|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, August 06 2012 @ 01:59 AM EDT |
| I like the alternative where everybody wins. [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, August 06 2012 @ 04:46 AM EDT |
| Hey, if Apple aqnt's to go MAD, let's oblige them. [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, August 06 2012 @ 07:58 AM EDT |
I see a simple symmetry here. Samsung used Apples patents, and will need to pay
ALL of its profits for the infringing products to Apple.
Likewise, Apple has used Samsung's patents without any payment, and should be
held to the same standard...
Apple owes Samsung ALL of its profits on the iPhones, and iPads that infringed
on Samsung's patents.
There, that fixed it. Apple will get a pyrrhic victory that destroys the
company.
Now, how does one take a WIN to the appeals court?
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: ailuromancy on Monday, August 06 2012 @ 10:49 AM EDT |
European DRAM manufacturers complained
"We are utterly incapable of
competing with the outside
world", so the European parliament lept in to the
rescue with the 30% import tax on DRAM. This instantly
caused:
European DRAM manufactureres to
become world
leaders in the industry.European DRAM manufacturers
to
become more efficient.- Every other type of business in the
EU to
become a little less competitive because they had
to pay the DRAM
tax.
- All old and broken DRAM to be worth
15% of the value of the
latest high speed high capacity
chips. (You could avoid the tax by claiming you
were
exchanging defective parts. Anything that looked
vaguely like a SIMM
would do.)
Judge Koh seems to understand the value to the US
of
creating a monopoly supplier just as well as the
European Parliament. Enjoy
Microsoft ][.
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
- DRAM tax - Authored by: Wol on Monday, August 06 2012 @ 05:40 PM EDT
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, August 06 2012 @ 01:01 PM EDT |
perhaps you are the author of this little gem
Rewriting
History
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, August 03 2012 @ 04:27 PM
EDT
I
keep tripping over this phrase, here on GL, and all over
the
tech press,
usually referring to Apple's attempts to deny
the
admission of Samsung's
historic designs. Now history is what
I saw happening, and what you saw
happening may well be
different, even of the same event, because you saw it
from a
different angle with a different set of preconceptions.
History is
always being rewritten. There are libraries full
of
history books written by
people who saw or heard things
differently.
Then with the passage of time more
people will re-interpret
that history in the light of a new set of moral
principles.
I hope the jury were taught enough of this basic philosophy
to see
that both parties are right, and both are wrong, and
neither deserve a
penny.
The unfortunate part is that the court system works in a
mysterious way
that allows the parties to ration the
quantity
and quality of history that the
jury is allowed to consider.
that's from the topic
Samsung
's Motion to Strike Apple's "Purported
Recommendation" for Sanctions, as text
~pj Updated 2Xs
that was posted previous to this one.
Perhaps you are
not the author, then please accept my
apology - however the ideas expressed in
your present
comment and those expressed there appear to come from the
same
pottery shop.
my response to this was late so may have been missed by many
so here it is: Authored by: Anonymous on
Sunday, August 05 2012 @
03:53 AM EDT
no doubt you view my little comment on this issue as
sophomoric and obtuse.
but if you want to get philosophical about it, it could
be
viewed that the judiciary's purpose is to curb chaos.
To curb this chaos it
is not necessary to school the
participants in relativistic theory that the
perception of
events is dependent on the observers cultural bias or that
the
perception of the same event(s) may be honestly
remembered differently by
different people. These could-be
anomalies are to be resolved in the judicial
setting as a
matter of course.
But what I really object to is the conclusion
by the
purveyor of the relativistic vision of history is this...
I
hope the jury were taught enough of this basic
philosophy to see that both
parties are right, and both are
wrong, and neither deserve a
penny
In the real world sometimes there really is a bully beating
up on some other kid.
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, August 07 2012 @ 09:13 AM EDT |
If Apple was banned from selling the iPhone and iPad, and Samsung was banned
from selling all of the models alleged to infringe in this law suit, Apple would
have no phones or tablets to sell, while Samsung would still have many models to
sell.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
