Jury trial is just a part of marketing! People are not the one who made the verdict. well. lawyers are also people but they are just after the big money they can earn. I am talking with the people who are consumers.
That's true... consumers are the one who knows which product are much useful to them! Who cares about the patents? Probably not the consumers for sure.
Intellectual Property rights have nothing to do with consumer interests. Apple is claiming a competitor stole what's theirs and have demonstrated loss. Under the law Apple has IP rights.
It isn't for consumers to purchase goods that violate someone's intellectual property rights. No matter how much you want to, you're not entitled to it in the least. There is nothing for you to decide in this regard, because your needs aren't relevant to the issue.
Who cares about the patents?
Those who care about the integrity of their ideas.
http://www.wipo.int/patentscope/en/patents_faq.html#protection
Jury trial is just a part of marketing! People are not the one who made the verdict.
http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Jury+Verdict
Who was it, then? Ghosts? Aliens?
Jury trial is just a part of marketing! People are not the one who made the verdict. well. lawyers are also people but they are just after the big money they can earn. I am talking with the people who are consumers.
I guess you don't know about the American court system. Understandable I suppose...
A jury is made up of your peers (which means that they are ordinary people - just like you and me [except they are not paid to give their opinions like you apparently are])
It must suck in your country to be judged by those corrupt judges and lawyers making all that big money.
Pro tip: Pirates of Silicon Valley is not a historical document. Pretending it is will only get you ignored, in more ways than one.
Though if you had actually watched the movie, you'd know how stupid this sounds.
EVEN IF THEY DID . . . so what? Doesn't change anything about their products. It doesn't make your iPad faster or slower. Unless you consider "company character" an essential design feature. LOL
LOL. No.
I'm very nearly convinced that the current crop of Apple trolls are just bots. They say a whole lotta nothing, other than slogans that read like it's their first day in an ESL course.
^^^^^^^
Never mind, I'll even do it for you.
http://itlaw.wikia.com/wiki/Apple_v._San_Francisco_Canyon
Except your "views" are neither.
Please stop spreading misinformation about the Apple-Microsoft settlement agreement.
It wouldn't have anything to do with the current discussion.
Your views are lies, period. Either willful or borne of ignorance, but lies all the same.
Your views are lies, period. Either willful or borne of ignorance, but lies all the same.
Yes. That's what happens when you don't bother verifying your own claims.
I think that's a perfectly valid point that has nothing to do with nor corrects in any way what you've said earlier.
Steve was incorrect. Bill Gates innovated Universal Licensing.
Which in turn, innovated the Dark Ages of computing (Wintel.)
There was more to life than his passion? Maybe. Or, knowing what Jobs was like, maybe not. Maybe it was all about changing the world through empowering everyday people with better technological experiences. Giving yourself over fully and totally to your craft is beyond noble.
This attitude is the reason Apple has bitch-slapped the entire industry in consumer tech. Jobs was obsessed with design, aesthetics, and the relationship ordinary people *should* have with technology. Thus, Apple is today the Gold Standard of consumer tech. Because Jobs committed himself fully and totally to achieving it. He really did live and breathe it.
If he maintained that attitude into his last, dying breath, I remain undisturbed. In fact, I'm encouraged. I'm encouraged to believe that that level of commitment *is* possible in consumer tech. After all, this attitude gave us the modern GUI, Macs, OS X, iPods, iPhones, iPads, and so on. All industry re-defining game-changers. Speaking as a consumer, I really can't complain. Apple spoiled us. Because Steve Jobs made that a priority. The same claim can barely be made (if at all) of other companies and products.
Yours are less than truthful. Microsoft didn't "save" Apple. You could really only think that from having seen PoSV or reading something written by someone who only saw PoSV.
Apple does not want to ban all other devices. They want to ban all devices that do not license or circumvent their IP. Any company would wish the same.
edward, stop posting your ridiculous comments on AI. You are obviously a troll, and have made a fool of yourself here for days. enough already, just stop.
andoid sucks, but not as much as the people who come here to defend it. they are also losers that suck
andoid sucks, but not as much as the people who come here to defend it. they are also losers that suck
All right, and I'd agree with you, but when you spread lies when presented with the truth, there's only one other word for it. Apple saved themselves with the purchase of NeXT. The Microsoft stock payment was to clear out the "bad blood" in the industry. It ended the longstanding litigation and allowed both companies to look forward. Without the stock purchase, Apple would have done just as well, and wouldn't have had to deal with the horror that was IE.
To pretend that a single company or figure was responsible for it is also neither constructive nor helpful.
Do you disagree that something you own and created should be protected?
That's because you simply wrote it as such.
Nothing anywhere about any other companies.
Could you just stop? There's nothing wrong with the legal system. There's nothing wrong with the patent system. You've distilled every single non-argument the Anti-Apple brigade has down into one sentence and managed to still have more substance in it than everything they've said combined. You scream for "reform" but have no explanation of what that means.
So you don't want to be tried by your peers anymore? So you don't want products to have protection anymore? What does it mean? You want "reform" (ruination) in a manner that most hurts Apple and most benefits the copyists. You're like the IAU gleefully banishing Pluto from planethood while completely ignoring that your new definition also banishes four other planets.
It's a pro-Apple website. Of course I can. In any case, I run spam deletion for the site and nothing more. I think I'll stay where I am. You have absolutely no actual argument and have been caught in lies. I have shown proof that you are changing your story because your original one was a falsehood. You have shown no disproof of what I have said nor proof of what you have said. All you can do in rebuttal is assault my character and my position. I think the argument is over.
It took me forever. Because I didn't say it. Because it's not the case.
Peace.
FYI I am not a Samsung fanatic. My point is that ordinary people decide what the best product for us. If someone think apple is the best for them then fine. would you think ordinary people mind about the patent? we are more into the usefulness of the product.
