|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, August 29 2012 @ 10:21 AM EDT |
Okay - Now I'm putting my "Expert" hat on. I've designed ASICS based
on the ARM processor multiple times. Guess what. Both Samsung AND Apple use the
same processor.
The video hardware is likely different - but the code WOULD execute on both of
them. So this guy's analysis doesn't even hold at that level!
ARM code is ARM code. So the source can be made to execute on either one
(granted there is a Java bias on Android machines) but the fact is that when it
comes down to machine code -they are essentially identical!
My two cents worth!
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, August 29 2012 @ 10:38 AM EDT |
And therefore the damages associated with that decision. So, it might not amount
to much. However, the larger question is what does this show, if anything, about
the deliberation process? AND IF this one is reversed by Koh does it kill the
whole verdict?[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, August 29 2012 @ 10:52 AM EDT |
however you are forgetting about obviousness. If it has been invented before how
can you defend obviousness.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
