or Connect
New Posts  All Forums:

Posts by macaholic_1948

Samsung didn't think them a joke judging by how important their own documents stated their importance (for copying and inclusion in Samsung products).But, hey, it's just an opinion.
All fine and dandy but Samsung directly infringed on Apple's intellectual property and that is what the case is about, at least with respect to slide to lock and data detectors. That was the primary point of my post.It would be interesting to see Samsung try to blame Google and claim damages. Despite the enormous chutzpah in doing so, I bet it would be difficult to do it successfully. It isn't as if the technology infringed upon was an unknown, fringe component no one ever...
What you just stated is not what I responded to or even questioned. I wouldn't even presume to question it, had that been what you posted. Instead, let me repeat what I responded to and highlight the relevant portion that I questioned.Besides being more than an idea, this trial is neither about a patented phone nor an idea. It is about 5 specific patents covering certain specific elements (among many) that make up that phone. To reduce it to the idea of phone as a whole as...
Two points in an attempt to take it back to the original post (probably fruitless). First, the material presented above, showing the dramatic shift in Google's Android development, about the time of Apple's iPhone release, would appear to strongly contradict Hiroshi Locheimer's testimony last week. Specifically where his statements were paraphrased: "He noted that the team of engineers working on the project made a concerted effort to make Android a discrete operating...
If the iPhone is an idea, please explain to me how I can hold it, feel it, see it, hear it and even taste it were I so inclined.Isn't it fair to say that what was patented was a specifically implemented physical manifestation of the ideas, not the idea itself?
No. It's not obvious. It depends on the laws of the countries where their stock is traded. It depends on what they put in the filings with the various stock exchanges.In case you haven't noticed, their ability to tell the truth and operate ethically is questionable at best. Their chief executive has a criminal record.
No. I did not miss it. Did you miss the point where I said "if"?
Given that the markets have only just opened, and given that it is a blog news report, it may take a while for markets to react. If regulators here and elsewhere do go after Samsung, and can prove the assertion of lying to investors and regulators, the company may well wish that they had never seen an iPhone.But, given the criminal legal history of one exec at Samsung, they may feel bullet proof. (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/30/business/global/30samsung.html?_r=0)....
Arguing thatArguing an average or an estimate is wrong using a number that, itself, is inexact and comes from a different data set when there are no exact numbers known from an independent source?
Sorry. I don't think they are quite the same. Thanks for the apology.
New Posts  All Forums: