|
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, August 31 2012 @ 08:11 PM EDT |
And ruining their reputation the same way Microsoft did. Too bad, it used to
be a nice company.
Wayne
http://madhatter.ca
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: nsomos on Friday, August 31 2012 @ 08:16 PM EDT |
Please post corrections in this thread.
A summary in the posts title may be helpful.
Thanks[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, August 31 2012 @ 08:21 PM EDT |
"the public is for the most part repulsed by Apple's IP aggression"
Can you cite the properly-conducted survey demonstrating this, please?
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: celtic_hackr on Friday, August 31 2012 @ 08:33 PM EDT |
Make links clickable. Please keep off the topic thread.
On-topic comments will be ignored.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- The Original iPad in 2001... from LG - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, August 31 2012 @ 11:57 PM EDT
- Corporations against Prop 37 - Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, September 01 2012 @ 01:41 AM EDT
- Matt Taibbi takes a look at Bain Capital - Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, September 01 2012 @ 04:30 AM EDT
- Whatever you do, don’t lose a WP7 handset - Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, September 01 2012 @ 11:45 AM EDT
- Girls Need Math - if ever a column needed a follow up, this is it - Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, September 01 2012 @ 01:04 PM EDT
- Samsung's awesome reply to a customer - Authored by: Torinir on Saturday, September 01 2012 @ 05:27 PM EDT
- Decline of MS at Talking Points Memo - Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, September 01 2012 @ 07:45 PM EDT
- Human advantage - Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, September 02 2012 @ 01:08 AM EDT
- SHARP Downgraded to JUNK STATUS... no iPhone 5 Screens = Trouble Ahead - Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, September 02 2012 @ 01:54 AM EDT
- Dilbert 2012-09-02 - Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, September 02 2012 @ 04:41 AM EDT
- Now They're Patenting Our Food - Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, September 02 2012 @ 04:16 PM EDT
|
Authored by: celtic_hackr on Friday, August 31 2012 @ 08:34 PM EDT |
Please make the title the same as the News Pick. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: celtic_hackr on Friday, August 31 2012 @ 08:35 PM EDT |
You know the drill. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, August 31 2012 @ 08:38 PM EDT |
I know what would be equitable. Grant Apple's stay on posting
of a bond of $2.5 bn or whatever the damages Apple claimed
on the iPad which would be payable to Samsung should that
particular preliminary injunction not be turned into a permanent
injunction.
That should communicate to Apple about the damages
Samsung faces with an improper injunction especially now that
people know about the tab and that it does not infringe Apple's
design patent. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Gringo_ on Friday, August 31 2012 @ 09:24 PM EDT |
That's what all the lawsuits are about. They are
afraid that now with Steve
Jobs gone, they have lost
the magic. Once the products that were in the
pipeline
run out, they have no more. They know that. Their day
is over. They
even state on their financial forecasts
they they are at risk of losing their
Mojo. Apple will
have it's Kodac moment not so long from now. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, August 31 2012 @ 09:53 PM EDT |
Considering that they very well may be asking that the
verdict be set aside because of jury -- I don't like the word
misconduct, since I don't think the jury deliberately did
wrong. They were just lead oround by the nose by an idiot who
thinks he's an expert in patent law when he really clueless.
-- incompetence. I doubt that the judge will set aside the
part where Samsung is found infringing but not the part where
Samsung is not found infringing.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, August 31 2012 @ 11:38 PM EDT |
"Apple's lawyers are still clueless that the public is for the
most part repulsed by Apple's IP aggression."
I think many of us are also repulsed about how the court has
treated Samsung.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, September 01 2012 @ 12:27 AM EDT |
I think you might
particularly like the last one:
I have to admit, I’m a huge Apple
fan. I’ve bought
practically every Apple device ever made. I am usually one
of
those in line the first day Apple releases a new product,
and I own Apple
stock.
That said, I hope that Apple loses if Samsung appeals — as
they are
expected to do.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, September 01 2012 @ 12:31 AM EDT |
Will Samsung be awarded compensations if the ban on the Galaxy Tab 10.1 is
lifted? The ban was granted under the assumption that it was likely that the
device would be found infringing, but since it's not the case shouldn't Samsung
be compensated for all these potential sales lost?[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, September 01 2012 @ 03:30 AM EDT |
if the Jury's verdict is thrown out and there is another trial, is the new trial
on all issues, even the ones where no infringement was found? or is it like a
criminal case where a new trial can only be done on matters where liability was
found to begin with?[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, September 01 2012 @ 04:46 AM EDT |
I don't quite think so. While many are certainly repulsed, there are many who
haven't even HEARD of the Apple v Samsung matter. While I have been following
this closely, my wife knows nothing about it.
Recently, a news article was out talking about the explosion of sales of Samsung
gear and I thought to myself "hey, I think I should get the i9300 before I
cannot get it" and so informed my wife of my intentions to spend the $600.
She said "go ahead" but reminded me it wasn't a great idea for other
reasons. (She has me passive-aggressively whipped I guess... she defeated me
with logic and reason) But I had to explain to her what was up with Apple and
what they were doing.
She's an Apple user but uses a Galaxy S phone. Not a "fan" of
either... just clueless about anything that doesn't affect her directly.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, September 01 2012 @ 08:12 AM EDT |
Apple who is suing the UK government for wilful infringement
of Apple's patents
on rectangles, flat faces and rounded
corners, presented photographs showing
clear evidence of
wilful infringement of its inventions and design patents
relating to rectangles, rounded corners and flat faces in
the Stonehenge
monument in England.
The photo
submitted in
evidence
An Apple spokesman made a statement outside outside court
about how Apple will do everything in their power to protect
their innovations
and the IP they own. "We at Apple have
spend enormous time and expense
inventing the rectangle,
rounded corners and flat faces, and we are seeking a
worldwide ban on others using our technology, and punitive
damages from those
who have infringed on our inventions", he
said, adding that "What was
particularly galling about this
case was not only that our inventions were
being willfully
infinged, but that they had been wilfully and continuously
infringed for so long - all the way back to the stone age in
this case". "We
will definitely be asking for triple damages on top of the
$2.5 billion
damages claimed and interest payment due over
the past 5,000 years, taking the
sum up to $ 1 trillion", he
confirmed, "The UK government as the successor
to the
Stonehenge estate will have to pay for their theft of Apple
IP".
In court today, the UK government's representative asked
judge KO, the
judge presiding the case, for the opportunity
to present evidence and expert
testimony in court that would
prove that Apple's patents and design patents on
the
rectangle, rounded corner and flat faces are invalidated
because the
Stonehenge monuments preceded Apple's patents
and so were prior art. However
Judge KO ruled this evidence
and testimony in admissible in court because it
was filed
too late due to the fact that it should have been filed
within three
months of the date the infringement occured,
meaning that the deadline for
filing - 31 Oct 3026 BC - had
lapsed. The UK government's lawyer protested
"what is the
point of having a trial if the evidence that can disprove
the
lawsuit cannot be presented?".
Judge KO's reply was that
"They were
worrying excessively", adding that "The jury
foreman owns a similar patent to
Apple's which he is
defending against a similar prior art challenge, and he can
therefore act as an expert witness and provide the necessary
jury instruction
during deliberation if necessary". Much to
the UK government's chagrin, judge
KO then allowed
Apple's late submission of videos of rubber balls bouncing
off
the
monuments as evidence that Stonehenge infringes on Apple's
bounce-back
patent.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, September 01 2012 @ 02:13 PM EDT |
If I remember right, in Google/Oracle, the USPTO found large portions of
Oracle's patents invalid. Including the design patents, has any challenge been
made to the USPTO? If not, I'm sincerely surprised. And puzzled.
On a different note, I wonder how long it will be until Samsung starts trying to
void its contracts with Apple. How many iThings can Apple make without the
parts?[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, September 01 2012 @ 03:18 PM EDT |
I'm not a lawyer but am interested in the issues surrounding copyright and
patents for software programs. I'm hoping some of the lawyers on the site
might be able to help me understand IP protection for software.
It is my understanding that books can be copyrighted but not patented.
However, the copyright extends beyond the literal words of the book and also
covers (within limits) the IDEAS or CONCEPT of the book. For instance, were I
to write a story about a boy magician named Parry Hotter who went off to
wizarding school, etc., etc., I could be sued for copyright infringement of the
Harry Potter novels even if the entire text was of my own creation. Is that
correct?
Is there an analogous protection for software code and copyrights? In other
words, is the idea or concept behind a piece of software protected or only the
literal code? I'm interested because if it is the latter, it would seem that
copyright law provides very little (if any) protection of software intellectual
property given that it is fairly trivial to rewrite code (which is invisible to
the
end user anyway) to accomplish the same idea.
It's apparent to me that a lot of people think that software patents are bad,
and I'm currently trying to understand whether copyright law would provide a
level of protection of original ideas underlying the software itself. Or are
people of the opinion that the ideas behind software are somehow not worthy
of intellectual property protection and if so, why is software different than
novels in this respect?
thanks
JC[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: llanitedave on Saturday, September 01 2012 @ 03:57 PM EDT |
"Patience, grasshoppers, and watch two superlatively skilled law firms duke
it out. Not that I like patent infringement lawsuits. But I do love to watch the
skill in play."
To me, that's reminiscent of saying one enjoys the bloody spectacle of two
skilled gladiators fighting to the death in the Roman amphitheater, even though
we know in our hearts it's evil and barbaric.
Evil, no matter how skillfully applied, is still evil.
---
Of course we need to communicate -- that goes without saying![ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, September 01 2012 @ 05:19 PM EDT |
Sorry but i have to ask since im Swedish...
If Apple is sending out "letters to multiple carriers and downstream
customers", as stated in the text above.
Especially when they seem to be aware that it is false statements.
Is that legal? Or are they opening up a second separate run for Samsung to sue
Apple because they have been acting so actively before/during/after trial from
what seems to be an obvious attempt to stop their competitor even without due
process?[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Apple letters? - Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, September 01 2012 @ 06:57 PM EDT
- Apple letters? - Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, September 01 2012 @ 10:16 PM EDT
- Apple letters? - Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, September 02 2012 @ 03:12 AM EDT
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, September 01 2012 @ 07:52 PM EDT |
No text here, mate.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, September 01 2012 @ 08:01 PM EDT |
http://news.cnet.com/8301-13579_3-57504756-37/apple-goes-after-galaxy-s3-note-in
-new-court-filing/[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, September 01 2012 @ 11:59 PM EDT |
I think I know what you are thinking. You're thinking, with the
strangest jury verdict you've ever seen, why are they arguing about this
scheduling business? It's all interrelated. Patience, grasshoppers, and watch
two superlatively skilled law firms duke it out. Not that I like patent
infringement lawsuits. But I do love to watch the skill in
play.
It's all about money. Apple's trying to keep as many of
Samsung's products blocked from sale in the US for as long as possible to put as
much economic pressure as they can on Samsung to settle. And as entertaining as
the game is, it's still using the courts as a weapon in a non-legal fight. The
right response, the equitable response, would be "The jury has found that
product non-infringing. If Apple wishes to not have the injunction dissolved
immediately, Apple will be required to post a bond equal to the economic damages
to Samsung caused by the blocking of sale of their non-infringing legal
product.". [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, September 02 2012 @ 06:46 PM EDT |
Data to support this statement. Your opinion is not most people. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, September 03 2012 @ 02:11 AM EDT |
Of course, I'm curious how easy it might be to trick this software.
---
-Rich Steiner >>>---> Mableton, GA USA
The Theorem Theorem: If If, Then Then.
(trying to posting anonymously :-)[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
|
|