or Connect
New Posts  All Forums:

Posts by elroth

That's what Apple calls the iPhone in Texas - so the average Texan can understand the name.
"The $30 million commitment for iPads is the first phase of a larger roll out for the country’s second-largest public school district." (from Apple's press release).   It's going to end up being worth a lot more than $30 million.
As a Snow Leopard lover and Lion/Mountain Lion avoider, it's going to be really hard to resist Mavericks.
Ridiculous. Read the Reuters story referenced above, and try to understand something about court cases.   To give you another example, Judge Lucy Koh in the Apple vs. Samsung patent trial (the new one), said in pre-trial that "Apple has shown that it is likely to succeed on the merits at trial in its claims that the Samsung Galaxy Nexus infringes claims 18, 19, and 27 of the '172 Patent." That's a statement of what the preliminary evidence looks like - it doesn't mean...
If she did anything out of sorts, she would be disciplined and removed from the bench.   You just keep pushing an invalid point. She said it was a "tentative" read of part of the evidence, and the case will be decided on the evidence presented in court. She said she believes the DOJ will be able to show Apple conspired... That doesn't mean the DOJ has shown it already - that has to be done in court. You are really dense today.
Maybe it would help you to read the Reuters story, which presents it more in context, instead of just reading a blogger's report.   Judge says leaning toward U.S. in Apple e-books case | Reuters   Highlights: 1.She was asked by the Justice Department lawyer to give her pre-trial thoughts - she called it a "tentative" view. 2."She emphasized that no final decision woud be made until after the trial takes place", and she said he hadn't read many of the submitted affadavits,...
I've been following his stories - it's really the best detailed reporting on the case I've seen. The testimony so far (the DOJ's case) seems to be a lot in Apple's favor - I hope that's accurate.
Paranoid much?
People have interpreted her statement to mean a lot more than it actually does.
No she didn't - her statement has been grossly misconstrued (though Apple might cite it in an appeal if she rules against them). She was asked to make that statement after looking over the preliminary filings. It has nothing to do with the actual court proceedings or ruling on the case - those filings had not been presented in court, had not been subject to cross-examination, etc. As you can see by Apple's cross-examinations, many of those filings were incomplete or out...
New Posts  All Forums: