Apple offers Samsung patent settlement deal tied to anti-cloning provision

13567

Comments

  • Reply 41 of 138
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by BigMac2 View Post

     

     

    You sir needs to learn some manners...  


     

    Up yours.

  • Reply 42 of 138
    gtrgtr Posts: 3,231member
    If so, they must have been pretty successful.

    Then why aren't you on lgpradainsider?

    ;)
  • Reply 43 of 138
    bigmac2bigmac2 Posts: 639member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by c473419 View Post

     

     

    Up yours.


    That's juvenile....

     

    *Banned*

  • Reply 44 of 138
    sennensennen Posts: 1,472member
    , "Samsung incorrectly claims that Apple made recent offers to Samsung without anti-cloning provisions. Every offer Apple made to Samsung has included limits to both the scope of any license and a prohibition against cloning Apple products."

    I love how Samsung blatantly, outright lies about this.
  • Reply 45 of 138
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by GTR View Post



    If so, they must have been pretty successful.



    Then why aren't you on lgpradainsider?



    image

     

    No LG were not very successful with the Prada (as you very well know), mostly because they lacked a snake-oil-salesman, a la Steve Jobs.

     

    Successful or not, this does not change the fact that the LG Prada was the first smart phone.

     

    Watch and learn: 

  • Reply 46 of 138
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

     

    No one was misled, nothing was misrepresented. I fail to see how explicitly following the instructions given is “not explicitly following the instructions given”. Is the UK really that broken?

     

    Show me the part of the original court order that disallowed the content Apple posted.


    The page I linked literally cites a media source and mentions that many others were cited that had a clear misunderstanding about the nature of the court order. Apple can comply exactly with the words of an order but fail to meet its spirit. This is indeed exactly what happened:

     

    Quote:


    Mr Beloff suggested that we had no jurisdiction to make a further order. But he accepted that the court has power to vary its orders to make their meaning and intention clear. The meaning and intention of the first order was plain: to require Apple to publicise properly that there was no infringement of the registered design. The proposed order now sought does no more than that.


     

    Apple were ordered to place a revised notice exactly as a result of adding their material to the original, resulting in the 'meaning and intention' of the original order becoming unclear.

     

    You can fight the facts all you like, but you've already abandoned some of your arguments and are now falling back on insulting my country's legal system, a system which literally provides the foundation for yours. Please don't be so ridiculously obtuse. The links I provided give excellent detail on exactly what happened and why.

  • Reply 47 of 138
    Originally Posted by c473419 View Post

    Yes, the LG Prada, you bloody retard.


     

    AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH



    You people still believe this!  We have to laugh because otherwise we’d burst into tears.

     

    Originally Posted by ItsTheInternet View Post

    The page I linked literally cites a media source and mentions that many others were cited that had a clear misunderstanding about the nature of the court order. Apple can comply exactly with the words of an order but fail to meet its spirit. This is indeed exactly what happened:

     

    Apple. Did. Exactly. What. The. Court. Stated. No one can read what was posted and fail to comprehend that they lost to Samsung in the UK. You cannot possibly state otherwise.

     

    Apple were ordered to place a revised notice exactly as a result of adding their material to the original, resulting in the 'meaning and intention' of the original order becoming unclear.


     

    They have no jurisdiction over any order but their own. Apple can post whatever it wants about any other order they received. You fail to comprehend this.

     
     …are now falling back on insulting my countrys legal system

     

    Sure thing. That’s what’s happening.

     

    …a system which literally provides the foundation for yours.


     

    Oh boy, here we go.

  • Reply 48 of 138
    imemberimember Posts: 247member

    If Apple wants to get rid of competition they should just release iPhone 4c at 99$..and game over for Samscum (a company that kills people, cheats, lies and makes bad products), 

  • Reply 49 of 138

    This forum pretty much descended into a mean-spirited, elitist, nationalist and racist, we-hate-anything-non-Apple pit.

  • Reply 50 of 138
    imemberimember Posts: 247member

    Youtube sucks! i i tried to post some comments on youtube about samsunk galaxia note 3 and it dint work,

     

    so i'm gonna post it here:

     

     

     

    1. 

    Kuuuks3 days ago

    What Is Iphone....lol

    Reply

     

    RedeneEyes22 minutes ago

    Pure Magic!

     

    2.

    RedeneEyes24 minutes ago

    Hey Guys! i just want know what happens if you lose the S-Pen can you still call your tablet Samsung Galaxy Note?

     

    3.

    Alin Campan1 week ago

    Which phone would you recommend Galaxy S4 or this one Note 3

    Reply

    RedeneEyes17 minutes ago

    Neither

     

    4.

    russian user week ago

    that's why, iphone sucks...

    Reply

    RedeneEyes20 minutes ago

    because it doesnt look like a cheap brick?

     

    5.

    Andi Furxhi5 days ago

    I'm in love with my Galaxy Note 3 :D

    Reply

    RedeneEyes18 minutes ago 

    This why your girlfriend left you

     

    6.

    user arab week ago

    The best in the world !

    Reply

    RedeneEyes22 minutes ago

    at sucking !

     

    its so easy to make fun of samsung products

  • Reply 51 of 138
    sennensennen Posts: 1,472member
    No, we're just sick of trolls.
  • Reply 52 of 138
    bigmac2bigmac2 Posts: 639member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by c473419 View Post

     

     

    No LG were not very successful with the Prada (as you very well know), mostly because they lacked a snake-oil-salesman, a la Steve Jobs.

     

    Successful or not, this does not change the fact that the LG Prada was the first smart phone.

     

    Watch and learn: 


     

    The Prada was nowhere near a landmark phone, it's not even an apps phone.  The whole smartphone concept was established way before LG with the Palm Treo, Windows Mobile Phones and Noka-Sony-Ericsson Symbian phones. 

  • Reply 53 of 138
    imemberimember Posts: 247member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by c473419 View Post

     

     

    Yes, the LG Prada, you bloody retard.


    Seriously stop smoking weed! affects your brain, iPhone was the first smartphone "the whole planet knows that"

  • Reply 54 of 138
    dasanman69dasanman69 Posts: 13,002member
    hydr wrote: »
    If Apple is able to obtain a permanent US injunction against Samsung, they are looking at some massive leverage towards negotiations against samsung. Everyday now is edging closer to Apples payday. Keep em sweating Tim.

    You do know that Samsung no longer sells most if not all the devices an injunction would cover.
  • Reply 55 of 138
    gtrgtr Posts: 3,231member
    c473419 wrote: »
    No LG were not very successful with the Prada (as you very well know), mostly because they lacked a snake-oil-salesman, a la Steve Jobs.

    Successful or not, this does not change the fact that the LG Prada was the first smart phone.

    Watch and learn: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wFeC25BM9E0

    Then why aren't you on lgpradainsider.com?
  • Reply 56 of 138
    gtrgtr Posts: 3,231member
    c473419 wrote: »
    This forum pretty much descended into a mean-spirited, elitist, nationalist and racist, we-hate-anything-non-Apple pit.

    True, but only when it comes to you.

    ;)
  • Reply 57 of 138
    dasanman69dasanman69 Posts: 13,002member
    c473419 wrote: »
    No LG were not very successful with the Prada (as you very well know), mostly because they lacked a snake-oil-salesman, a la Steve Jobs.

    Successful or not, this does not change the fact that the LG Prada was the first smart phone.

    Watch and learn: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wFeC25BM9E0

    And what about all the Palm, BB, HP, etc smartphones that preceded it?
  • Reply 58 of 138
    jungmarkjungmark Posts: 6,926member
    Apple need to realise its not 2008 any more and that they don't own a patent on rounded rectangles.  Did Sammy take design queues from apple back in 2008? of course but come on apply it's time to put your time and money into producing NEW products, you've done nothing but iterate and procrastinate for 4 years.

    Tell coke, it isn't 1920. They should stop defending the curvy bottle design.

    My oh my the trolls are out in force. What time is it in SK?
  • Reply 59 of 138
    dasanman69dasanman69 Posts: 13,002member
    imember wrote: »
    If Apple wants to get rid of competition they should just release iPhone 4c at 99$..and game over for Samscum (a company that kills people, cheats, lies and makes bad products), 

    Because at that price they'd get rid of themselves as well.
  • Reply 60 of 138
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by dasanman69 View Post



    And what about all the Palm, BB, HP, etc smartphones that preceded it?

    You know, I had a Windows Mobile smartphone (actually two I think) before the iPhone. God it was awful. I don't really know much about the competitors back then but compared to smartphones of today the WM ones were more proto-smartphones.

     

    The thing is, I don't think there's really a strict line you can draw between these sorts of phones. I can't think of a great way to distinguish where proto becomes real-smartphone.

Sign In or Register to comment.