Are the items above, in red, facts? You certainly posted them as facts...
I didn't say that they were factuals. I made those statement to show to you the alternate possibility, the direct opposites of your assessments. You might have read the stated facts and come up with different interpretations, and thus by stating what you believe in by embedding " I 'suspect'..." doesn't make it more valid. It's the same difference.
You also said these:
1. Why do you assume that "no comment" has more implied meaning than no action?
It has meaning that he was satisfied with whatever Apple presented to him. Apple knows fully well Jeff Han and his company have arsenals of patents in the pipeline or already issued. The problem here is not the possible infringement on the hardware but rather the possibility of software infringement on Apple's part.
2.If Han's company gets onto mobile -- he better be careful about Apple's IP
Again, here your four fingers actually pointing at yourself. Sans your trademark "I Suspect", you must be so certain of yourself that "you are stating the fact that" Han will be infringing while at the same time you have no clues about the differing technology employed by PP and PP's Intellectual Property. Yet there is no citation.
3. The fact that Han has known about the iPhone for over 5 years, and has done nothing...
See the point (1) above. it is not Jeff Han or PP on the defense, it was Apple playing a defensive posture.
4. I suspect that Han sold his company and IP for a lump sum and won't receive any royalties or license fees. MS plays hardball and I suspect what Han received is rather lower than what a valid claim against Apple would have brought.
The deal wasn't disclosed. You can speculate all you want. And, in return I will say this: Han sold his company and make tons of money and also royalties, and Han received enough money to make the next four to five generations of Han happy. He is already listed on Time magazine's 100 Most Influential People in The World for 2008, and his products have been adopted by many organizations. Why would he sell his company and its IP for less than what they're worth?
5.Finally, as I mentioned in an earlier post, Han's offering resembles MS' big-assed [Surface] table more that any of Apple's offerings. I suspect MS bought Han's company because of the nuisance factor, rather than the potential for cross-licensing the IP to Apple.
Microsoft bought Perceptive Pixel with its strong IP employing an alternative technology, if esoteric, IS NOT DUE TO NUISANCE FACTOR. It is because the technology is so unique, and as such it has enormous potential and a worthy addition to the already impressive MS patent arsenal.
Originally Posted by Dick Applebaum
Are the items above, in red, facts? You certainly posted them as facts -- no qualifiers, no apparent doubt in your posts... also no citations to back up your claims!
Edited by mcrs - 8/14/12 at 9:47pm
What is this? I am not aware that I am actually writing and publishing a research paper on a respected technical journal? This is AI iwth a tagline "Apple news and rumors since 1997", please..., you are taking this forum way too seriously.