or Connect
New Posts  All Forums:

Posts by tooltalk

  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.
 @ruddy: Sure, but neither left or right cases you cited support your claim. In the former, Judge Posner states: To begin with Motorola's injunctive claim, I don't see how, given FRAND, I would be justified in enjoining Apple from infringing the '898 unless Apple refuses to pay a royalty that meets the FRAND requirement. In this particular case, Motorola had to prove that Apple was not a willing licensee to get an injunction, consistent with common FRAND practices and the...
 No. 1) SEP holders can still still injunctive relief, but they raised the bar for SEP related lawsuits.  Accord to the policy statement dated January 8, 2013 (p. 6): "... An exclusion order may still be an appropriate remedy in some circumstances, such as where the putative licensee is unable or refuses to take a F/RAND license and is acting outside the scope of the patent holder’s commitment to license on F/RAND terms. For example, if a putative licensee refuses to pay...
 @Daveinpublic: 
New Posts  All Forums: