they plan to reinvent the television. it will be out about 4-6 months after Apple announces their big plans.
Right after Apple 'reinvents' it?
they plan to reinvent the television. it will be out about 4-6 months after Apple announces their big plans.
Meh - hardly a zing since Samsung's been producing TVs for years and Apple hasn't produced any (yet).
Then you missed the joke. Here's the joke: Samsung copies Apple.
I doubt you will find it funny given your post history shows someone who is very much in the Pro-Google camp, which lends itself to not finding poking fun at their partners.
Seriously, even if Apple turn out as the victor again the judge should make a new decision or at the least have a retrial at Apples expense if it can be shown that Apple knew about this conflict of interest.
Meh - hardly a zing since Samsung's been producing TVs for years and Apple hasn't produced any (yet).
"The motion was denied because Apple was not harmed by Samsung infringing on the patents"
Stupidest thing I've ever heard. You can let someone copy your product, and the trial will establish that it's infringing on patents, but they won't do anything because you can't prove that it's hurting your sales?
"The motion was denied because Apple was not harmed by Samsung infringing on the patents"
Stupidest thing I've ever heard. You can let someone copy your product, and the trial will establish that it's infringing on patents, but they won't do anything because you can't prove that it's hurting your sales?
That's like saying RIM had nothing to worry about since they made phones for years before the iPhone came along. Even then, people used the same argument: "why would they do phones when people already make them?"
To each their own..
I'm pro-technology. It just so happens that there seems to be a lot of true hate for Samsung (which is not Google) and also Google which is based on b.s.
Exactly. Your post questioning why someone would find something funny strikes me as unnecessary and odd. You clearly do not appreciate the joke, but concede humor is in the eye of the beholder.
There are plenty of valid critiques of Google and their partners like Samsung, and I'll agree people here push the B.S critiques more often than they should. Likewise, there are plenty of valid critiques against Apple, and unfortunately much of the ones found in MR headlines forum are offered by anti-Apple trolls.
Seriously, Sam. You will have to find at least one thing on the internet funny before you should start commenting on jokes. It's ok to not have a sense of humor, but stop trying to force it on others.If you say so. I understood the context perfectly. For something to be funny (at least to me) it has to either surprise or clever. Since Samsung copies Apple has turned into cliche and hyperbole - I just didn't it find it particularly funny.
Now that the judgment has been upheld over the objection of Samsung, Apple and the court are now free to determine the amount of the damages after the date the judgment accounted for in the $1.1B. I have heard estimates that figure could be another $500m or so making the total amount to be paid increase to about $1.6B.
Rocketman
I doubt the $1.1B figure will hold, given that a patent or two has been invalidated in the meantime.
Seriously, Sam. You will have to find at least one thing on the internet funny before you should start commenting on jokes. It's ok to not have a sense of humor, but stop trying to force it on others.
I'm pretty sure that's why Samsung filed the motion. Because they believed the foreman had too much power/didn't conduct themselves appropriately....]
The judge appeared to disagree. Thankfully. Companies should not be allowed to appeal successfully simply because they disagree with a jury's verdict. It's not that I favour Apple over Samsung, it's just that juries are the last place an average person can have an impact.
they plan to reinvent the television. it will be out about 4-6 months after Apple announces their big plans.
Then you missed the joke. Here's the joke: Samsung copies Apple.
The real joke is that you guys don't realize that Samsung's been reinventing televisions since the 1970s.
My post was a dig at Apple, and the person that made the post I replied to, not Samsung.
It is legally settled. Samsung didn't do due diligence when the juror noted that he had worked for Seagate, which Samsung owns.
Please note the original post:
"Prior to the verdict, Samsung could have discovered Mr. Hogan's litigation with Seagate, had Samsung acted with reasonable diligence based on information Samsung acquired through voir dire, namely that Mr. Hogan stated during voir dire that he had worked for Seagate."
Whatever Apple knew or didn't know, and I doubt that Apple would risk that, is forever irrelevant.