or Connect
New Posts  All Forums:

Posts by Tulkas

An argument could be made that since Apple is buying the chips from Qualcomm, then the licensing should be $0. You don't expect to pay royalties to all the companies that you car company paid when you buy a car. If patent exhaustion is not found to be the case here, then certainly one could still argue that as a third degree implementor, that is as a customer using chips from Qualcomm, who made the chips with a license, Apple should not expect to pay the identical...
Strange. The reasoning seems to be that the judge felt Apple's conditional offer of up to $1/device demonstrated they were not serious and were instead interested in dragging it out. Seems to me that the offer was very reasonable. What was Apple supposed to offer? Moto was asking for insane royalties, so why wasn't action taken against them?
All iPhones are not sold unlocked in Canada this year. In previous years, as long as you bought it from Apple for full price, then they were unlocked. But for the iPhone 5, they are only unlocked if you buy it from the Apple website. If you buy it from the Apple retail store, they are locked.
I'm not American, but I'm not so daft to not see the humour in Britain's "police force". Just as I see the comedy of their court system today.
As useless as unarmed UK bobbies. "Stop or I'll say stop again! And I'll mean it this time!"
Just following orders. Again.   (and the raspberry they tossed in while doing it was brilliant. Just scroll)
The funniest part? Apple added javascript to their page that ensures, no matter what screen size or resolution you are using, the link and the text on the main page will be below the bottom of your display. You are forced to scroll if you want to see it. Genuis. http://thenextweb.com/apple/2012/11/03/apple-hides-samsung-apology-on-its-uk-site-so-it-cant-be-seen-without-scrolling/     At this point, I whole heartedly applaud Apple giving the UK courts the finger,...
It is essential only because those companies chose to use it. Apple used their own. MS uses NFTS for their desktops and servers. SUN/Oracle own a couple.    It is essential only to those that decided FAT. Yes, they did so because it was common and interoperable, but that was still their choice. MS also has a choice how and for how much they choose to license it and to whom. And that is the problem I have with not just seeking to have it (or anything) declared a de-facto...
They buried it? It was the opening paragraph.
There are many, many alternative file systems companies could use. But FAT has become common. Google search is common too. I would disagree with any government action that forced either to effectively open up their IP to any and all. Just because they have successfully marketed their IP or otherwise made it popular does not mean the government should be able to dictate how they use their property or how much they can charge. If, however, they legally pledge to do so, then...
New Posts  All Forums: