I'm surprised they didn't have a little advertisement video at the end of the testimony that said "This sworn testimony has been paid for by Samscum"
All Samsung's doing is trying to get out from paying tons of money. They'll go to all ends of the earth to plead this one down. It's totally obvious. They are whiney rip off artists. They'll get it in the end as they are so far behind in 64 bit mobile devices, I think that's what will take them and Android down to just selling cheap money losing products in the end.
This is what will bring Samsung down also Google who are also being squeezed out of the market for advertising that forms the core of their business.
It looks like media propaganda if anything. The media likes to creates rivalries in ALL industries, it creates some excitement and gets people to read their publications. None of those companies have what it takes to take over Samsung, Samsung would be their primary component supplier. :-)
According to the statements I assume you too read Google's indemnity extends to only two patent claims and not the entire case.
I assume that as this "expert" addressed the patent claims covered by Google that they had the power of veto.
I notice that none of the claims were excluded from her assessment.
Her claims mirror complaints made by Google on this very subject, when they whined about Apple's patents being equivalent to "essential for standard smartphones".
Of course that was around the time when they were caught illegally selling drugs in the US, so they may have been distracted.
I assume that as this "expert" addressed the patent claims covered by Google that they had the power of veto.
I notice that none of the claims were excluded from her assessment.
Her claims mirror complaints made by Google on this very subject, when they whined about Apple's patents being equivalent to "essential for standard smartphones".
Of course that was around the time when they were caught illegally selling drugs in the US, so they may have been distracted.
Google was illegally selling drugs in the US? A bit of hyperbole thrown in from left field always helps to get the blood going doesn't it?
'Google says it should not have run online ads for Canadian pharmacies that illegally shipped drugs to U.S. consumers.
Google has agreed to pay $500 million to settle allegations that it sold hundreds of millions of dollars worth of online ads to Canadian pharmacies that shipped drugs to U.S. consumers in violation of federal law.
The settlement represents the culmination of an investigation led by the U.S. Attorney's Office in Rhode Island and the Food and Drug Administration's Office of Criminal Investigations.
The investigation found that Google as early as 2003 was aware that Canadian pharmacies were advertising prescription drugs in the U.S. through Google's AdWords program and that while the company had taken steps to block advertisements for pharmacies in other countries, Canandian pharmacies were allowed to continue advertising.
Thank you all for allowing me to learn from this very intelligent discussion!
I just implemented Samsung's strategy and it worked GREAT for me in court. I stole my neighbor's car. Then when he sued me, I successfully argued that his old car wasn't really worth that much, maybe only 37 cents. So this is great, now I will steal stuff from all my neighbors and just explain to the judge that none of the junk was really worth that much to begin with, so that makes it okay.
Comments
Samsung should fire its lawyers.
Wouldn't that be up to Google, seeing as how they are the ones handling the defence?
Both Apple and Samsung are using the same types of experts. Both are coming up with what I consider silly numbers too.
http://recode.net/2014/04/22/understanding-the-crazy-math-apple-and-samsung-use-to-calculate-patent-damages/
Isn't Google in charge of the defence, seeing as they're paying for it under their indemnity agreement?
Probably a PAID expert. :-)
I'm surprised they didn't have a little advertisement video at the end of the testimony that said "This sworn testimony has been paid for by Samscum"
All Samsung's doing is trying to get out from paying tons of money. They'll go to all ends of the earth to plead this one down. It's totally obvious. They are whiney rip off artists. They'll get it in the end as they are so far behind in 64 bit mobile devices, I think that's what will take them and Android down to just selling cheap money losing products in the end.
This is what will bring Samsung down also Google who are also being squeezed out of the market for advertising that forms the core of their business.
http://www.techinasia.com/2013-list-new-asian-homegrown-smartphone-brands/
Pandora is out of the box.
According to the statements I assume you too read Google's indemnity extends to only two patent claims and not the entire case.
This is what will bring Samsung down also Google who are also being squeezed out of the market for advertising that forms the core of their business.
http://www.techinasia.com/2013-list-new-asian-homegrown-smartphone-brands/
Pandora is out of the box.
It looks like media propaganda if anything. The media likes to creates rivalries in ALL industries, it creates some excitement and gets people to read their publications. None of those companies have what it takes to take over Samsung, Samsung would be their primary component supplier. :-)
According to the statements I assume you too read Google's indemnity extends to only two patent claims and not the entire case.
I assume that as this "expert" addressed the patent claims covered by Google that they had the power of veto.
I notice that none of the claims were excluded from her assessment.
Her claims mirror complaints made by Google on this very subject, when they whined about Apple's patents being equivalent to "essential for standard smartphones".
Of course that was around the time when they were caught illegally selling drugs in the US, so they may have been distracted.
Google was illegally selling drugs in the US?
Google was illegally selling drugs in the US?
How Google's $500 Million Fine For Selling Illegal Drugs Online Went Toward Rhode Island Police Retirement Benefits
Like I said, a little hyperbole goes down well.
'Google says it should not have run online ads for Canadian pharmacies that illegally shipped drugs to U.S. consumers.
Google has agreed to pay $500 million to settle allegations that it sold hundreds of millions of dollars worth of online ads to Canadian pharmacies that shipped drugs to U.S. consumers in violation of federal law.
The settlement represents the culmination of an investigation led by the U.S. Attorney's Office in Rhode Island and the Food and Drug Administration's Office of Criminal Investigations.
The investigation found that Google as early as 2003 was aware that Canadian pharmacies were advertising prescription drugs in the U.S. through Google's AdWords program and that while the company had taken steps to block advertisements for pharmacies in other countries, Canandian pharmacies were allowed to continue advertising.
The Department of Justice say that shipping prescription drugs from pharmacies outside the country to U.S. customers generally violates the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act, and, in the case of controlled prescription drugs, the Controlled Substances Act.'
http://www.informationweek.com/applications/google-pays-$500-million-over-illegal-drug-ads/d/d-id/1099773?
Thank you all for allowing me to learn from this very intelligent discussion!
I just implemented Samsung's strategy and it worked GREAT for me in court. I stole my neighbor's car. Then when he sued me, I successfully argued that his old car wasn't really worth that much, maybe only 37 cents. So this is great, now I will steal stuff from all my neighbors and just explain to the judge that none of the junk was really worth that much to begin with, so that makes it okay.
Thanks, Samsung!