or Connect
New Posts  All Forums:

Posts by Tulkas

I am a parent. Do you think the courts can somehow impose sincerity? The bully could say say "I am soooo sorry Tommy for calling you a liar. You aren't a liar at all. I mean it". Would that be more sincere?   First of all, has anyone read the order itself? Did it order a warm, heartfelt and sincere apology, maybe with gnashing of teeth and rending of clothes? Or did it order that Apple post a notice of the UK court decision that Samsung didn't copy? If the latter, then...
It's not libel if it is 100% true and provable. They mentioned that other courts have decided differently. 100% factual. Therefore not libelous. 
In your taxes comparison, it would actually be more like someone getting away with paying exactly what they are legally required to pay.    I really don't see why people are getting bent about Apple following the order. Did you expect them to get down on the knees and wail an apology? They were order to publish a notice with specific requirements. They did so. Wanting anything more is simply being childish.
No more childish than a petty requirement for them to post the notices to begin with. It was a petty order and it deserves a petty implementation.
There is a reason the Samsung and HTC chose the UK to sue Apple. Their judges seem to be clowns. In what other country could Samsung sue Apple, win and then demand an apology from Apple for Samsung suing them?     Does anyone have a copy of the court order? I've read the decision but have not found the order online. I would be interested in exactly what was ordered. Was it an order to apologize or an order to publish a notice of the court ruling? 
Nice how they repeatedly embedded the words "copied" and "infringed" in their post.     I would like this for the print ads:     "While many have have accused Samsung of copying their products over the years, according to the UK courts, they have not copied us. We are so sorry for thinking they did. How could we have been so confused? Not sure what we were thinking" "Not copied at all" Again, so sorry Samsung for thinking you copied. Obviously we...
No, I am talking like someone who realizes that Apple has been doing pretty well for a fair bit of time and also likes to prepay for many of their components to ensure supply. Samsung's tremendous consumer success, especially in mobile has been much more recent and is not nearly as certain. Again, just two years ago they thought it was necessary to start hiding their mobile sales in with their display sales because they were so bad. Having one division count on another,...
Apple has never been one to follow others in a race to the bottom in terms of pricing. With the small tablet market, it is an even more accelerated race to the bottom because they are literally selling them at subsidized prices in hopes that customers will spend enough with the device later to make up the slim margins (or loss) that they made on each sale. But it will definitely be a challenge for Apple to pull this one off with the level of success that they have become...
I think they probably had $300 as the target price during development but just weren't able to hit that price and maintain the lower-end of their preferred margins. I am guessing we'll see it drop by or before gen 2. Or retina first, not sure if they will do both.    I know it hards to compete on price again companies willing to lose money on each device (Fire HD, Kindle 7) but this will be one of the tougher categories for them to enter with those players setting...
It will happen eventually but it is more likely to be Apple's choice than Samsung's. Samsung knows it would be dumb to completely forgo lucrative guaranteed sales from Apple in favour of the supplying their own mobile division. They probably remember that it was only a couple years ago that their mobile sales were so poor they had to hide their numbers in with their display sales. While they rule the Android space for now, that can change in a heart beat. Putting all...
New Posts  All Forums: