Did you even care to notice the last line. I was speaking to the corporation's decisions to copy not to their people to create or innovate. The Korean people can innovate with the best. The corps won't let them do it because it's cheaper to copy. I am not a bigot. Maybe you are seeing mirrors where there are none.
I noticed your last line, but that doesn't change the preceding paragraph. You wrote "They are South Korean and copy is what they do" and "It was like that for Japan [?] but they learned?" You didn't specify that you mean their biggest corporations or companies in general in any way. You specified entire nations, hence my comment on how it reads.
You still wouldn't see cool stuff because Samsung is incapable of creating anything. They are South Korean and copy is what they do. It was like that for Japan (mainly TVs) after WWII but they learned and now they create and innovate. South Korea has a long way to go.
Sorry if I offended the people of South Korea. It's NOT my intension.
Put down the jug and the banjo son.
Quote:
Samsung creates first full-color quantum dot display,
Quote:
IBM earned more U.S. patents in 2010 than any other company, topping the list of patent winners for the 18th year in a row.
Big Blue secured 5,896 patents last year, according to data from IFI Claims Patent Services. Samsung Electronics was the second most prolific patent winner, with 4,551 patents received in 2010. Microsoft placed third with 3,094 patents, followed by Canon (2,552), Panasonic (2,482), Toshiba (2,246), Sony (2,150), Intel (1,653), LG Electronics (1,490) and HP (1,480).
The top 10 list is nearly unchanged from 2009. Only the ninth-place recipient is different: LG Electronics displaced last year’s No. 9 patent winner, Seiko Epson Corp.
Related Coverage
Apple broke into the top 50 for the first time. With 563 patents granted,
The German court hasn't been the only one to deem that Samsung's tablet looks too much like Apple's iPad. Apple also won an injunction against the Galaxy Tab 10.1 in Australia in October.
Fact check:
You're right, the German ruling was based solely upon the physical appearance of the device.
You're wrong, the Australian ban is not about physical appearance. Rather, it about touchscreen and multitouch patents.
Apple has to defend its patents regardless of sales or those patents lose their value.
Trademarks lose their value through a process called genericization if the owner fails to defend them.
There is no such framework in which patents can become generized due to a decision not to immediately prosecute. Patents can actually increase in value if the patent holder chooses not to enforce them right away. Rather, if the patent holder waits until the technology becomes entrenched and then pounces, they can stand to increase the damages.
I noticed your last line, but that doesn't change the preceding paragraph. You wrote "They are South Korean and copy is what they do" and "It was like that for Japan [?] but they learned?" You didn't specify that you mean their biggest corporations or companies in general in any way. You specified entire nations, hence my comment on how it reads.
You must be in media. They take everything out of context. Did I mean you are inside some type of media? No I implied you work for a media company.
Of course I said "They are South Korean." Samsung is a South Korean COMPANY. If I used every descriptive word, you'd probably be calling me verbose. The truth is you saw what you wanted to see [bigot] and not the meaning I was using.
Samsung is a leader in display and semiconductor fields and patented crucial wireless technologies. Doesnt sound like a company that cant innovate.
The truth is Samsung is a family business, pretty much like the Corleone family, which just about owns all of South Korean businesses at the corporate level. They have there fingers into everything South Korean. They can innovate in the components market and choose to copy in the retail space. They have a hugh library of patents that they got through financing the hard working innovators.
You insulted an entire nation via stereotype, and so he reciprocated with a stereotype of the kind of person who would make said stereotyping statements.
Trademarks lose their value through a process called genericization if the owner fails to defend them.
There is no such framework in which patents can become generized due to a decision not to immediately prosecute. Patents can actually increase in value if the patent holder chooses not to enforce them right away. Rather, if the patent holder waits until the technology becomes entrenched and then pounces, they can stand to increase the damages.
By not defending the patent, one could argue the owner put it in the public domain. And yes I know the difference between patents and copyrights and trademarks too. When you don't defend your property you muddy the waters where it might become not worth fighting. That's a value equation.
You insulted an entire nation via stereotype, and so he reciprocated with a stereotype of the kind of person who would make said stereotyping statements.
Now that's completely unfair. I spoke no stereotypes. I wasn't even speaking about the Korean people. People here took it out of context. I was talking about Samsung's business not the people of that nation. People here can try to make the statement prejudice but they would be showing ignorance to the meaning of the statement.
If you meant no offense, you shouldn't have said it, I think. Stopping at "Samsung can't seem to innovate" would have sufficed.
But I knew people would start calling me a bigot and I was right. I don't have have to defend people's ignorance. I tried too but it's much like trying to convince a redneck he/she is a redneck. So I have nothing else to say.
But I knew people would start calling me a bigot and I was right. I don't have have to defend people's ignorance. I tried too but it's much like trying to convince a redneck he/she is a redneck. So I have nothing else to say.
You were called a bigot because you choose to write a bigoted statement. You've completely ignored my comments about using your words to specify what you were referring to. Instead you decided to write some crap to defend what you just wrote, which is a clear sign you've experienced this before so you're either A) a bigot, or have trouble with reading and writing that you couldn't clarify what you meant, or C) both.
For example, if I wrote "I'm not racist but all Chinese are dirty" would sound really fucking bad. Now why didn't I qualify my statement initially to make my point clear that I was referring to waste disposal facilities in China? Why did I include a qualifier to state I wasn't racist? You dug your own grave. Bottom line, either embrace your bigotry or learn to write well, but don't defend your pathetic position.
By not defending the patent, one could argue the owner put it in the public domain.
And in all probability, one would lose that argument. Precedence is littered with examples of patent owners choosing to delay enforcement of their patent against infringing products for several years, and then proceeding to win their cases when the finally do choose to prosecute.
(Not to be too nit-picky, but technically, as soon as the patent is filed, the document describing the patent is, by definition, in the public domain in most jurisdictions. Everybody has perpetual, royalty-free permission to disseminate verbatim copies of all patent documents. This does not equate to permission to make use of the patented technology in a product.)
Comments
Samsung is a leader in display and semiconductor fields and patented crucial wireless technologies. Doesnt sound like a company that cant innovate.
Speaking of Samsung semiconductors just read this article?
- http://www.theverge.com/2011/11/30/2...fast-dual-core
What stands out is the support for WQXGA, which is actually more pixels than the QXGA that will be the 264ppi Retina Display used in a future iPad.Did you even care to notice the last line. I was speaking to the corporation's decisions to copy not to their people to create or innovate. The Korean people can innovate with the best. The corps won't let them do it because it's cheaper to copy. I am not a bigot. Maybe you are seeing mirrors where there are none.
I noticed your last line, but that doesn't change the preceding paragraph. You wrote "They are South Korean and copy is what they do" and "It was like that for Japan [?] but they learned?" You didn't specify that you mean their biggest corporations or companies in general in any way. You specified entire nations, hence my comment on how it reads.
Hey Samsung. Two words: "square corners."
And with those words of wisdom, you have proven how asinine Apple's whole argument is.
You still wouldn't see cool stuff because Samsung is incapable of creating anything. They are South Korean and copy is what they do. It was like that for Japan (mainly TVs) after WWII but they learned and now they create and innovate. South Korea has a long way to go.
Sorry if I offended the people of South Korea. It's NOT my intension.
Put down the jug and the banjo son.
Samsung creates first full-color quantum dot display,
IBM earned more U.S. patents in 2010 than any other company, topping the list of patent winners for the 18th year in a row.
Big Blue secured 5,896 patents last year, according to data from IFI Claims Patent Services. Samsung Electronics was the second most prolific patent winner, with 4,551 patents received in 2010. Microsoft placed third with 3,094 patents, followed by Canon (2,552), Panasonic (2,482), Toshiba (2,246), Sony (2,150), Intel (1,653), LG Electronics (1,490) and HP (1,480).
The top 10 list is nearly unchanged from 2009. Only the ninth-place recipient is different: LG Electronics displaced last year’s No. 9 patent winner, Seiko Epson Corp.
Related Coverage
Apple broke into the top 50 for the first time. With 563 patents granted,
http://www.pcworld.idg.com.au/articl...atent_winners/
The German court hasn't been the only one to deem that Samsung's tablet looks too much like Apple's iPad. Apple also won an injunction against the Galaxy Tab 10.1 in Australia in October.
Fact check:
You're right, the German ruling was based solely upon the physical appearance of the device.
You're wrong, the Australian ban is not about physical appearance. Rather, it about touchscreen and multitouch patents.
Apple has to defend its patents regardless of sales or those patents lose their value.
Trademarks lose their value through a process called genericization if the owner fails to defend them.
There is no such framework in which patents can become generized due to a decision not to immediately prosecute. Patents can actually increase in value if the patent holder chooses not to enforce them right away. Rather, if the patent holder waits until the technology becomes entrenched and then pounces, they can stand to increase the damages.
I noticed your last line, but that doesn't change the preceding paragraph. You wrote "They are South Korean and copy is what they do" and "It was like that for Japan [?] but they learned?" You didn't specify that you mean their biggest corporations or companies in general in any way. You specified entire nations, hence my comment on how it reads.
You must be in media. They take everything out of context. Did I mean you are inside some type of media? No I implied you work for a media company.
Of course I said "They are South Korean." Samsung is a South Korean COMPANY. If I used every descriptive word, you'd probably be calling me verbose. The truth is you saw what you wanted to see [bigot] and not the meaning I was using.
Put down the jug and the banjo son.
I absolutely have no idea what that means.
Samsung is a leader in display and semiconductor fields and patented crucial wireless technologies. Doesnt sound like a company that cant innovate.
The truth is Samsung is a family business, pretty much like the Corleone family, which just about owns all of South Korean businesses at the corporate level. They have there fingers into everything South Korean. They can innovate in the components market and choose to copy in the retail space. They have a hugh library of patents that they got through financing the hard working innovators.
I absolutely have no idea what that means.
You insulted an entire nation via stereotype, and so he reciprocated with a stereotype of the kind of person who would make said stereotyping statements.
Trademarks lose their value through a process called genericization if the owner fails to defend them.
There is no such framework in which patents can become generized due to a decision not to immediately prosecute. Patents can actually increase in value if the patent holder chooses not to enforce them right away. Rather, if the patent holder waits until the technology becomes entrenched and then pounces, they can stand to increase the damages.
By not defending the patent, one could argue the owner put it in the public domain. And yes I know the difference between patents and copyrights and trademarks too. When you don't defend your property you muddy the waters where it might become not worth fighting. That's a value equation.
You insulted an entire nation via stereotype, and so he reciprocated with a stereotype of the kind of person who would make said stereotyping statements.
Now that's completely unfair. I spoke no stereotypes. I wasn't even speaking about the Korean people. People here took it out of context. I was talking about Samsung's business not the people of that nation. People here can try to make the statement prejudice but they would be showing ignorance to the meaning of the statement.
Now that's completely unfair. I spoke no stereotypes. I wasn't even speaking about the Korean people.
*clears throat*
They are South Korean and copy is what they do.
People here took it out of context.
If you meant no offense, you shouldn't have said it, I think. Stopping at "Samsung can't seem to innovate" would have sufficed.
*clears throat*
If you meant no offense, you shouldn't have said it, I think. Stopping at "Samsung can't seem to innovate" would have sufficed.
But I knew people would start calling me a bigot and I was right. I don't have have to defend people's ignorance. I tried too but it's much like trying to convince a redneck he/she is a redneck. So I have nothing else to say.
But I knew people would start calling me a bigot and I was right. I don't have have to defend people's ignorance. I tried too but it's much like trying to convince a redneck he/she is a redneck. So I have nothing else to say.
You were called a bigot because you choose to write a bigoted statement. You've completely ignored my comments about using your words to specify what you were referring to. Instead you decided to write some crap to defend what you just wrote, which is a clear sign you've experienced this before so you're either A) a bigot, or
For example, if I wrote "I'm not racist but all Chinese are dirty" would sound really fucking bad. Now why didn't I qualify my statement initially to make my point clear that I was referring to waste disposal facilities in China? Why did I include a qualifier to state I wasn't racist? You dug your own grave. Bottom line, either embrace your bigotry or learn to write well, but don't defend your pathetic position.
By not defending the patent, one could argue the owner put it in the public domain.
And in all probability, one would lose that argument. Precedence is littered with examples of patent owners choosing to delay enforcement of their patent against infringing products for several years, and then proceeding to win their cases when the finally do choose to prosecute.
(Not to be too nit-picky, but technically, as soon as the patent is filed, the document describing the patent is, by definition, in the public domain in most jurisdictions. Everybody has perpetual, royalty-free permission to disseminate verbatim copies of all patent documents. This does not equate to permission to make use of the patented technology in a product.)