or Connect
New Posts  All Forums:

Posts by Tulkas

Because Samsung was asking for a ruling that their tablets didn't copy Apple's product. The judge admits they are the same, but then says they aren't copied.
The "accuser" in a lawsuit if the claimant. Samsung was the claimant in this case. I never claimed Apple wasn't the aggressor in other cases. In this case, Samsung clearly was the instigator of the lawsuit. So anyone claiming that Apple must suffer much be punished by the UK courts because they filed the suit in the UK, is basing their opinion on flawed information.   And as far as the Apple v HTC lawsuit, again in the UK, it was HTC that sued Apple. So if it was a...
It's actually completely true. Apple only made claimed in the counter suit. Samsung sued over the design first, in the UK. Specifically to have the design protection declared invalid.     From the actual court document:   Plain English.
See when I read it, I think "what was the judge smoking?". First he acknowledges the Samsung was similar to the iPad, to the point of being the same.       But then he says an informed user would know the difference. He acknowledges that he was not an informed user and that is why the appeared identical. he, a judge ruling on the case, believes users would be more informed than he is on matter of design. He further says they are differentiated by the design on the back of...
Samsung sued in this case, not Apple. So your entire argument, being premised on making the accuser, the one filing frivolous lawsuits, should have some skin in the game, is fundamentally flawed.
You know that it was Samsung that initiated the frivolous lawsuit over design 'patents' right?
No. ACORN was around before, but ARM (the company) was founded with Apple. The ARM architecture predates the ARM Holdings company we know today but it took off only once it was spun off to ARM Holdings, founded as a partnership between Apple and ACORN.
    Given that it was Samsung that sued Apple, this doesn't make any sense. Samsung sued in order to obtain a ruling, pre-emptively, that they did not copy Apple's designs. Any negative impressions they suffered as a result of the suit were at their own request.    http://www.judiciary.gov.uk/Resources/JCO/Documents/Judgments/samsung-apple.pdf (notice who the claimant is and who the defendant is)     Are all UK judges retarded? There must be a reason that both Samsung and...
I wonder if this is because if the FCC requirement regarding the 700Mhz spectrum.   Was reading this over at hofo, might be interesting for those here: http://www.howardforum.com/showthread.php/1777112-Verizon-iPhone-5-s-must-be-unlocked!-FCC [quote]   Verizon iPhone 5's must be unlocked! - FCC I've been reading up on the open access provisions in regards to the C-Block of 700 mhz LTE spectrum. There is a very specific line saying that a...
Very possibly. It is a generic message. Probably the same message you'd get on any iDevice that didn't have iBooks installed.
New Posts  All Forums: