|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, August 26 2012 @ 05:48 AM EDT |
Was that 'chink' comment intentionally, or unintentionally, racist?
What everybody seems to be forgetting is that while this court decision might
keep Samsung at no. 2 in the US, in much of the rest of the world (including
rapidly growing Asian markets) it is already no. 1, and Apple doesn't have the
patents, the legal strategy, or the marketing edge in 'alien' cultures, to do a
damn thing about it!
And with US juries beating up on the foreigners, and commenters bandying around
words like 'chink' (as I said, intentionally or not) and acting like the good
ol' US of A is the only place that matters, Samsung's already got a head start
everywhere else.
They'll keep fighting in the US, and they'll keep doing OK because they have
good products. But it's Apple's home turf, and I'm guessing they already know
it's not where the main game is for them right now.
Anyone who cannot see this is not ready for the future.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: BitOBear on Sunday, August 26 2012 @ 08:22 AM EDT |
Samsung makes the key parts of the iWhatever(s) at issue, e.g. the touch
screens.
Good luck to Apple if Samsung says "no renewal, no part of our next gen of
touch screens at all, too bad so sad" to Apple's next purchase order?
Or how about "each of these screen's will cost you $250 USD" instead
of $25 USD?
The only thing thee cases really cost is U.S. relevancy in the technical
revolution.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, August 26 2012 @ 04:31 PM EDT |
> It is better for her record to order the retrial herself rather than
> have the Circuit order her to retry it.
Ah, thank you Webster for your usual erudite insight. But why
> Sympathy will be the determining factor.
Sympathy belongs in the parlour, or its Californian equivalent.
My dictionary allows judgement to include wisdom or sensibility,
but isn't this case supposed to be about the law and facts?
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
