or Connect
New Posts  All Forums:

Posts by Cpsro

You're absolutely right! All the naysayers could talk about was how darned huge the document was, when in fact it included a lengthy table of contents, every page of actual content contained only about 100 words heavily indented, with much of the text consisting of line numbers along the side. What the negative publicity did was convince the public that it was a daunting a task to read... so don't bother... take our word for it, it's awful! Well, it wasn't a difficult...
Pray tell, how does that work?
Unless you're a veteran, the Federal government probably doesn't provide your healthcare.
ACA vs. Apple Watch is a false choice.   Many healthcare providers dislike the ACA because of the additional administrative burden. The general populace might be against it because the ACA has increased the demand for doctors without increasing the supply. Nurse practitioners have become higher in demand to help fill the void, but they often order more tests than necessary to cover their asses--and probably misdiagnose at a higher rate--which can increase healthcare...
Brain farct, GG? You were the one who noted Apple filed suit first. And if you know your IP law, which I believe you do, the district of first filing often becomes the district where the case is tried. It's a standard defensive move to file suit in a more favorable district, before the IP holder files suit in a district that will be more favorable to them.
$1 per device sounds damn good for an unspecified technology! That would naturally translate to at least a $2 increase in MSRP.
If Apple's legal team is doing their job, they had better file suit first! If Apple hadn't filed suit first in N. California, Ericsson would get priority on the choice of venue when they filed their own lawsuit.But of course you knew that and are just trying to make us question our feelings about Apple.Better luck next time!  
You can bet Ericsson didn't offer to enter non-binding arbitration, and binding arbitration can be a bitch. Licensors always value their IP too highly and independent negotiators are unlikely to see the big picture of all of the IP that goes into a product, resulting in royalty rates that are disproportionately high. Direct negotiation has a much better likelihood of yielding a lower/reasonable royalty; and if it doesn't, there's the option of an appeal.
Keep telling yourself that. Stanford owns the patent but Google is the exclusive licensee--and that's good enough for me! But I guess for people who'd rather downplay the matter, a technicality can be useful to distract from the real issue. And we have Google XYZ because the company doesn't know what the hell it's going to do in a few years. Oh, wait, it's Hooli XYZ, Google X.
Google's original PageRank patent expires in 979 days... but who's counting? 
New Posts  All Forums: