or Connect
New Posts  All Forums:

Posts by whatever71

.
  I'm going to take it that this is as beautifully sarcastic as I think it is? 
if the below is correct then this really is a minor lawsuit, only affects one situation:   The smiley input method patent would affect only those of Apple's German customers who use Asian on-screen keyboards. The problem with Asian character sets is that smileys can't be entered with only a couple of keystrokes such as ":-)" but consist of several symbols, each of which requires multiple keystrokes. So it's more convenient to enter a special smiley input mode and select...
happy to oblige    can i get sued for using a ?
on a serious note though it's very very sad when companies resort to legal action over stuff like the above.   And surely someone somewhere has challenged the patent application?
  Now this is a classy one!  One that I'm sure apple would be more than happy to apply for patent & subsequently use in legal cases as would fit nicely with any claims to shape of tablets etc :)     Originally Posted by hill60  A wishy washy ruling from an idiotic pack of fools   Does this class as a double negative in which case being idiotic when already a fool makes them wise or clever!?  
  Does anyone have any figures to show how many mobile cases are ongoing?  I would genuinely be interested to see if apple top that list (as aggressors) or to see if it's actually the press that have singled them out.  Can't really argue with press picking up on some of the apple cases or comments used in cases though; scroll to bounce, shape of phone, trying to trademark app store, claiming people buy other brands thinking they are apple, claiming frand for non frand...
  I understand the difference in the words; I also understand that the uk press in particular wouldn't use words like inaccurate & misleading when untrue & incorrect packs more punch.  I don't think we'll know exactly who said what until a full transcript of the session is made available - if it ever will be.   Your comments on baffoons; not bad points there - it is the legal system though so you should expect nonsense to slip through where common sense should...
I think this shows who made the comment ref untrue info.  Admittedly this was off the dailymail so in no way can i guarantee this isn't made up!  Looks like it was the Samsung lawyer who made the comment, not one of the judges that gave the slap     The ruling came after a lawyer representing Samsung today told Lord Justice Longmore, Lord Justice Kitchin and Sir Robin Jacob that Apple had published a notice on its website on October 26 - in 'purported compliance'...
New Posts  All Forums: