tulkas
About
- Username
- tulkas
- Joined
- Visits
- 33
- Last Active
- Roles
- member
- Points
- 1,275
- Badges
- 2
- Posts
- 3,757
Reactions
Comments
-
Strange. The reasoning seems to be that the judge felt Apple's conditional offer of up to $1/device demonstrated they were not serious and were instead interested in dragging it out. Seems to me that the offer was very reasonable. What was Apple s…
-
All iPhones are not sold unlocked in Canada this year. In previous years, as long as you bought it from Apple for full price, then they were unlocked. But for the iPhone 5, they are only unlocked if you buy it from the Apple website. If you buy it f…
-
custer wrote: » I can see you boasting about that. Boasting? Nope, just clearing up your misconceptions and confusion. I hate the idea of people living in ignorance.
-
Quote: Originally Posted by Custer Lol! You are so right. The Yanks have produced such an enviable justice system supported by the brightest, most intelligent police force to become the envy of the world. The rest of the worl…
-
Quote: Originally Posted by Tallest Skil They'll certainly try. As useless as unarmed UK bobbies. "Stop or I'll say stop again! And I'll mean it this time!"
-
Quote: Originally Posted by Gatorguy I'm mildly surprised Apple actually posts that it's original statement was inaccurate. http://9to5mac.files.wordpress.com/2012/11/screen-shot-2012-11-03-at-7-35-42-am1.png Just following o…
-
The funniest part? Apple added javascript to their page that ensures, no matter what screen size or resolution you are using, the link and the text on the main page will be below the bottom of your display. You are forced to scroll if you want to …
-
Quote: Originally Posted by Gatorguy Which ones don't fall under the Microsoft FAT claims, at least according to Microsoft? If you can't find "many, many" would you agree that FAT licensing is essential to nearly every modern OS based…
-
Quote: Originally Posted by arrowspark The stuff that Apple wrote in the statement may have been true but it was completely irrelevant to the purpose of the statement that the UK courts wanted Apple to make. . The problem is the UK c…
-
Quote: Originally Posted by Gatorguy The difference being either: A: Google's search patents are not essential nor even "de-facto essential" since there's no dearth of search engines without Google licensing to the patents, …
-
Quote: Originally Posted by Gatorguy If it's essential to public progress and improvements I believe they can do just that to me. No one's arguing that it should be free to use of course. Once it's a standard, entirely different …
-
Quote: Originally Posted by Gatorguy The subject of Google's mention was Microsoft IP like their FAT patent, properly considered a "de-facto standard IMHO, that's being asserted against Android vendors to force them into license agree…
-
Quote: Originally Posted by Gatorguy Um... no they didn't. Apple wasn't even mentioned by Google in that regard. That was put to rest months ago when it first came up here. ummm, it was mentioned in a letter to the Senate Judici…
-
Quote: Originally Posted by Crowley I'd love to see that full sentence. Still waiting. Quote: Originally Posted by Tulkas What Apple wrote was Quote: Originally Posted by Tulkas …
-
Quote: Originally Posted by whatever71 Does anyone have any figures to show how many mobile cases are ongoing? I would genuinely be interested to see if apple top that list (as aggressors) or to see if it's actually the press t…
-
Quote: Originally Posted by Crowley Hello semantics my old friend. Invalid or unenforcable, either makes it irrelevant. An irrevelant fact is a pretty flimsy springboard to base your objection on, and any weaselling is in the "but i…
-
Quote: Originally Posted by whatever71 As to the question of what apple should do, sit there & watch what they see as ip theft; this goes deeper than that - the old chestnut of the USPTO & some of the approved patents / t…
-
Quote: Originally Posted by Crowley Find me a proper attributed quote and we can argue the point. Until then, it's just a couple of words in a sentence. Besides which, I think it's been quite clearly established that Apple'…
-
Quote: Originally Posted by Crowley Fantastic. Two words, devoid of any context, in separate quotation marks are entirely valid examples as the unworthiness of the court. Your standards for "exact" are very low. Two exa…
-
Quote: Originally Posted by Crowley "But what Apple wrote was true" isn't an attempt at a semantic argument? You were very quick to throw around an accusation of double standards (dropped that one now, right?), trying applyi…