|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, August 24 2012 @ 11:06 PM EDT |
http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PALL
&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsrchnum.htm&r=1&f=G&l=50&s1=7
698711.PN.&OS=PN/7698711&RS=PN/7698711[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, August 24 2012 @ 11:25 PM EDT |
If I understand the original comment, and as I have come to understand the
process, the fact is that the patent was issued to Samsung, Apples device
copies that patent, therefore the jury can only find, based on the facts, that
the Apple device is in contravention. The jury can then also find that the
patent is invalid, therefore Apple does not owe any $'s to Samsung.
The comment noted that the jury found that Apple did not copy the patent which
is not reasonable. This throws a big ? over the jury whether it was biased
against a foreign corporation, Samsung.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, August 25 2012 @ 12:54 AM EDT |
> NOT background playback of music in general.
Exactly. As I read it it is background play of music from an MP3 file.
Last time I looked (and it might now be different) Apple's devices
didn't playback MP3 files. A side channel converter dumped them
to buffer as MP4. All the playback functions were performed on the MP4 file.
So there's some specific magic in the one asserted claim that Apple
gives the impression of doing in the same manner. Trouble is when
big corpns start using smoke, mirrors and black cloths, the jury
has the same chance as David Copperfield's audience.
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
- Well, no ... - Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, August 25 2012 @ 01:44 AM EDT
- Well, no ... - Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, August 25 2012 @ 10:18 AM EDT
|
|
|
|
