or Connect
New Posts  All Forums:

Posts by Tulkas

Was thinking the same thing. Takes his iPad but leaves car keys and child.Priorities.
So McAdams isn't exactly the brightest bulb in the bunch, hmm? Can think he honestly thinks he convinced Jobs to add LTE unless he is amongst the very dimmest of people walking the earth.
Yeah, I remember that. Was driven by a specific accounting method, wasn't it? I thought they have moved away from that that required charging for new features (i.e. when they had to charge iPod owners but not iPhone owners for the same update, or something like that). If they have changed accounting practices, then they wouldn't have to charge anything to enable it on existing units.   Maybe AWS requires flashing a chipset that can only be written to once. That would make...
https://apps.fcc.gov/oetcf/eas/reports/ViewExhibitReport.cfm?mode=Exhibits&RequestTimeout=500&calledFromFrame=N&application_id=593719&fcc_id=BCG-E2599A C2PC Cover Letter        
FCC filings make it clear there are NO hardware changes at all for AWS support. This is purely a firmware trigger. That being the case, why is Apple not going to simply expose the bands on existing phones through an OS update? Sort of smells.
There is no legitimate reason to allow locks in the first place and many reasons not to allow it at all.
yes, but the order was part of the trial, not after the trial. The trial, initiated by Samsung, was intended to get a ruling. The order may have occurred shortly after the finding of non-infringement, but it was still a part of the ruling. In almost any trial, orders flowing from the ruling often take a few days but they are still a part of the same trial, whether they followed by a few minutes, hours or days. Apple's activity after the trial did not (and logically...
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...
New Posts  All Forums: