And they stole the shipbuilding patents from...!?The only Samsung product I own is a fridge.
Bet they stole the patents to make that also.
And they stole the shipbuilding patents from...!?The only Samsung product I own is a fridge.
Bet they stole the patents to make that also.
Obligated? No. Patents aren't like copyrights, which have to defended or risk being lost. They own their patents for 25+ years, and can be as selective about enforcing them as they want to be.
Also Wizard of Wor is awesome.
It looks like a dust bin... or a fleshlight
weak bash-try.
the 2006 image is form the mock up that was shown/leaked. the actual product is listed down below, released feb 2007, as seen in the very image.
By the way, the "slap on the wrist" was awarded by a jury. Maybe they just decided, after viewing all the evidence (which none of us did), that APPLE did not deserve more? Just because someone asks for a totally over the top compensation, doesn't mean, that they actually deserve it.
It looks like a dust bin... or a fleshlight
This was one of the main reasons that made me switch. Why must I jailbreak my phone to have that freedom? Why is APPLE so stubborn about this? There are so many jailbroken phones out there and instead of pausing to think why this might me so, APPLE goes to court about it. Sometimes I think they don't give a hoot about what the customer wants, they just insist on doing it their way, no matter what...People buy Samsung products because of screen size and freedom to do what you want with the user interface...
So please sue MACRUMORS, because obviously, the quote system is adding random text. You are a funny man...Im not defending anyone's bad behavior. Im saying the punishment is unequal. Sighting that is not in any way an endorsement of bad behavior. You added something to my post that wasnt actually there. If you dont care to argue about what is in my post fine.....but dont put words into my mouth.
No, you stated it was not a 'Touch Screen', not that it has a different technology to what Apple uses. And the technology exists on both devices so they react when you touch the screen. They are both 'touch screens'.
With your logic a rowing boat is a boat but a motor boat is not a boat because one has oars and one has an engine and propeller.
Harland and WolffAnd they stole the shipbuilding patents from...!?
When making fun of other peoples typos, you should mybe check your own text before sending it....A fleshlight? C'mon.. Have you seen a Mac Pro? or a fleshlight?
That would a seriously huge... fleshlight.![]()
Are you suggesting that we never stop even if it has been decided in court? Of course people/jurys make mistakes. But did they here? There is just no way to get this right!!! No matter the outcome, there will always be different opinions!Are you suggesting that Jury's make unmistakably always the right decision?
$2B seems pretty high, but $120M is a small price to pay, considering their success...
Serves them right for stealing BILLIONS of Apple's revenue.
It looks like a dust bin... or a fleshlight
What a croc, Samsung an evil and no morals company, that will steal and copy any product they think they can make buck out of..I will never own one of their crappy plastic copy products again.
Be careful what you say. The device used to post that comment may have a Samsung component inside it. You do understand that Apple works with Samsung to bring life to various Apple products? The more anti-Samsung people appear the more silly they sound.
It's like being anti-Hitler in the 1940's but driving around in a Volkswagen Beetle.
Perhaps this trial is one reason why they didn't sell the iPhone 5 any more, as it would be subject to royalties as well... but instead switched to the 5C to avoid paying Samsung.
It looks like a dust bin... or a fleshlight
When making fun of other peoples typos, you should mybe check your own text before sending it....![]()
What a croc, Samsung an evil and no morals company, that will steal and copy any product they think they can make buck out of..I will never own one of their crappy plastic copy products again.
Another "brilliant" post!!Serves them right for stealing BILLIONS of Apple's revenue.
Thank you very much for your brilliant and unbiased comment...What a croc, Samsung an evil and no morals company, that will steal and copy any product they think they can make buck out of..I will never own one of their crappy plastic copy products again.
Uhh.. What typo?
I'm hoping frameworks like Hood.ie will allow proper offline access. Seems like a much better way to do it, run the app offline at all times and sync when a connection is available.As for HTML5, I like it, but some of it is just poorly thought out. Like the cache manifest not returning any meaningful error (e.g. which file it failed on). I wish now that I had helped them make the standards.
I know, I use regex quite a bit in our app. We swap variables with placeholders in real time as the user types in a text editor. Since you can't append elements to a text node there's some fancy logic on top of the regex to split/replace nodes as it finds them, depending on what type of element the text exists in. It sounds easy in theory but in practice it's quite complicated. As I'm sure you've encountered, using regex on HTML is more challenging than plain text.However, this makes it even more puzzling that you would think that Google infringed on anything. Calling a subroutine to apply a regexp is used all the time. I mean, A LOT.
It's high level and a bit vague, but it's better than most spec sheets I receive. When you really get down to it, API, algorithm, application, are all synonym's from a users perspective.Ah, perhaps there's the disconnect. Neither the abstract nor the description matters. What's important is the claims section.
As I laid out in detail, Apple's claim is nothing more than calling an API. It's all gussied up in fancy legal language, but that's all it is.
There's no pseudo code in the claims.
If you focus on the pieces and not the package it's easy to see prior art in a lot of things. In 1996 Netscape had been out for less than 2 years. The idea of having a GUI based email client link contact info in an email I received to other applications on my computer was bleeding edge at the time. I don't remember having any apps that did this at that time.They did. That's why there's a trial. Google didn't steal the idea of clickable links from Apple. That idea has been in use since the 1980s, in all sorts of personal DB programs. Even when Apple got the patent in 1996, doing that was already well known. I just think nobody noticed the patent.
Doesn't really matter the amount of the judgement - still BOTH guilty.
Of course it doesn't matter, you are right! You know, Hitler and Joe Bloggs (a guy who killed a guy in an armed robbery) are both equally guilty of crime! Genius!!![]()
Obligated? No. Patents aren't like copyrights, which have to defended or risk being lost.
I lose any respect I might have for someone when they invoke using Hitler in a post. Especially in an analogy. It's actually pretty offensive.
Of course it doesn't matter, you are right! You know, Hitler and Joe Bloggs (a guy who killed a guy in an armed robbery) are both equally guilty of crime! Genius!!![]()
Then it appears the amount of judgment does matter.