or Connect
New Posts  All Forums:

Posts by tooltalk

 @basjhj : obviously you are unfamiliar with the notion of log scale?
 @sog35: Sure, you can believe whatever you "choose" to believe. Galaxy S4 faces supply issue due to 'overwhelming demand't and we all now know the S4 was the last "record-breaking" flagship from Samsung.  We also know what happened to the S4's pricing (see Idealo's data again) -- it declined faster than the two predecessors, the S2 and S3. I just don't understand why it's so difficult for some here at AI to believe that the BOM cost declines substantially throughout...
 @sog35 : Sure, you may be right, or wrong.  This article doesn't prove or disprove that, however. What we do know from the historical data, or Idealo's data, is that Samsung's flagship S model pricing always falls by about 20+% after 4 months, regardless of their popularity, or analysts' early prediction. 
I guess people just hear what they want to hear.  So where is the evidence that the price reduction has nothing to do with the historical competitive market pricing, all to do with their recent below-expected earning?  It seems fairly clear that the $100 price cut fits inline with their historical pricing strategy -- 20% to 25% after 4 months -- but hey whatever makes you happy.  *yawn*  
 @jungmark : yes, in this particular re-appeal, just the design patents -- and whether Apple can disgorge Samsung's entire profit ($399M) on the minor design infringements (ie, rectangular icons, rounded corners, and iPhone shape) -- no apportionment.  The damage on the utility infringements was "apportioned."  No, while SEP holders announce royalty rates for their patent portfolio publicly time to time, they can and do charge different FRAND rates.  There are many...
 @jungmark :  Sure, and you do realize that Ericsson is asserting both FRAND and non-FRAND patents.Who would have thought you could patent rectangular icons or rounded corners? Ever heard of "reverse hold-up"?
 @anome : Well, NewEgg's been busy fighting patent trolls (and mostly winning). They know it when they see one.  *cough* *cough*   
 @cali : Sure, Mr. Xenophobe.  The tech industry doesn't need any new legal standard inviting more lawsuits. 
@corrections : it's pretty obvious that you didn't read the Polaroid vs Kodak decision you just cited and, further, it doesn't even support your claims.In Polaroid vs Kodak, Polaroid asked the court to determine whether Kodak's infringements were "willful" and calculate appropriate damage award (ie, lost profit, lawyers' fee and willfulness penalty). The court used various legal analysis, such as market demand, competition, industry trend, marketing practices, and pricing...
 @boredumb : no amici is advocating for less patent protection. All they are saying here is that damage compensation should be proportional to infringed patents' importance and contribution to sales and profit, not their "entire profit" based on an esoteric legal statute designed for unitary products such as carpet, desk, or chair. This is not only hypocritical for Apple to demand Samsung's "entire profit" for three infringements while claiming that Ericsson's asking...
New Posts  All Forums: