|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, September 30 2012 @ 11:11 AM EDT |
| http://groklawstatic.ibiblio.org/pdf4/ApplevSamsung-33.pdf [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: arnt on Sunday, September 30 2012 @ 11:42 AM EDT |
| ..both are possible, which was||is intended? [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: laitcg on Sunday, September 30 2012 @ 02:02 PM EDT |
| [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: luvr on Sunday, September 30 2012 @ 02:20 PM EDT |
“Who started the patent smartphones? Microsoft and
Apple. Old. And who is their target? Google's Android, which runs on innovative
Open Source Linux. New.”
Seems to me that something
like the “patent war on smartphones” (or some such)
was meant here? [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, September 30 2012 @ 02:43 PM EDT |
| 1st para after 'jump to comments' [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, September 30 2012 @ 06:53 PM EDT |
The text here specifically refers to dockets 33 & 34.
In the referred section, just below, however, the docket numbers are 30, 31, 32,
34 and 35, but no 34. 30 has a viable link; however, 31 & 32 have no links,
and the links at 34 & 35 return error 404.
I'm not certain what was intended, but I'm sure this is wrong. First, I
expected 31 & 32 to have links; then, 33 to be included; then, the links at
34 & 35 to work right. This last pair is probably due to some minor error,
but should be looked at, nevertheless.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, October 02 2012 @ 03:50 PM EDT |
| Not possessive. [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, October 02 2012 @ 08:46 PM EDT |
| ;-) [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
