or Connect
New Posts  All Forums:

Posts by tooltalk

  Samsung's Austin complex employs about two thousands highly-skilled tech workers (vs the vast majority of Apple's US employees who work at retail stores making pittance in wages).
  Nope, that's a Apple fanboy lie / propaganda.  Apple doesn't license its so-called core UX patents.  Apple's offer to Samsung in 2010 largely consisted of generic mobile OS / utility patents had nothing whatsoever to do with the recent lawsuits. 
    Nope, partly..   Samsung also manufactures Qualcomm's snapdragons.    http://www.electronista.com/articles/12/07/04/qualcomm.partners.with.rival.samsung.on.s4.processor/   goes on to show that TSMC probably doesn't have the kind of capacity or quality to meet Apple's demand. And Samsung's own Exynos now supports LTE:   http://rootzwiki.com/news/_/articles/announcements/samsung-galaxy-note-2-marries-quad-core-exynos-to-lte-in-the-us-all-major-carriers-by-november-r1132
  Furthermore, most US carriers offer higher subsidies for Apple iPhones ($450+) vs. Android (Galaxy S3 - $320) or even Windows (Lumia - $300) - or typically less than $350.
  eh?  The Galaxy S3 Mini is listed for £298.80 in the UK.  You do realize that £350 is roughly equal to $600 USD - the US price of the GS3 without contract?
  Apple doesn't agree with you,    .. Apple now suing Polish grocery store for infringement http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2409669,00.asp   and Samsung doesn't own the grocery store.
  two wrongs make a right..  We are talking about Samsung vs. Apple, not Apple vs Microsoft - though I see Apple more in common with Microsoft than Samsung with Microsoft.   Yeah, sure.  You just read some headlines and you know everything about Samsung. LOL.
  why?  That's what American company Micron did to avoid price-fixing charges a few years back.  That's perfectly legit.  Boy, Samsung learns quick from their American competitors. 
  There was no such leak ever.  QE provided a summary of the evidence rejected by the court when asked by reporters.  Nope, these are for "attorney eyes only."  As judge magistrate Grewal noted there is a little reason why this motion should be rejected, considering that "Many third parties to this case have had their licensing agreements disclosed.."     http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=2012112121031884
New Posts  All Forums: