or Connect
New Posts  All Forums:

Posts by tooltalk

 @thewhitebeaner : Samsung is pretty much the only game in mobile OLED display biz and has been pretty much from the getgo.  Their marketshare for AMOLED, for instance, is still around 90% or so and LG and other competitors are still trying to catch up. Samsung is also the largest consumers of mobile OLED displays.  Once again, Apple is crawling back to Samsung for parts.. 
@DavidW : well, going to court to settle a patent dispute is not just limited to SEPs.  And, as for your nonsensical comment about Apple being such a well-behaving litigator,  at least one judge in a Western district case involving Moto and Apple (11-cv-00178-bbc) doesn't think so. Apple quite boldly refused to accept the court's decision unless their decision favors them and Judge Crabbs upon hearing Apple's absurd argument dismissed the lawsuit with prejudice.  The same...
a minor correction :   "Why are you fighting it?" Moore asked Apple. "Why am I wasting my time?"   Moore asked Samsung, not Apple. 
 @tmay : okay.  This case (10-cv-1823) does not supports your (or Apple's) royalty basis theory either -- did you actually read the decision?  This case, again, deals with the FRAND royalty rates.  The question of which appropriate royalty basis or apportionment rule should be used was not challenged or figured into the verdict.   There are two notable analytical factors that resulted in Judge Robart's decision in this particular case.  First, the court evaluated Moto's...
 @tmay :  Sure, I'm arguing the same royalty basis / apportionment issue involving two different components of smartphone.  FRAND deals with the royalty rates (fair, reasonable) and how they are licensed (and non-discriminatory) only, not the royalty basis, so your FRAND argument is a red herring.  I'm not quite sure what point you are trying to drive with the Apple vs Moto case here (11-CV-8540).  The appeal was mostly about "the district court’s claim construction,...
 @tmay :  Apple's home court awarded Apple for "three design patents claiming the rectangular shape, rounded corners, translucent screen, and colorful icons common to smartphones," three utility patents (two of which are now invalid), and two trade dress dilution claims.  The UI design/utility patents are part of the underlying OS component which is given away for "free."  So why should we apply one patent rules (ie, awarding infringer's entire profit to Apple) designed to...
 @tmay :  Apple used that exact royalty basis (entire market value) theory against Samsung and won in 2012.  And as of December of 2014, Apple continued to defend the verdict at CAFC.  Now, Apple wants the apportionment rule (smallest saleable unit) to be applied in this case (see ¶ 6 of Apple's complaint) and calls Ericsson's licensing offer "abusive licensing practices." Apple find that fair when it's convenient for them, unfair when it's not.
 click bait?
 that's a bad idea..  That's going to invite a lot of hobo's who would otherwise loiter around Starbucks or McDonalds. 
sounds like a logical fallacy : hey, Amazon who happens to be 80% smaller than Apple is doing much worse, so we are okay.   I also see some confirmation bias here, IDC is always right -- especially when it suits AI reporter's agenda !!!
New Posts  All Forums: