|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, August 29 2012 @ 03:49 AM EDT |
The Galaxy Ace, Galaxy S(i9000) and Galaxy S II(i9100) are
all not marketed in the U.S.
No damages were charged to Galaxy S(i9000) nor the
Galaxy S II(i9100)because they recorded zero sales which
would be logical as these phones are not for U.S. market.
Now how is it that the Galaxy Ace also had zero sales
recorded but was charge $31,1200. It too is not marketed in
U.S.
Then there is the question of why these were included in the
accused phones at all as non are marketed in the U.S.
All three of these phones have a square home button that
makes it look like the iphone (if you aren't all that
discriminating) so it would be logical that Apple would want
to slip these phones in.
But why did the court allow them in?
Did Samsung lawyers challenge the inclusion of these phones
in the accused list? Did the Samsung lawyers challenge
these phones but the court disallow the objection?[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|