or Connect
New Posts  All Forums:

Posts by freckledbruh

Um no it didn't. Lodsys doesn't make products so how would it claim that? In fact, there is only one employee.
Except Apple isn't a patent troll. It actually makes products that utilizes the patents it defends.
I guess you should read the actual complaint (in the US court at least) because that one is far from vague.
Yeah, it's soooo the same. Some huge company bigger than Samsung licensed a functional patent from Apple and allowed Samsung to use said patent. Then big, bad Apple came swooping in to sue Samsung (a very small, fledgling manufacturer) for additional fees even though it was paid by the unnamed, huge corporation. The similarities are uncanny.
Trade dress has never been invalidated in court as a means to seek damage. It insures that a company selling salt can't use packaging that's the same as Morton's except the raincoat is red and not yellow.
Not huge but it's a bit of a black eye for some of it's other businesses. Besides possibly losing Apple as a components buyer, Samsung could end up losing a lot of other business in that sector. Who wants to buy parts from a company who will probably copy your product and sell it for less?
Apparently you have no clue what FRAND is? Nokia's patents in that case were standardized and are required to be licensed at a particular price. Nokia wanted to charge Apple ABOVE that price AND Apple's IP on the iPhone. If every other handset maker pays a certain price, then why should Apple pay a higher price when that is against the law? If for some reason Apple's patents became a standard in the industry and it was forced to license them at a set price, I would...
Watch it. That is getting a little too close to facts and we can't have that. I mean I'm sure Google has done the same thing. Oh wait, Google told the judge that they owe $0 in damages sooooo scratch that.
Sorry but Apple refused to pay Nokia above FRAND rates which everyone else does all the while giving Nokia IP that Apple felt kept it's phone unique. Apple never said that Nokia's patents were invalid nor did they pretend that it owed Nokia nothing. That was a whole different kettle of fish but if you want to conflate the two instances to make you feel better then by all means. . .
See, I personally don't think it would matter if Apple came out with a cheaper iPhone or not in that hypothetical case. When the poster stated that, I responded a few pages ago that such a cost would tack on an extra $50 million to produce just 1 million phones. OEMs simply couldn't afford that type of investment based on their current profits/losses.
New Posts  All Forums: