simpleankit
About
- Username
- simpleankit
- Joined
- Visits
- 0
- Last Active
- -
- Roles
- member
- Badges
- 0
- Posts
- 38
Reactions
Comments
-
Ridiculous. Good luck with permanent injunction then, it seems Judge has made her mind that there cannot be any irreparable harm or she would have not have given date after 3 months. Treble damages seems more important for Apple now as I guess.…
-
Great Victory for Apple , not because of damage award surely. 1 billion dollar is 15 days of Samsung's profit (or 22 days of Samsung Mobile division profit) or 8 days of Apple's. However large it may seem (unless it gets tripled, in which case it…
-
22 days of profit for Samsung mobile division to be exact
-
They should seriously settle. By the time Case Reviews, Appeals, Appeal reviews, etc will end in this case, multitude of years would have passed and legal fees itself would be greater than any potential award to any party. 2.5 billion will d…
-
I also feel numbers are cooked to reduce damage claims. Who is to check the authenticity of these? How can Apple claim even 2 billion dollar of damages if average selling price is so less? What is profit per handset Samsung is earning ? At 15% ma…
-
Quote: Originally Posted by LighteningKid It also doesn't matter how many companies Apple has sued, whether they did it serially or in parallel or something else entirely. If Apple is convinced they did something illegal, they have a …
-
All were concepts except F700. Samsung filed its design patent on Dec 2006 in South Korea. Samsung is saying that Galaxy S was direct evolution of F700. F700 Galaxy S
-
This amount seems quite less esp considering that it would assume all points in favour of Apple like court ruling all their IP being infringed, Samsung foregoing all their profits from sales of all 19 products which Apple is accusing for design in…
-
What is the take away from all these when nobody knows whether Apple did the same to avoid being sued by this patent troll or whether they want to start a proxy war against other OEMs? But few things should be very clear. First atleast in US cour…
-
Quote: Originally Posted by Ochyming : Really? : ? then WHY you wrote ? In fact they also sued xoom for similar design infringements & Though Australian case is not about design? Reading comprehension? Though I believe you understood Wha…
-
Quote: Originally Posted by bullhead Apple's patents include both the front and the back and the sides....it is a complete package. The original Samesung tablet looks exactly like an iPad. The modified version of Samesungs tablet to get aroudn …
-
Quote: Originally Posted by SolipsismX If they are obvious then why are you explaining them? Actually I was pissed off when some one was trying to ignore them. Anyways that is why I told I am appearing foolish. A person who cannot see who i…
-
Quote: Originally Posted by anantksundaram Give up. At this point, you're making Androiders look foolish. Yeah, I am appearing foolish in my eyes too trying to explain obvious facts so many times to a person who just ignores them. Really Hoped…
-
Quote: Originally Posted by digitalclips Thanks, but can you equate 'essential' and 'unable to work-around'? No, you cannot equate essential and unable to work around. A patent unable to be worked around does not always grant you monopoly.…
-
Quote: Originally Posted by digitalclips Excuse me? So you say that any company with a patent that leads to a product with no competition it has to share that IP and license it to avoid anti competitive regulations? Do you feel this applies to su…
-
Quote: Originally Posted by jragosta Once again, that is not the issue that is involved with the bond. That is an entirely unrelated case (other than the parties being the same). Read the original article again. Apple sued Motorola and is asking …
-
Quote: Originally Posted by jragosta Google is paying $12.5 B for this division of Motorola. Motorola's attorneys say the the case will go on until 2018 - so we're talking about 7 years. Even if we accept your figure ($1.5 B bond), that means a t…
-
Quote: Originally Posted by Prof. Peabody I know you're a troll and your posts are absolutely ridiculous logic-wise most of the time, but this takes the cake. How can a TV show from the 80's be "prior art" for anything other than other TV sh…
-
Quote: Originally Posted by jragosta No. If Motorola wins, then they haven't infringed and Apple doesn't have to pay anything. Motorola doesn't get an award if they win. They simply avoid having to pay. As a separate issue, Motorola could ask …
-
Quote: Originally Posted by bullhead Mind showing the whole thing....here let me show you how this is nothing like the iPad. Or better yet, i will point you to this which debunks this fantasy... http://www.roughlydrafted.com/2011/0...e-was-no-ipa…