or Connect
New Posts  All Forums:

Posts by e_veritas

  If Apple isn't disagreeing with having to pay licensing costs for UTMS technology, why is section VII of their US trial brief titled "SAMSUNG’S STANDARD-SETTING DECEIT RESULTS IN WAIVER OF ITS RIGHTS TO ASSERT THE PATENTS AGAINST APPLE"?
  Considering Samsung Electronics Co exchanges on the Korean Exchange, how would the SEC even have oversight?
  Please...every company of Samsung's size has a laundry list of 'scandals', including Apple.   Apparently a Dutch court did not believe Apple's 'deception' story as well, since they have been found guilty of infringement and ordered to pay an undisclosed sum to Samsung.
  How so? Samsung made an opening offer and Apple refused to negotiate. A Dutch court has already ruled on this issue and did not agree with your statement, as Apple was found liable for infringement.
  Only the latest 4S and the new iPad use UTMS licensed Qualcomm baseband chips. Whether or not "patent exhaustion" can be claimed with the Qualcomm chips is a different story. Previous iPhones and iPads used Intel and Infineon baseband chips that did not carry licensing costs. A Dutch court has already ruled on this and found Apple to be guilty of infringement, and must pay an undisclosed amount.   The idea that it is the 'licensing cost' that Apple is balking about is...
  My comment has nothing to do with Samsung stealing Apple's work without payment. If Samsung is proven guilty of stealing Apple's IP, they should pay everything owed.   My comment was in response to the claim that Samsung is the "worst of the copiers". In my mind, Apple stealing/copying telecommunication technology that took 20 years and billions to innovate is a much "worst copier" than Samsung's alleged "copying" of 'rectangles', and 'bounce-back scrolling'...
  I agree. However, if Apple didn't like the initial licensing cost , why was a counter-offer not made as typically done? Apple's own statements suggest that they felt the patents should not be valid since they were not disclosed to ETSI, and they are the ones to have simply decided to "ignore" Samsung's intellectual property rights. In this situation, Apple is the party that has decided to not negotiate, and instead, simply benefit from 20 years of groundwork and...
  Considering that the comments regarding Google's alleged warning were redacted in Apple's trial brief, it would appear there may have been some issues regarding authenticity of the claim. Maybe someone else can speak to possible scenarios for a redaction?   In Samsung's graphic, it is interesting to note all the 'bar-type touchscreen' phones that Samsung had prior to the iPhone.
  In fact, in many instances, that is exactly what Samsung is claiming. The trial brief presented by Samsung a couple days ago for the US case laid out several pieces of evidence showing 'iPhone-like' candy bar prototype designs and grid UI designs dated prior to the iPhone announcement. Most of the other alleged infringements were countered with prior art.   Of course, you would never see Samsung's trial brief announced on AI...too much damning evidence contrary to...
  Just did, and the first dozen pages of results just lists Apple vs Samsung. Do you have a reference? I would be curious to review.
New Posts  All Forums: