|
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, August 23 2012 @ 11:14 PM EDT |
WSJ "streaming coverage"
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, August 24 2012 @ 06:34 AM EDT |
I love this. Both companies facing import bans! Pretty soon patents will become
an insurmoutable barrier to actually producing any electronic device.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, August 24 2012 @ 07:40 AM EDT |
Where do they get amounts like this.
Do they think the legal fees are already high enough.
Is it to make a statement rather than to make money.
Wouldn't it be nice if east Texas set fines of $1 for a violation.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
- 35,400? - Authored by: Kilz on Friday, August 24 2012 @ 08:44 AM EDT
- 35,400? - Authored by: Mikkel on Friday, August 24 2012 @ 12:35 PM EDT
- 35,400? - Authored by: Wol on Friday, August 24 2012 @ 03:50 PM EDT
- 35,400? - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, August 24 2012 @ 01:38 PM EDT
- 35,400? - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, August 24 2012 @ 01:45 PM EDT
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, August 24 2012 @ 12:33 PM EDT |
This verdict kind of confirms the thing that's always
confused me about the Apple patent suits...
Why is Apple suing other people??? Of the established major
players (Motorola, Nokia, even Samsung...) - Apple has
always seemed to have the weakest patent portfolio. They
design nice, pretty, tasteful stuff - but innovation isn't
really part of their corporate DNA. The only way I could
rationalize this behavior as anything other than foolishness
was either as (a) FUD or (b) an attempt to get their more
established rivals to cross-license their own, rather more
dangerous, patent portfolios.
--Erwin[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|