or Connect
New Posts  All Forums:

Posts by tooltalk

    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.
  Really?  where is iPhone 5 Mini?
  Well, there is nothing in FRAND / SEP dictating how much or what percentage patent holders can charge, is there?  The point of FRAND is to promote industry wide adoption by making their standard essential patents widely available for licensing & at fair, reasonable rates. Again, if Apple can charge around 20% for low-end Android phones for a handful utility patents, I don't see why 2.25% is unreasonable, unfair for FRAND patents?   What's more uncommon is Apple's patent...
  so let me get this straight, Apple wants to charge $25 / per device for a handful of utility patents, but also wants to access Samsung's vast communication 3G/UTMS patents for pennies in exchange for Apple's meager collection of comm/tech patents?
  looks like some of AI'ers are starting to realize that Hogan was a liability from the getgo now.  I believe each side had 3 votes. Why don't you ask Noreen Krall? Ok, Samsung lawyers are morons, but I thought Apple's lawyers knew what they were doing.  Perhaps Apple also knew Hogan had a conflict of interest, but kept him there, you know "just in case." Maybe Ms Krall had hoped that Samsung's lawyers would never find out.  
  a trump card?  You mean like Apple's shrinking smartphone worldwide marketshare? How about Apple Maps disaster?
New Posts  All Forums: