or Connect
New Posts  All Forums:

Posts by tooltalk

 @Macky the Macky : Sure, thx for supporting my view that, even if your nonsensical rambling turns out to be legit, Secular Investor's narrative is still built on fictitious data and, therefore, a BS.
 @Secular Investor : where are you getting that info?  According to the same source:  July 2011: Samsung +1.0% Apple +1.2%July 2012: Samsung -0.3% Apple +1.9%July 2013: Samsung +2.1% Apple +1.2%July 2014: Samsung +0.7% Apple +1.0% Comscore's data show that, historically or "normally," Apple's had higher steady growth during the July 3-month period.  Now, let's also look at their 3Q, 4Q, and 1Q data: Sept 2011: Samsung 0.0%  Apple +1.3%Sept 2012: Samsung +0.4% Apple...
 @ThePixelDoc : Sure, but why throw away the baby with the bathwater? We do want to keep new, non-obvious technical method patents, or "design" if you prefer to use that vague term liberally, but certainly don't want to confuse that with visual "fashion design," that you are referring to here.  
 @ThePixelDoc : well, if the USPTO keeps invalidating Apple's patents, there won't be anything to protect, right?   Maybe Apple needs to stop patenting things like "rounded corners," and hope that they could litigate their competitors to death to keep them out of the market, until it gets invalidated. As much as I appreciate their design aesthetics, I'd like to see Apple make some breakthrough techs in battery, display, or mobile communication; no more of these BS...
 @techlover :   that's what usually happens in patent lawsuits --  USPTO patent examiners can't look at all prior arts the first time, but they eventually get it right, however costly and time-consuming.  Remember also that Apple's R&D spending and the number of patents granted prior to 2012 were paltry -- their patent portfolio wasn't that strong or large.  I'm surprised that Apple got this far -- and ended up with a lopsided decision that awarded an unprecedented, absurd...
 @fallenjt : Sure, and everyone does, and should, this.   In fact, in 2012, in a separate complaint,  Apple explicitly stated that they were not willing to pay Samsung any GSM/UTM licensing fees until all legal appeals were exhausted -- and that became the basis for which the USITC condemned Apple as an "unwilling licensee," or "reverse hold-up"   
 @spamsandwich : not sure how that's going to fly, in light of the fact that most of Apple's patents asserted against Samsung have been invalidated.  Of course, Judge Koh could allow Apple to argue that the USPTO never makes any mistakes and, therefore, their patents are still valid, as she did in the last Apple-Samsung trial.   
 @blitz1 : doesn't fit the laughable narrative the writer is trying to fabricate : that Samsung is merely taking "cues" from Apple, so we don't talk about it. 
 @ElectroTech : these non-compete agreements are silly (though I blame Liang for accepting the non-compete and bonus, then moving on to work for a competitor).  I guess AIer's are yet to learn anything from Apple's anti-poaching lawsuits.
 @WonkoTheSane : to  best of my knowledge, the case is about Liang Mong-Song's breach of non-compete agreement (and bonus he received as part of the agreement).  Samsung is not a party to this lawsuit and has been not accused of anything.
New Posts  All Forums: