or Connect
New Posts  All Forums:

Posts by macaholic_1948

You are consistent. Everyone else is wrong if they disagree with you.
Think what you want about why they don't. I am simply stating arguments I have read.
One point those pushing the idea of selling less expensive and even lower PC and smart phones don't think about is the potential for existing low-end product purchasers to migrate toward more expensive products later. This is a function of both the desire for a better quality product and of increasing affluence as consumers age and earn more. Of course, not everyone will do that but enough will so do to enter the Apple product chain. And, when they do, history shows many...
Basically, yes. I am. Google doesn't see Android. They derive no direct income from the sale of Google. There is no income from which to pay damages if Google were to lose a lawsuit for patent infringement.
They can challenge all they want.may even win. But, collecting damages is fruitless since Google derives no income from sales of Android (since they give it away).
It's reality.
Technically speaking, Google was not a party to the trial and, thus, whether or not Android itself infringed directly was not at issue.Samsung's modifications to Android were was clearly at issue.The issue of whether or not other Android users infringed is up to discussions between the other manufacturers and Apple. HTC, I believe, has already worked a licensing deal with Apple that covers patents by both parties.And, since Google derives no economic gain from a sale of...
Linked in article.
Then I guess WSJ is wrong too.
Not really. We are both right. Or both wrong. Or both right and wrong. According to the WSJ article, it reads more like you can use an uncustomized version if Android which includes Google Search and YouTube, you have to do these other things.So it's really a combination of both apparently.
New Posts  All Forums: