or Connect
New Posts  All Forums:

Posts by tooltalk

  I don't think that  matters at all.  HTC is going down the tube regardless of their supplier switch. Nokia & RIM are more or less doomed.  It doesn't seem like Google is interested in Motorola's hardware bussiness all that much. So that only leaves Samsung and Apple now.   And let's not forget, Samsung controls 95+% of the AMOLED market.  HTC can go only so far to distance itself from Samsung - they tried it a couple of years back..
  Anobit?  Anobit doesn't manufacture anything. Like Intrinsity, Anobit was Samsung's business partner - Samsung was actually an early adopter (and the largest customer) of Anobit's dsp & nand controller technology.
  What exactly is the point? Sony depends just as much on Samsung for displays. In fact, Samsung bought out all of the Sony & Samsung LCD venture a couple of years back, so now everything is more or less manufactured by Samsung (I'm guessing that must have been why HTC switched back to Samsung after having made an announcement that they would switch to Sony).   Also remember that Sony is one of Samsung's top customers with $12B sales from Samsung in 2010.
  Well, not really.. IMO, losing money to patent trolls (*cough*) is not intellectual property theft.  And it remains to be seen whether Mr. Hogan's verdict will be upheld in the court of appeals (or whether it be declared a mistrial/retrial this December).  Samsung doesn't have to pay anything for at least another 2-3 years.   Given Samsung's mobile 100+% growth in revenue, units old, (90+% or $3B+ more yoy) profit, I think Samsung could easily afford to give away a...
  HTC made the same announcement a couple of years back - when Samsung wasn't able to keep up with HTC's demand, largely due to the increasing internal demand from Samsung mobile division.  I thought HTC switched from Samsung's AMOLED to SONY's TFT LCDs.   I'm not too surprised that HTC switched back to Samsung (from Sony), especially considering Samsung's large share of AMOLE manufactured worldwide, 95+%. Almost everyone in AMOLED business has manufacturing/yield...
    inspired < copied < stole
  so what is that rate?
  eh? Well, if Samsung's lawyers knew what they were doing, that crucial evidence, which was later leaked to the public, would not have been rejected in the first place (also note, a much greater number of Samsung's evidence/witnesses were rejected vs Apple's witness/evidence).   Furthermore, I don't think it's common for a member of the jury to run in a victory lap giving interviews as to how they came to such a biased verdict. After all, no other member of the jury came...
  I think everyone copies each other. In fact, I can't stop thinking about Braun T3 Radio when I look at iPods or iPhones; or Braun's LEI speaker when Apple's iMac.  We'll talk when Apple comes up with something *original*.   Apple lost the GUI lawsuit against Microsoft years back; there are still Apple fanboys out there claiming that Microsoft, a legitimate licensee of Xerox's patents, stole Apple's GUI. So what's your point again?   PS. I have no doubt Samsung...
Well, according to the court papers (Apple vs. Samsung), Apple made it clear that they don't license their core-patents, period.  Apple's patent offer to Samsung in 2010 largely consisted of non-core OS patents that had nothing to do with the recent lawsuit. That's just too bad that now Apple is trying to fight back Samsung with patents that Apple bought from Nortel & others. With $120+B in cash, Apple should seriously consider spending more on real technology R&D.
New Posts  All Forums: