tedkord
About
- Username
- tedkord
- Joined
- Visits
- 2
- Last Active
- Roles
- member
- Points
- 4
- Badges
- 0
- Posts
- 15
Reactions
Comments
-
Rayz2016 said: e39dinan said: Neither of those articles provide any proof. It's all anecdotal, much like the original quote. What's anecdotal about it? The evidence is from the Xerox folk who were actually there, and certainly ex…
-
emig647 said: Yes according to the law.. VirnetX has a patent(s), and it was willfully (according to the courts) infringed on by Apple. But the real story here is how horribly broken software patents are in general. Software patents put a l…
-
Rayz2016 said: e39dinan said: Really? http://i.imgur.com/lBNaIxg.png Yes, really. http://obamapacman.com/2010/03/myth-copyright-theft-apple-stole-gui-from-xerox-parc-alto/ http://zurb.com/article/801/steve-jobs-and-xerox-the-t…
-
foggyhill wrote: » They already did, time you get on top of the news. They fight everything, even when they blatantly steal. So, no shit sherlock they'll fight. When you steal this much you need a top notch legal team, their must be world class…
-
stoutie wrote: » Hmm, let's see. A Wisconsin jury found a California company liable for patent violations of a Wisconsin entity in a Wisconsin court. I'd love to see what a non-Wisconsin jury would have concluded. I'm no expert, but I say fight it…
-
tmay wrote: » If the competition is using predatory pricing to gain marketshare, which is precisely what Amazon was doing with the wholesale model, then indeed Apple and everyone else wouldn't be able to compete because they couldn't or wouldn't s…
-
tmay wrote: » If the competition is using predatory pricing to gain marketshare, which is precisely what Amazon was doing with the wholesale model, then indeed Apple and everyone else wouldn't be able to compete because they couldn't or wouldn't s…
-
mackay bell wrote: » Judge Dennis Jacobs dissent in the circuit appeal explains why Apple had no choice but to act as they did: http://eveshungry.blogspot.com/2015/07/dissent-in-apple-ebook-case-points-to.html They're going to win this. T…
-
tmay wrote: » There's other sides to this. An example; http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/04/11/amazon-is-the-big-winner-in-justice-dept-suit-against-apple-and-5-publishers.html "Joe Wikert, the general manager and publisher of O’…
-
tmay wrote: » There's other sides to this. An example; http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/04/11/amazon-is-the-big-winner-in-justice-dept-suit-against-apple-and-5-publishers.html "Joe Wikert, the general manager and publisher of O’…
-
tmay wrote: » The result of this, I suppose, is that publishers and authors set the price, Apple and Amazon take their 30 percent, as does everyone else. At first release, the publishers want the maximum sale price, but as time goes by, they will …
-
charlituna wrote: » Even Cote stated that favored nation clauses aren't illegal. Nor are agency terms. But then she turned around and declared what they did as collusion. There are reports that she ignored like half the evidence that disproved…
-
wood1208 wrote: » Hope Apple get to present case to supreme court and revert the lower court decision. Amazon is a monopoly in e-books. You'd better hope they don't get a chance to present their case, because it will be rebuke number three. But…
-
snova wrote: » no. I believe you are mistaken. The most favored nation clause was about the SELLING price from Publisher to the RESELLER. NOT the final price to the consumer. It was about Apple paying the SAME lowest price to the publishers as…
-
snova wrote: » no. I believe you are mistaken. The most favored nation clause was about the SELLING price from Publisher to the RESELLER. NOT the final price to the consumer. It was about Apple paying the SAME lowest price to the publishers as…