or Connect
New Posts  All Forums:

Posts by e_veritas

The debate over whether or not or a company should be an active and beneficial member of their community is a long one that I have no interest in touching.   My issue is with Tim Cook and others here PRETENDING that Apple is a charitable company when the reality is, they give peanuts compared to others. I'm glad to see that you agree with me that Apple is NOT a charitable company, but you should be bringing this to the attention of others making inaccurate statements, and...
Can you please explain how a publicly traded company with mandatory SEC filings is able to "give in secret"???
  Tim Cook highlighting $150 million in charitable contributions over several years does little to undo the public's perception of Apple as a scrooge in the charitable contributions category.   You do realize that many of the other companies that even get close to Apple's profits give several hundreds of millions ANNUALLY to charity, ranging from 5-10% of their profit? Apple can't even claim getting anywhere close to 1% of their profit donated to charity.
  Except that you are leaving out the part that Koh DID NOT think the patents would be considered valid. I have already contested your allegations of "copying" if a patent is invalidated here. Again, if Apple's patent is invalidated due to prior art, then how can you claim Samsung copied from Apple, and not derived their designs from the prior art itself? So no, this by itself DOES NOT support your "copied from Apple" claim, let alone "completely" as you suggest.     Just...
  This is completely false, you have been challenged on this several times with no rebuttal on your part, but yet, you continue to make this false claim. You cannot simply "interchange" words and phrases with different meanings because they help your argument. To clarify, 'INFRINGE' != 'COPY', so please stop swapping out words that are not synonymous. Do I need to hold your hand and provide dictionary links as well???     What are you talking about??? All one has to do is...
  Judge Koh did not say that Samsung "copied", she said that it is very well possible that Samsung infringed, but she questioned the validity of Apple's patent. Did you read my previous comment about invalidated patents not necessarily implying copying??     Are you seriously asking this? Did you even read my previous comment about "looking the same" not necessarily implying copying?
jragosta, I think the main problem with your line of reasoning is that you always start with "Samsung copied Apple" as your axiom. With this being the case, it will ALWAYS be possible for you to envision a scenario where Samsung indeed copied from Apple, regardless of how far-fetched it may be.   In regards to your comments regarding "is it still copying, even if no patent is involved?", the answer is yes, with two similar products, it COULD indeed have been copied....
  I wasn't questioning the content or authenticity of your sources, I was questioning your representation and presentation of your sources. For example, you made a statement of "Koh DID rule that Samsung's product was too similar to Apple's product.", and then followed it up with a quote that was written 6 weeks prior to the actual ruling that APPEARED to support your 'factual' claim. That sourced article had nothing to do with the ruling, and you misrepresented it in...
You can paste another 20 links to the story if you feel inclined to do so, but it doesn't change the fact that this is anecdotal evidence, and not a 'decisive' indication of copying as you suggest. One thing that really got me scratching my head is you stated the lawyer should have said "Your Honor, it's too far away, can I come closer.", but how is that so different than what she actually said with "Not at this distance, your honor."?   You are once again giving WRONG...
  How do you know the lawyer wasn't an old fart who didn't have his glasses immediately handy. The point is, the lawyer made it clear he couldn't tell because of the distance, and another lawyer quickly gave an answer. Most reasonable individuals, without the bias that you display, would not consider this incident to be a 'decisive' indication of copying.     So now the onus is on me to prove that something DIDN'T happen? Seriously?!?   I have never implied that any court...
New Posts  All Forums: