it shows that this is not the case always
the dutch patent office confirmed the story. there is just no documentation from the time does not make the confirmation not true. i never said it would help samsung i just said it to counter your statements about sci fi and dreaming up inventionsYes. Different country. Different time. No documented evidence for the reason behind the patent denial.
An entertaining and interesting story, but it won't help Samsung.
(That said, Samsung lawyers are probably scanning Donald Duck comics as we speak.)
. Most likely it was something more along the lines of former Apple employees being involved in a company that started the original tech. Gonna keep looking.Perhaps I'm recalling the details incorrectly. Did a lot of research on the subject last year, but seem to have forgotten a lot of it. I specifically recall Apple being involved early on with CALO, probably via Stanford. I recall someone on here posting how convenient it was for Apple to get started on the project, spin it off, let DARPA fund it's development, then buy it back later. But I'm having a hard time finding those references today.
There's a slim chance I'm completely wrong.
Lol, first talking about the case, then early smartphones, palm pilots and newtons, and while I was having dinner you guys went all the way back to Charles Babbage?!?!?!
I'm completely familiar with DARPA's funding of CALO, but I SWEAR I read about Apple or Jobs being involved in here early on, then walking away only to buy it later. This is really bugging me since I'm positive I read something about it somewhere.
You don't have to wait for all of the evidence. You are neither the judge or the jury and even if you were, wouldn't it be a complete waste of the jury's time if they had to ignore the evidence presented and then only review the evidence at the end? Why bother showing up for the trial? Why not just present the evidence in front of a camera, then do the edits and cuts based on sustained objections and then bring in the jury to view the final cut at the very end?
You don't have to wait for all of the evidence. You are neither the judge or the jury and even if you were, wouldn't it be a complete waste of the jury's time if they had to ignore the evidence presented and then only review the evidence at the end? Why bother showing up for the trial? Why not just present the evidence in front of a camera, then do the edits and cuts based on sustained objections and then bring in the jury to view the final cut at the very end?
You are not being objective. You are ignoring the evidence presented so far because it looks damning against Samsung and you have a crush on that company.
You should take in each piece of evidence as it is presented without passing a final judgement, then review any evidence at the end as needed before rendering your final vote. That is how juries are supposed to work. The impartiality only exists at the start of the trial and the evidence is presented to "sway" you in one direction or the other through the course of the trial.
It seems that Samsung used a competitors product to improve what they thought that competitor did right and what they(Samsung) did wrong..
So when apple made the iPhone, they made it in a vacuum right? Then didn't pull up a windows phone or a blackberry or nokia and say "Gee here is the current market leaders smartphones, what can we do to improve upon it?"
This is rhetorical because we all know Apple didn't invent the iphone or iOS in a vacuum it used what was currently on the market to improve on different aspects of the "smartphone" WHILE STILL BORROWING some aspects of what they thought was a best practice used by other smartphone leaders.
Ironically enough, they one pulled half the picture with the first iPhone release, they made a touchscreen OS very user friendly. But even still, other market leaders at the time had far better OS "smartphone" features.
Which is part of Canada last time I checked, and not impacted by a court case in California, United States.
