or Connect
New Posts  All Forums:

Posts by Tulkas

No, sorry, you are completely wrong on that. The original ruling included an order for Apple to publish in newspapers. The wording and placement of the website and newspaper notices was ordered changed subsequent to Apple's original postings.
Umm, but you are indeed claiming that it was because of Apple's actions after the trial. But the ruling for them to publish the notice was during the trial...it was in fact the ruling of the judge in the trial. So your assertion that for Samsung to face similar treatment in this case only of they continue their claims makes no sense. An equitable outcome therefore would be for the ruling in this case itself to include a mandate that Samsung publish a similar notice. But...
  I actually agree with MGP. Since all of these trials started, the Android vendors, and especially Samsung, have been able to convince the media to position Apple and the bully. Even in trials that where Apple was being sued, the media willfully or ignorantly portrays Apple as the aggressor. Look at just the UK case last year. That was Samsung suing Apple, as documented in the court records. Yet the media continually reported it as "Apple sued Samsung". The media never...
Actually, Jacob ordered it in the original trial, as requested by Samsung. In fact the entire UK trial was initiated by Samsung suing Apple for this reason. It was not as a result of or as a response to Apple's appeal. It was the original ruling.    Apple got dinged when Samsung made certain ridiculous and unprecedented suggestions and the Judge bizarrely used them in his ruling. Now that we know the trial was possibly a job interview, his erratic and irrational behavior...
Maybe Samsung can ask Jacob if he knows of any other UK judges that are for sale that would be willing to actively volunteer to take the case. I'm sure other judges would like to know they have a cushy parachute to walk into after the trial.
BAM.   Do you need to look up the word 'rumor'? BAM. They don't mean shit most of the time. But BAM they give haters wood, so there you go.
    Agreed on both of these.
I would think so as well. Hopefully whatever Intel negotiated with the studios and networks can be improved upon when it's Apple turn.
So, um, why not sell the charging unit with just USB connects so the customer can bring whatever cables they want? Hell, it might be a tidy side business to sell Lightening, 30Pin and MicroUSB cables that are compatible with their cable retraction system. No problem making just cables, right? That would be all that needed Apple's licensing. So, make the cables, with license and sell the unit and cables separately. Permanently attached cables seem like a deal killer for...
And Qualcomm's followup to that letter:     Looks like Qualcomm's law firm just lost a client.
New Posts  All Forums: