or Connect
New Posts  All Forums:

Posts by Realistic

The judges are crazy. Even if Apple has licensed their patents up the wazoo, Samsung doesn't have and never had a license so they shouldn't be allowed to sell products that infringe on Apple's patents. Isn't the whole purpose of an injunction to protect the Patent holders patents from being infringed upon? Why does the government even bother to issue them if they won't enforce them against any and ALL companies that infringe upon these patents?
Depends on what you consider as a secure element as touch ID places the fingerprint information locally in a secure location on the Apple A7 or later chips.
I think you are over simplifying a lot here. The secure element of touch ID is incorporated into Apple's A7 and later chips not in the NFC chip. If touch ID is not necessary for Pay then why is Pay limited only to Apple products that have touch ID? I don't think FRAND applies at this point as Apple hasn't applied for nor submitted touch ID for FRAND approval/acceptance and there is plenty of alternatives (not as good or secure, imo) out already and more being announced...
Oh great! Apple might make a car but then again Apple might not make a car. Six more years of useless rumors to go along with the past 4 years of the Apple TV rumors we still keep hearing about.
One of the worst comments ever.
What would you consider the right price?
They received a discount from the first unit. As is common in volume purchase contracts done over time, you have to actually reach a certain purchase level to obtain the best price.
 The only possible way Apple would or could go private is if they really started hurting, sort of like how the whole Dell going private scenario occurred.
Since GTA's business had already tanked before GTA signed the deal with Apple, this 'lack' of performance payout seems ridiculous and shouldn't be allowed.
I'd like to see evidence of the supposed gift giving precedents you mention.
New Posts  All Forums: