taligent

58 ms·

871.
by taligent 14y ago
Well this is just hyperbole. Since when are pinch to zoom and the specific Apple bounce back effect mandatory requirements for making a touchscreen device ? Especially given how for the bounce back effect there are now at least three non-in
872.
by taligent 14y ago
Well considering only one of the jurors had an iPhone and two had Android phones maybe it would be Google needing to add this feature ?
873.
by taligent 14y ago
Given that a number devices were excluded and the maximum damages were not awarded it is clear that they at least evaluated the merits of each specific infringement. So do you have some evidence that they ignored the proper damages awarding
874.
by taligent 14y ago
No. That's the point of the case. Samsung DIDN'T have a completely different end to end execution. It was a blatant copy from the packaging, hardware design, software UI elements, connectors etc. And Samsung had documents demonstrating this
875.
by taligent 14y ago
You don't know how juries work but yet according to you they weren't impartial. Can't fault that logic.
876.
by taligent 14y ago
No. That is Groklaw's interpretation of what he said. He could have simply meant that by finding Samsung guilty of willful infringement that they were punishing them. And I don't understand what you're implying by saying that they rushed th
877.
by taligent 14y ago
> (I get tons of meme's and cat photos on my feed I get none. My friends get none. My parents get none. You do realise that the content comes from YOUR friends and not from Facebook, right ? And that if you are your friends moved to Goo
878.
by taligent 14y ago
Then you should support them when you make them. But extrapolating all of this from one single statement is irrational, ridiculous and frankly delusional.
879.
by taligent 14y ago
> I believe the most logically consistent scenario was that most of the panel simply followed where the "expert" led. You have no evidence of this what so ever. And the other logically consistent scenario is that the jury didn't follow
880.
by taligent 14y ago
Most people using IE6 are doing so because they can't download a new browser e.g. ActiveX support or lockdown corporate machine.
881.
by taligent 14y ago
No offence but if you don't understand how stack traces work and why it isn't a "Java" wide problem then no offence but you really are in no position to comment. It really isn't that hard to understand.
882.
by taligent 14y ago
Apple is the most successful IT company in the world and they are the most profitable in the phone industry and have the greatest market share in the tablet and music player industries. So not sure how you come up with this ludicrous idea t
883.
by taligent 14y ago
Actually Apple has an obligation to defend their patents. And this idea that Apple patented rectangles is just a figment of your imagination. And a sign of your ignorance.
884.
by taligent 14y ago
The LG Prada looks a lot like the iPhone ? That's crazy. I couldn't think of two phones that looked less alike.
885.
by taligent 14y ago
If everything Apple has done existed before then it should have been EASY to find clear examples of prior art to convince the jury of this. But there were no clear examples. Just stretches of the imagination e.g. Star Trek.
886.
by taligent 14y ago
This makes NO sense what so ever. Apple has had plenty of failures in the past e.g. Cube G4 so it is not the case that people will just blindly "buy and try" Apple products. And the idea that ANYONE is going to spend nearly a thousand dolla
887.
by taligent 14y ago
Sorry but I actually laughed when you said this. You couldn't be more wrong if you tried. Apple was in NO way comparable to the likes of Nokia, Samsung, Sony, Motorola etc who had decades of pre-existing relationships in the mobile and comp
888.
by taligent 14y ago
Well this comment is ridiculous. If timing and marketing is all that matters for market success then Apple should NOT have been successful with iPod or iPad since they weren't the first MP3 player or tablet. And they definitely didn't have
889.
by taligent 14y ago
Except that a single button WILL do. Because you still need to press it in order to wake the screen up on pretty much every phone on the market today. Which begs the question why you wouldn't either go straight to the home screen or show a
890.
by taligent 14y ago
This idea that Apple is going to own the market using the law is frankly ridiculous. Coke has a design patent on the particular shape of their bottle which surely is a product that is even harder to innovate with. But yet do we see competit
891.
by taligent 14y ago
No the real problem here is the sheer ignorance of people such as yourself commenting on this issue. Apple never patented rounded corners or click to call. It's as simple as that. What was patented is a very specific design that would take
892.
by taligent 14y ago
Well this is odd. You do know that other companies beside Samsung make components and thinking that Samsung is keeping Apple afloat is pure and utter delusion.
893.
by taligent 14y ago
> They never went back to the issue later. Do you have some evidence for this ? Or just making things up in your head because you're not happy with the verdict.
894.
by taligent 14y ago
Staggering how much ignorance there is about this case: 1) It was NOT TECHNICAL. It was predominately a lawsuit about trade dress and UI driven patent infringement. It is exactly the same as judging whether a Nike shoe has been copied or no
895.
by taligent 14y ago
I don't even know where to begin with this article. It screams of some hipster annoyance at Facebook (uncool) liking Gehry (cool): "Asking Gehry to design their latest building is the classic no-taste-masked-as-taste, socially accepted anti
896.
by taligent 14y ago
All this blog post is one person's misunderstanding of patent and copyright law. Jacques would have been better served trying to understand what trade dress means and why Apple's UI patents were about the implementation and not the idea. Af
897.
by taligent 14y ago
Sure. If your world view is really narrow. The issue with knockoffs is that they discourage medium to longer term investment in favour of a short term race to the bottom. Which is not 'better' for anyone.
898.
by taligent 14y ago
> It's not as if Samsung tried to confuse consumers by impersonating Apple products or anything. Maybe you should research a bit about Samsung. They have a long history of trying to impersonate competitor products e.g. Sony, Sharp, Pana
899.
by taligent 14y ago
Well actually Google didn't invent the omnibar nor computer based mapping. Also there is a difference between copying a single feature like the omnibar and copying every single element of a product e.g. UI, hardware design, packaging, dock
900.
by taligent 14y ago
Sorry buy you're definitely wrong there. It is not "many of the claims" it is one claim for one phone out of what 15+ that were covered in the case. It is quite understandable that there would be at least one mistake out of the all patent/p

More ›