smartphones vs Apple iPhones, although the charts clearly indicate it's "distribution of price range in smartphones in China."
 Yep, this is somewhat nonsensical. The same report goes on to say there are about 700M active smartphone users in China.  Of these, about 21.6% or 140+M are active iPhone. LOL!!   Apple hasn't sold that many iPhones in China -- so unless there is a huge secondary iPhone market in China we don't know about, this number is a complete bull. 
 Sometimes, I wonder it's written by Samsung product development team. 
 @Spacepower: No, go back and read Mueller's blog:  "There's nothing in the stipulation that indicates why Samsung made this decision, but whatever the reason(s) may be, it's a good thing in my view. Samsung has already prevailed over Apple on SEPs in different jurisdictions (including at the ITC last year, though an import ban was ultimately vetoed). It makes sense for Samsung to focus on non-SEPs at the upcoming trial, and especially on its proven defensive...
 @bloggerblog:  Samsung owns over 100,000+ patents worldwide; or 38,000+ US patents alone.   Yes, Samsung is the largest LTE patent holders in the world, along with Qualcomm and in many other areas like manufacturing, design, process, etc.. Sure, no. Samsung isn't Apple who goes around apeshit and toss lawyers at anyone who looks like them.  http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2409669,00.asp Now, can we please stop with these baseless rumors already? 
 Yes, we call this "confirmation bias."
 @snova: Sure, Judge Koh played her role - by rejecting disproportionate amount of Samsung's expert witnesses and crucial evidences on procedural ground. You know, it takes two to tango.  And, no.  The damage only re-trial whittled down the first jury verdict by $150M which isn't too shabby.
New Posts  All Forums: