AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › Court denies second Samsung attempt to stay Galaxy Tab injunction
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Court denies second Samsung attempt to stay Galaxy Tab injunction - Page 2

post #41 of 44
7/20/12 at 1:10pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by e_veritas View Post

 

The injunctions issued in Germany for both Microsoft and Motorola are nothing similar to the conclusion reached by a preliminary injunction. Those cases actually determined infringement, where as a preliminary injunction simply makes a determination based upon an evaluation of 4 criteria with no conclusion on infringement. Is this your "changing the topic" post to deflect from the fact that you inaccurately stated what a preliminary injunction implies?

 

I am talking about the injunction that came into force in the US yesterday, the one Microsoft won against Google in May regarding scheduling of meetings.

 

Banned is banned.

 

The link is Android.


Edited by hill60 - 7/20/12 at 1:24pm

"The cobbler's children have no shoes", is a saying that applies a lot to companies who provide products and services. -KDarling on Google Search.

Reply

"The cobbler's children have no shoes", is a saying that applies a lot to companies who provide products and services. -KDarling on Google Search.

Reply
post #42 of 44
7/20/12 at 1:22pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

I've been curious about how you arrived at a conclusion Google is a patent troll? What defines a patent troll to you?

 

Buying up companies for the sole purpose of using IP for litigation.

 

Using a subsidiary to abuse SEP's.

 

Shady deals to "rent out" patents to third parties for the sole purpose of litigation, fortunately the court saw through this dodgy deal involving HTC.

 

Hiring people to make comments like the ones you make in order to convince people Google are not patent trolls with reasonably sounding garbage and attempts to sidetrack discussion of this issue into circular arguments which go nowhere.

"The cobbler's children have no shoes", is a saying that applies a lot to companies who provide products and services. -KDarling on Google Search.

Reply

"The cobbler's children have no shoes", is a saying that applies a lot to companies who provide products and services. -KDarling on Google Search.

Reply
post #43 of 44
7/21/12 at 4:36am
Quote:
Originally Posted by lkrupp View Post

So in the UK a judge says Samsung didn't copy the iPad and Apple must apologize to Samsung for claiming it did BUT in the U.S. a judge says that Samsung did copy the iPad and must stop selling their tablet. Have I got that about right? 

That is because different countries have different laws. Furthermore, judicial interpretations of statutes vary.

Reply
Reply
post #44 of 44
7/21/12 at 4:37am
Quote:
Originally Posted by hill60 View Post

 

Buying up companies for the sole purpose of using IP for litigation.

 

Using a subsidiary to abuse SEP's.

 

Shady deals to "rent out" patents to third parties for the sole purpose of litigation, fortunately the court saw through this dodgy deal involving HTC.

 

Hiring people to make comments like the ones you make in order to convince people Google are not patent trolls with reasonably sounding garbage and attempts to sidetrack discussion of this issue into circular arguments which go nowhere.

Get your tin foil hats, ladies and gentleman.

Reply
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: General Discussion
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › Court denies second Samsung attempt to stay Galaxy Tab injunction