What's wrong with that!? He praised their product, and expressed an opinion that Apple should enter the 7-inch market. The fact that he had to mention it "several" times before Steve finally "seemed receptive" says nothing at all.
Indeed, I don't even understand the point of this line of questioning. What point is Samsung trying to make here? That Apple copied Samsung? Over a nonexistent product?
I'm assuming he's trying to prove that Apple does competitive research and gets ideas from other companies like Samsung. At the end of th day Samsung will argue that all companies get inspiration from other companies and it's not copying. I'm not saying I agree with it, but I can see them making that case, and I can see a jury buying it.
No but the jury could be swayed by the argument that companies take ideas or get inspired by other companies and that shouldn't be considered copying.
Please correct me if I'm wrong, but the fact that Apple has a design patent is absolutely basic to the suit to begin with. No design patent, no suit. Isn't it about violating a patent?
<p style="font-size:12px;line-height:normal;font-family:Helvetica;">Apple's car would look completely different, but the spirit embodied in what Tesla is doing is exactly what Apple would have done, plus some surprises that we can't even imagine.</p>
<p style="font-size:12px;line-height:normal;font-family:Helvetica;">[SIZE=8px]I say 'we'. I can think of a few things, but no one likes it if anyone else on the face of the planet thinks they have any actual ideas that might be what Apple would do, so I'll refrain.[/SIZE]</p>
The thing about Tesla, despite having a 15 or 18 inch touchscreen is that it has a very poor fit and finish on the interior. I would think Apple would do much better than that.
From reading the live blog if anything this trial will show how obsessed Samsung was/is with Apple. To the point of hiring consulting groups to come in and tell them why they should care/be worried about Apple.
That explains why his mind is always in the gutter.
And him easily referencing the "hoe" part, that usually tells me that he has some experience with or is familiar with that part of the worlds oldest business.
That explains why his mind is always in the gutter.
And him easily referencing the "hoe" part, that usually tells me that he has some experience with or is familiar with that part of the worlds oldest business.
Hmm...
If anyone has their mind in the gutter, it's surely you.
Embedded systems dont use iOS or other Apple software because Apple wants to be a ball hog and not license it out to others.
No but I bet they use WebKit, and I suspect Apple's contribution is acknowledged in the Open Source license agreements that accompany every Android device.
Experimentally, we know from records and articles from that time that iPhone and iPad were original, contrarian designs that Apple alone introduced and popularized. We know it because key players all ridiculed the design and told Apple it was stupid. This proves their self development story is a fraud, crafted to justify an illegal pirating of Apple's design. By mocking the design at intro time, Apple peers effectively self testified that it was not their design, and they had no intention of designing a similar product.
Embedded systems dont use iOS or other Apple software because Apple wants to be a ball hog and not license it out to others.
They earn more money by keeping the ball to themselves. It's business. I bet if Google had the resources to build their own proprietary phone, they wouldn't bother with open source.
Is this in some way a rebuttal to what I've said? It's simply a consequence of iOS not being used in embedded devices.
They use Android so they can embed it and control it. The Apple way is, you step into the car and bluetooth takes over communicating with the car. Tesla can't take the risk of an infected Android phone entering the car and controlling it. Thus, Android is used since they can't embed iOS..../s until the details are worked out with Apple of course.....
Comments
Please correct me if I'm wrong, but the fact that Apple has a design patent is absolutely basic to the suit to begin with. No design patent, no suit. Isn't it about violating a patent?
At least Samsung hasn’t tried to slavishly copy the Mac.
Oh, wait...
http://www.cultofmac.com/170727/samsung-is-now-shamelessly-ripping-off-the-design-of-the-mac-mini/
Quote:
Originally Posted by Freshmaker
What do you have against Korean women?
He got dumped by one?
That explains why his mind is always in the gutter.
And him easily referencing the "hoe" part, that usually tells me that he has some experience with or is familiar with that part of the worlds oldest business.
Hmm...
Quote:
Originally Posted by winstein2010
where are the twitter feeds?
Here are the best right now: @sdlawsonmedia @hmintz @tim @inafried
Embedded systems dont use iOS or other Apple software because Apple wants to be a ball hog and not license it out to others.
Originally Posted by Galbi
…Apple wants to be a ball hog and not license it out to others.
Yeah, that's obviously not completely wrong.
If anyone has their mind in the gutter, it's surely you.
Here, let me help: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hoe
Quote:
Originally Posted by anantksundaram
If anyone has their mind in the gutter, it's surely you.
Here, let me help: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hoe
Help yourself, anantksundrama.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Galbi
Embedded systems dont use iOS or other Apple software because Apple wants to be a ball hog and not license it out to others.
No but I bet they use WebKit, and I suspect Apple's contribution is acknowledged in the Open Source license agreements that accompany every Android device.
Apple seems to be taking the right approach.
Experimentally, we know from records and articles from that time that iPhone and iPad were original, contrarian designs that Apple alone introduced and popularized. We know it because key players all ridiculed the design and told Apple it was stupid. This proves their self development story is a fraud, crafted to justify an illegal pirating of Apple's design. By mocking the design at intro time, Apple peers effectively self testified that it was not their design, and they had no intention of designing a similar product.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Galbi
Embedded systems dont use iOS or other Apple software because Apple wants to be a ball hog and not license it out to others.
They earn more money by keeping the ball to themselves. It's business. I bet if Google had the resources to build their own proprietary phone, they wouldn't bother with open source.
Quote:
Originally Posted by anantksundaram
Quote:
Originally Posted by AppleInsider
The attorney also asked about what Apple would be changing in the design of iPhone 5....
Wow. The arrogance.
He must take Schiller for a fool.
I had the same reaction. Why didn't Apple object to that question based on lack of relevance?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Crunch
I had the same reaction. Why didn't Apple object to that question based on lack of relevance?
They couldn't resist letting Schiller make his smart remarks
Quote:
Originally Posted by Just_Me
Tesla uses android. You do know that right?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
Is this in some way a rebuttal to what I've said? It's simply a consequence of iOS not being used in embedded devices.
They use Android so they can embed it and control it. The Apple way is, you step into the car and bluetooth takes over communicating with the car. Tesla can't take the risk of an infected Android phone entering the car and controlling it. Thus, Android is used since they can't embed iOS..../s until the details are worked out with Apple of course.....