|
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, August 25 2012 @ 01:30 PM EDT |
There is plenty of Sci-Fi with different form for the same function. Displays
that roll up, are projected, etc.
So that argument had little merit.
But the bigger argument is that there are other companies that DIDN'T
copy Apple. Palm (Newton Refugees, btw), Microsoft, RIM, etc.
So that argument has NO merit.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
- Yes, merit. - Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, August 25 2012 @ 01:39 PM EDT
- Jury in Apple v. Samsung Goofed, Damages Reduced -- Uh Oh. What's Wrong With this Picture? ~pj - Authored by: Kilz on Saturday, August 25 2012 @ 01:40 PM EDT
- What bias and outright unfairness. - Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, August 25 2012 @ 04:18 PM EDT
- No Apple copied Palm, Nokia, Microsoft, RIM, Samsung etc. - Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, August 25 2012 @ 06:21 PM EDT
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, August 27 2012 @ 10:10 AM EDT |
I have had this question for a long time on this case. Could
Samsung not have asked for re examinations of the Apple
patents in this case just like Google did in Oracle Case?
Would that not have invalidated the patents so this case might
have had a different ending?[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|