- Last Active
cgWerks said:Well, that's one way to get rid of the creatives.
I wonder how many apps will make that transition?
thewhitefalcon said:Yay big government, down with states rights, right?
apple ][ said:palegolas said:But I don't know french.
cali said:Nintendo, one of the most innovative companies in the world with the most stupid marketing department.
From iPhone to the Apple TV Remote, there's Nintendo inspiration.
Apple and Nintendo would be a marriage made in heaven.
Author: You don't need to write "filed for." The "for" is unnecessary. "Filed" is sufficient
gatorguy said:Something that stands out in Apple's response:
"Apple argued that in light of U.S. Patent and Trademark Office decisions rejecting the four patents-in-suit, an injunction would be inappropriate, as would any ongoing royalty based on FaceTime, iMessage and virtual private network on demand features."
That's the same essential argument Samsung made in the Apple/Samsung trial. No injunction or damages because of patent validity questions. Apple of course as we know vehemently argued that an injunction should be appropriate, just as VirnetSX does now, as should damages since the patents were valid at the time of the trial and still have not had a final FINAL ruling of invalidity.
...and of course several folks here won't like the mention of Apple's defense strategy as it goes against what they've said in other courtrooms.