|
40hz
|
 |
« Reply #100 on: September 02, 2012, 10:44:15 AM » |
|
Maybe the idea is to let Apple clear the field first? Once Apple establishes everybody infringed on Apple all LG needs to do is show Apple infringed on LG and they'd have a clean sweep with minimal legal effort since if A=B and B=C then A=C. It's a sound strategy ... Low exposure/high gain, and everybody loses ... Especially us. Yep. That's what's called "Business as Usual."  |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Mark0
|
|
« Reply #101 on: September 05, 2012, 06:23:23 AM » |
|
Groklaw - Apple v Samsung Foreman Gets More Things Wrong ~pjThis is in the believe it or not category, but the foreman in the Apple v Samsung trial is *still* talking about the verdict and why the jurors did what they did. And the more he talks, the worse it gets for that verdict. I would quote, but the article is very small so it's probably better to just give a quick look.
|
|
|
|
« Last Edit: September 05, 2012, 06:43:45 AM by Mark0; Reason: Fixed link »
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Renegade
|
|
« Reply #103 on: September 05, 2012, 06:45:34 AM » |
|
Hmmm... after reading, seems like the link wasn't the only broken thing - the jury was pretty broken as well.  |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Mark0
|
|
« Reply #104 on: September 05, 2012, 06:49:15 AM » |
|
It all seems very much messed up.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Stoic Joker
|
|
« Reply #105 on: September 05, 2012, 06:52:02 AM » |
|
Groklaw - Apple v Samsung Foreman Gets More Things Wrong ~pjThis is in the believe it or not category, but the foreman in the Apple v Samsung trial is *still* talking about the verdict and why the jurors did what they did. And the more he talks, the worse it gets for that verdict. I would quote, but the article is very small so it's probably better to just give a quick look. Maybe he's never heard of the loose lips sink ships rule. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
TaoPhoenix
|
|
« Reply #106 on: September 05, 2012, 07:08:09 AM » |
|
Great Line from the article: "The function of a jury is to decide facts, not just be little patent fascists."  |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
TaoPhoenix
|
|
« Reply #107 on: September 05, 2012, 07:13:07 AM » |
|
Maybe he's never heard of the loose lips sink ships rule.
What would be really hysterical is if Korea pulls a Judo Throw with the increasing emerging info on the trial flaws and gets it overturned. Bets on whether that will happen? Hmm. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Stoic Joker
|
|
« Reply #108 on: September 05, 2012, 07:39:54 AM » |
|
Maybe he's never heard of the loose lips sink ships rule.
What would be really hysterical is if Korea pulls a Judo Throw with the increasing emerging info on the trial flaws and gets it overturned. Bets on whether that will happen? Hmm.  I'll make popcorn  |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
f0dder
|
|
« Reply #109 on: September 06, 2012, 06:38:31 AM » |
|
Am I being naive and missing the point (easily done when you are as daft as me) but that must be a joke? Did MPEG4 exist in 2001 ? 1998, apparently - dayum! |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
 - carpe noctem |
|
|
|
Mark0
|
|
« Reply #110 on: September 13, 2012, 10:44:18 AM » |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Renegade
|
|
« Reply #111 on: September 23, 2012, 05:57:45 AM » |
|
More from the hilarity of hypocrisy department: http://www.huffingtonpost...902685.html?utm_hp_ref=twApple Stole Clock Design For iOS 6, Swiss Federal Railways Says
 It gets better... I sent the story from my SAMUNG tab to my email, checked the link on my desktop, then posted here. But the two articles are very different. The original is quite a bit harsher than the one at "apparently" the same link. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
TaoPhoenix
|
|
« Reply #112 on: October 12, 2012, 11:29:19 AM » |
|
Well then, I'll turn the matters in a different direction with this: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-19919298Samsung Galaxy Nexus ban overturned by US appeals court "It said the district court in California, which had issued the ban in June, had "abused its discretion in entering an injunction"." Which, in Court Speak, is pretty bad. "Abused Discretion" is basically what we were all saying in Less-Safe-For-Work terms. There's also an awesome phrase to keep an eye on. "Apple must show that consumers buy the Galaxy Nexus because it is equipped with the apparatus claimed in the ’604 patent—not because it can search in general, and not even because it has unified search." So we have the BAREST beginnings of how to slow down patent abuse: 1. SomePhone has "patented technology to play Angry Birds with live birds using geo-sensors and accelerometer tech in hunting season" or something. Let's even say something like that is innovating, and not obvious - shake your phone at a bird and it falls out of the sky!? OtherCorp says that the tech infringes on their other patent which got there first, *and then tries to ban sales of the whole phone.*I think this court case is saying that the grumpy corp has to prove that consumers basically stood in the mall and picked which phone to buy based on exactly that tech and no more. "Hmm, this one has a better screen, better sound, better camera, better maps, better music interface, Android store." "Yeah, but mine kills pigeons in the park." "Ooh, I'm sold, I'll do that!" |
|
|
|
« Last Edit: October 12, 2012, 11:36:20 AM by TaoPhoenix »
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
tomos
|
|
« Reply #113 on: October 12, 2012, 02:48:43 PM » |
|
^ good news anyways  |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
wraith808
|
|
« Reply #114 on: December 20, 2012, 06:44:21 AM » |
|
U.S. Office Rejects 2nd Apple PatentThe United States Patent and Trademark Office has dealt a blow to Apple in its legal battle with Samsung Electronics over smartphone patents, declaring that a patent that helped Apple win $1.05 billion in damages against Samsung in a jury trial should not have been granted.
More at link.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Renegade
|
|
« Reply #115 on: December 20, 2012, 07:23:10 AM » |
|
U.S. Office Rejects 2nd Apple PatentThe United States Patent and Trademark Office has dealt a blow to Apple in its legal battle with Samsung Electronics over smartphone patents, declaring that a patent that helped Apple win $1.05 billion in damages against Samsung in a jury trial should not have been granted.
More at link. Ahem... Of the six patents that were the basis of the ruling against Samsung, this is the second that the patent office has concluded, on re-examination, should not have been granted. So far? Is the Patent Office full of yes-men, or just full of idiots? Or just completely broken? (Let's leave them an easy out.  ) |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
TaoPhoenix
|
|
« Reply #116 on: December 20, 2012, 07:39:35 AM » |
|
Of the six patents that were the basis of the ruling against Samsung, this is the second that the patent office has concluded, on re-examination, should not have been granted. So far? Is the Patent Office ... just completely broken? Dramatization of Patent Review Process! (I know, different language and all...) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P46qYCIt954  |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Online TrID file identifier
