or Connect
New Posts  All Forums:

Posts by emacs72

  perhaps several years ago, but recent history suggests otherwise. http://www.mobilestatistics.com/mobile-statistics/ http://www.mobilestatistics.com/mobile-sources http://www.appbrain.com/stats/
  it seems the quickest means to prevent the ban is to remove the feature(s) the jury found to be infringing on Apple's patents.  appeals can take months or years to work through the courts.
    perhaps.  regardless of outcome it wouldn't surprise me if an appeal is launched shortly after the verdict.  the success of the appeal (if any) is anyone's guess.
  you were called out for stating incorrect information; just admit you're wrong.  we all do that from time to time, seriously.
    Apple expert witness testimony stated the figure to be around 35% http://www.forbes.com/sites/timworstall/2012/08/18/links-18-august-samsung-apple-who-is-winning-this-fight/   which is pretty close to    http://markets.ft.com/Research/Markets/Tearsheets/Financials?s=A005930:KSC http://investing.businessweek.com/research/stocks/financials/ratios.asp?ticker=005930:KS   i didn't make up the numbers
  Samsung Electronics' gross margins are less than 35% according to http://markets.ft.com/Research/Markets/Tearsheets/Financials?s=A005930:KSC
    was this average of "40% gross margin" ever published and verified someplace?   incidentally: in 2011, Samsung Electronics (not Samsung Group) revenue was 165 trillion KWR (or $143.7 billion Canadian in revenue and $14.2 billion in operating profit).   http://www.samsung.com/us/aboutsamsung/ir/financialinformation/annualreport/downloads/2011/SECAR2011_Eng_Final.pdf   as such, the Apple deal accounts for about six (6) percent of Samsung Electronics revenue or less than...
    some reports suggest the context of the "it's time for peace" quote may have stemmed from Andries van Dam's testimony.   from http://www.informationweek.com/hardware/handheld/samsung-attacks-unique-features-of-apple/240005652?pgno=2   ===   "Apple will argue that DiamondTouch and the other prior art--van Dam also pointed out the Launch Tile application on the HP iPaq handheld device as using snap back in its user interface--do not achieve the same effects of snap back...
  to be fair it should be noted that all of us rely on second-hand / summary reporting of the court proceedings.  the lawyers, the judge and the jurors are privy to much more information than any of us do and/or will ever have on this case.
  i don't know the history of his postings (regardless of what username was used) so perhaps it was / is reasonable to ignore him.  that said, however, i don't see how anyone should ignore that particular news article from the Verge.  it details Samsung's stance on the 'bounce-back' patent.
New Posts  All Forums: