Don't know much about the case, but the judge must've recognized that Apple is an innovator and not a copycat.
methinks you've been doin' the fool aid thing yourself if you think, in any real world situation way apple would take an action that could put them in position of legal jeopardy with a judge through bribery, then you are truly delusional or just making posts to stir things up in maybe a boring day (or life..who knows).Keep drinkin' that kool-aid. My guess is a few iPad 2's randomly showed up on the judges doorstep that morning...
The problem more than ever, it seems, is that companies are awarded too many vague patents, which allows them to sue countless others, the more vague their patent is.
I think this comment is defamatory since you are accusing a corporation for bribery, which is a serious crime, and it's apparently not a fair comment.Keep drinkin' that kool-aid. My guess is a few iPad 2's randomly showed up on the judges doorstep that morning...
Not really. QS doesn't continuously monitor movement of files. It has to update its catalog at user-defined intervals. That said, it's a great app launcher/switcher. I would really like it if they could get the iTunes functions to work again.Spotlight is eerily similar to Quicksilver
The problem more than ever, it seems, is that companies are awarded too many vague patents, which allows them to sue countless others, the more vague their patent is.
What could they have said to change the judges minds, that they wouldn't have said in their defence?
The judge and jury serve different purposes. The judge decides questions of law. When there is a jury, the jury decides questions of fact.
What could they have said to change the judges minds, that they wouldn't have said in their defence?
They didn't change the judge's mind. The first trial was by Jury and Apple lost, but they appealed to a higher court. That judge ruled in Apple's favor.
In one case, you could end up with a jury or judge that has zippo clue about technological stuff. I can't imagine how confusing some copyright trial over a technological advancement might be, but I wish there was some better way than to put literal commoners in charge of deciding it.
Save, Apple!!
Wonder what they'll do with money?![]()
Thats a little odd, why the reversal of outcome when they'd apparently made up their minds?
I don't know the details, but this outcome is what can happen from an appeal. It's not exactly odd.
What could they have said to change the judges minds, that they wouldn't have said in their defence?
isn't a case like this with the judge over turn the jury a quick way for it to be appealed to a high court.
Some ways it does smell a little doggy.
Save, Apple!!
Wonder what they'll do with money?![]()
I think this comment is defamatory since you are accusing a corporation for bribery, which is a serious crime, and it's apparently not a fair comment.
They didn't change the judge's mind. The first trial was by Jury and Apple lost, but they appealed to a higher court. That judge ruled in Apple's favor.
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_3 like Mac OS X; en-gb) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8F190 Safari/6533.18.5)
Judge was paid off with an iPod![]()
625 million? I doubt that amount would even cover legal fees for this case alone.
Spotlight is eerily similar to Quicksilver.
How quickly we forget.