tooltalk

55 ms·

571.
by tooltalk 8y ago
Jobs never bought anything from Xerox. How do we know this? Xerox filed a lawsuit against Apple in 1988 -- after seeing that Apple was suing Microsoft and others left and right for what was essentially derivative work based on Xerox'
572.
by tooltalk 8y ago
I didn't downvote it (don't have enough karma's yet), but see my reply above. avar is wrong because he has no idea how patent litigation works in this country and made false assertions (eg, punitive damage). Further, the main
573.
by tooltalk 8y ago
I was surprised to find that only two of the first jury had any technical background at all. In that case however one such member helped to ignore the jury instruction and somewhat mislead the rest.
574.
by tooltalk 8y ago
I always thought benchmarking your competitors' products was fairly common -- how else do you think Apple came up with phablets and stylus, after denouncing it and declaring that nobody would buy something that big?
575.
by tooltalk 8y ago
so which patent legal system allows punitive damage award without willful infringement?
576.
by tooltalk 8y ago
>You're completely losing the plot here here. You are not only losing the plot, but you are also clearly unfamiliar with this particular case, much less patent lawsuits in general. There is no punitive damage in patent trials, unles
577.
by tooltalk 8y ago
What bias? That came straight out of Apple's own testimony/court doc's. No, Apple doesn't have to go after every single mobile device makers and Apple went only after the major players. Initially it was HTC, which ange
578.
by tooltalk 8y ago
and let's not forget Obama who reversed Samsung's win in ITC.
579.
by tooltalk 8y ago
There is one important aspect of this re-trial many of you are missing. The case was already decided years ago against Samsung -- there is nothing more to debate on that end, however absurd the decision. Now the new jury decided that those
580.
by tooltalk 8y ago
?? Apple's claims were dismissed in summary judgements -- yes, their cases were "thrown out" elsewhere. Where there were actual trials, in the UK for instance, Apple not only lost and was even sanctioned by the court for di
581.
by tooltalk 8y ago
Well, I think average HN'er has much better judgement over average Joe jury in Apple's hometown on technical design and patent issues. The role (or problem) of non-technical jury in highly technical patent litigation is also ofte
582.
by tooltalk 8y ago
They did, but Apple's hometown court judge didn't allow prior arts to stand in that case. Apple's design cases elsewhere failed because of the obviousness (and prior arts).
583.
by tooltalk 8y ago
Actually Apple's design cases were thrown out everywhere, except Apple's hometown court. The only difference is that Apple's hometown judge Koh and magistrate judge Grewal didn't allow prior arts in the courts.
584.
by tooltalk 8y ago
That also happened to my mid-2012 rMBPro, but, upon further research, I'd discovered that Apple had similar laptop GPU problems going back as far as 2007. There were also similar class action lawsuits to address the problem earlier. W
585.
by tooltalk 8y ago
Is Apple's spaceship campus considered in this article? I can't read anything behind the paywall, but the headline seems to suggest either Apple is frugal or Amazon is out of control.
586.
by tooltalk 8y ago
You seem to have selective memory -- those who are against these regulations and gov't welfare came out against the bank bailout back in 2008 and 2009 while those who are for regulation and gov't largess silently sat back and look
587.
by tooltalk 8y ago
Yes, Apple's graphic engineer and John probably knew what they were talking about, but I suspect that Jobs did. It seems like based on that vague description, John wasn't necessarily arguing against his own interest and Apple engi
588.
by tooltalk 8y ago
Was Jobs actually technical enough to understand the substance of the technical discussion? I had/reported to a couple of not-so-technical managers for short stints in my 20 yr career and I always found it supremely annoying that they
589.
by tooltalk 8y ago
They probably use their own services for important deliveries. Besides, if USPS don't report strange/dangerous USPS delivery activities, who else would?
590.
by tooltalk 8y ago
I agree that some aspects of Qualcomm's licensing practices are clearly in violation of that agreement and US regulator ignored it too long. But I find it a bit shady that the Korean regulator didn't ask/allow Qualcomm to exp
591.
by tooltalk 8y ago
Sure, Apple is TSMC's #1 customer and uses the vast majority of TSMC's latest node. But TSMC is much larger than that.
592.
by tooltalk 8y ago
appealing to/pleading ignorance doesn't sound like a good excuse for a mega multinational company that employs a legion of tax lawyers and accountants. As previous commenters noted, Apple tried to game the system, but lost. Now,
593.
by tooltalk 9y ago
I guess it depends on what your app "Javascript" does. The key idea in trademark disputes/claims is that you are probably ok as long as your mark isn't confusingly similar to a widely known valid mark by another entity&#
594.
by tooltalk 9y ago
why do you find that irritating? The Alto wasn't build for the mass market -- Xerox produced only several thousands units and used mostly internally. It was also developed when they didn't have all the necessary, affordable tech
595.
by tooltalk 9y ago
1) Apple does not have a license with Qualcomm. 2) Apples' MSPR is irrelevant here since it's Foxconn who pays Qualcomm with their existing licensing agreement from pre-iPhone era. Apple outsourced their manufacturing and "l
596.
by tooltalk 9y ago
>Apple certainly puts taxes in, but Apple never agreed to FRAND terms. Qualcomm did. That's a huge difference. Nonsense, that's a completely red herring. There is nothing different about Qualcomm's or Apple's extorti
597.
by tooltalk 9y ago
I guess, to xenophobes, everything looks xenophobic. Sure, there are national security threats from many other foreign actors, but in this particular case, the poster to whom I responded wants to specifically discuss hypothetical threats p
598.
by tooltalk 9y ago
have you watch the video provided by the Tempe police? The woman was jaywalking, but it was far from running out. This is something that Uber should have picked up.
599.
by tooltalk 9y ago
I guess you are right. What I meant to say was it's a terrible PR for Uber, and a serious f*up if Uber was at fault.
600.
by tooltalk 9y ago
Do auto accidents fall under criminal law in Arizona? In NY where I live, unless it's DUI or otherwise reckless and/or intentional in some ways, it's just a traffic violation. You could take the offender to civil court, but

More ›