I don't think your quote has anything to do with what I said.
Apple loses cases, and if it's really legally protected, as absurd as it is for a 68 year old clock design, then they'll have to pay up sooner or later.
I still think it's absurd that a government agency is allowed to own copyrights. Copyrights are meant to promote the arts and foster competition, governments fall outside of that in my opinion.
Non competing? What does Apple's clock do differently from the Swiss Federal Railway Clock? They both tell time, do they not?
Not competing, as in, Apple doesn't sell railroad passenger or freight service and the Swiss Federal Railway doesn't sell phones, software or computers.
I don't think your quote has anything to do with what I said.
Apple loses cases, and if it's really legally protected, as absurd as it is for a 68 year old clock design, then they'll have to pay up sooner or later.
I still think it's absurd that a government agency is allowed to own copyrights. Copyrights are meant to promote the arts and foster competition, governments fall outside of that in my opinion.
Not competing, as in, Apple doesn't sell railroad passenger or freight service and the Swiss Federal Railway doesn't sell phones, software or computers.
But clocks were being discussed and they both have the same functionality. It's not like those Braun pictures idiots post claiming Apple used, now those are non competing.
It's actually all over the Internet, this is the only site not reporting it. Yes it's only a clock but a company that's suing others for copying left and right shouldn't be copying anything.
Cool huh, child labourers make Samsung stuff cheaper.
remind me of an Oxfam study years back - in 1993, when Bangladesh, pressured by US boycott, outlawed "child labor," children turned to child prostitution, garbage dump or simply starved to death. Not that I'm for child labor, but please mind your own business.
Consider the possibility that Apple's move to triple the damages is a defensive move. Apple, knowing that HTC and Samsung have a dominant position with LTE technology, is attempting to leverage and bolster its position with the expected adverse LTE ruling in favor of Samsung. These cases are not being litigated in a vacuum, or as stand alone. As someone who on payday signs the front of the check (an not the back of them) this is what I see being played out.
Consider the possibility that Apple's move to triple the damages is a defensive move. Apple, knowing that HTC and Samsung have a dominant position with LTE technology, is attempting to leverage and bolster its position with the expected adverse LTE ruling in favor of Samsung. These cases are not being litigated in a vacuum, or as stand alone. As someone who on payday signs the front of the check (an not the back of them) this is what I see being played out.
Why is where you sign a check relevant to anything? Apple has some LTE patents so why are you assuming Apple violated anybody else's patents?
Why would Samsung want revers2 engineer what is nothing more than a stretched iphone 4s. The iphone 5 is a pathetic joke that no one wants to copy. Probably the ugliest phone ever made, with a shitty map app to go with it. Oh and the paint chipping is another sign of high quality. I actually feel sorry for iphone users. Not smart enough to figure out Android, leaving them with the dumbed down OS, where there is no choice. So sad. Although based off ios 5 and 6, Apple is hard at work copying Android. NOTIFICATION CENTER, VIP MAIL, Split Keyboard, integrated turn by turn nav, do no5 disturb via text... all And4oid features Apple just steals. Hell, Apple even steals from Cydia developers and Apple doesnt even bother to change the logo of the app. A pathetic company that actually does shamelessly steal.
Employer vs. Employee thought process. Producer vs. User thought process. Not intended to set myself above others, just my observation as one who makes these type decisions with money at risk. The fact that a explanation was needed proves the point.
Comments
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shidell
This is no excuse, Skil.
Just goes to show what a sham it all really is.
Here have something to read about the company you seem to blindly support:-
http://chinalaborwatch.files.wordpress.com/2012/08/samsung8-271.pdf
Cool huh, child labourers make Samsung stuff cheaper.
I don't think your quote has anything to do with what I said.
Apple loses cases, and if it's really legally protected, as absurd as it is for a 68 year old clock design, then they'll have to pay up sooner or later.
I still think it's absurd that a government agency is allowed to own copyrights. Copyrights are meant to promote the arts and foster competition, governments fall outside of that in my opinion.
Not competing, as in, Apple doesn't sell railroad passenger or freight service and the Swiss Federal Railway doesn't sell phones, software or computers.
Which had absolutely NOTHING to do with what I said.
You can look it up but I did the hard work for you. I may disagree with you from time to time but I'd never steer you wrong.
But clocks were being discussed and they both have the same functionality. It's not like those Braun pictures idiots post claiming Apple used, now those are non competing.
Quote:
Originally Posted by hill60
Here have something to read about the company you seem to blindly support:-
http://chinalaborwatch.files.wordpress.com/2012/08/samsung8-271.pdf
Cool huh, child labourers make Samsung stuff cheaper.
This has absolutely no relevance to this discussion, nor my point, whatsoever.
OMG clock. Is that the best you could do?
It's actually all over the Internet, this is the only site not reporting it. Yes it's only a clock but a company that's suing others for copying left and right shouldn't be copying anything.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Suddenly Newton
OMG clock. Is that the best you could do?
Is this how you responded to Apple vs. Samsung?
I'm calling you a hypocrite here. Go ahead and defend yourself, or admit that it's one in the same.
Quote:
Originally Posted by hill60
Here have something to read about the company you seem to blindly support:-
http://chinalaborwatch.files.wordpress.com/2012/08/samsung8-271.pdf
Cool huh, child labourers make Samsung stuff cheaper.
remind me of an Oxfam study years back - in 1993, when Bangladesh, pressured by US boycott, outlawed "child labor," children turned to child prostitution, garbage dump or simply starved to death. Not that I'm for child labor, but please mind your own business.
I hope Samsung doesn't cave in like Apple did..
Quote:
Originally Posted by lehshead
Consider the possibility that Apple's move to triple the damages is a defensive move. Apple, knowing that HTC and Samsung have a dominant position with LTE technology, is attempting to leverage and bolster its position with the expected adverse LTE ruling in favor of Samsung. These cases are not being litigated in a vacuum, or as stand alone. As someone who on payday signs the front of the check (an not the back of them) this is what I see being played out.
a
Quote:
Originally Posted by lehshead
Consider the possibility that Apple's move to triple the damages is a defensive move. Apple, knowing that HTC and Samsung have a dominant position with LTE technology, is attempting to leverage and bolster its position with the expected adverse LTE ruling in favor of Samsung. These cases are not being litigated in a vacuum, or as stand alone. As someone who on payday signs the front of the check (an not the back of them) this is what I see being played out.
Why is where you sign a check relevant to anything? Apple has some LTE patents so why are you assuming Apple violated anybody else's patents?
Although based off ios 5 and 6, Apple is hard at work copying Android. NOTIFICATION CENTER, VIP MAIL, Split Keyboard, integrated turn by turn nav, do no5 disturb via text... all And4oid features Apple just steals. Hell, Apple even steals from Cydia developers and Apple doesnt even bother to change the logo of the app. A pathetic company that actually does shamelessly steal.
Employer vs. Employee thought process. Producer vs. User thought process. Not intended to set myself above others, just my observation as one who makes these type decisions with money at risk. The fact that a explanation was needed proves the point.