Apple website 'must admit Samsung didn't copy'

[Slinkwyde]

I refuse to be bullied into posting links. You know there are articles that support my argument(and if you don't you are naive), as I know there are ones that support yours. You post links to support yours, I can post ones to support mine, then you would find more to support yours, then I would find more to support mine. It's a tic tac toe game that only ends when one of us gives up. [...]

The idea of linking to sources isn't to compete on who has the most sources. Not all sources are equal, and people sometimes misread or misremember their sources or don't paraphrase them quite right. Linking to the sources lets the reader evaluate the information for themselves. Without links, the debate was going nowhere fast.

For the record, I'm platform agnostic. I have an Android phone and an iPod touch, and enjoy them both for different reasons. For computers, I use all three major platforms but have admittedly used Mac OS the longest (since 1996).

[GeminiIII]

The thing about your assertions is that they are easily shown to be false. .

LOL
how ironic

They often refuse to accept demonstrable facts too, when they conflict with their religious ideology.

LOL (part deux)
so says ceredon

[ceredon]

LOL
how ironic

LOL (part deux)
so says ceredon

I'm not certain you understand irony. If you had been able to show my assertions were wrong and not backed up by facts, then you might have a point. Otherwise, not so much.

And yes, so says me. Again, because it is true. Fanatics on both sides are willing to lie and believe fantasy. I am not. I prefer reasoned, factual discussion. I keep hoping for one here.

[ceredon]

The idea of linking to sources isn't to compete on who has the most sources. Not all sources are equal, and people sometimes misread or misremember their sources or don't paraphrase them quite right. Linking to the sources lets the reader evaluate the information for themselves. Without links, the debate was going nowhere fast.

For the record, I'm platform agnostic. I have an Android phone and an iPod touch, and enjoy them both for different reasons. For computers, I use all three major platforms but have admittedly used Mac OS the longest (since 1996).

The main problem with the discussion is that it isn't really about sources. When someone says "Apple is the only company that doesn't license their IP" that is a clear lie. Citing even a single example shows that to be untrue. Being shown many, whether that Apple does in fact license some of their IP or that other companies hold some of theirs close, and still thinking they can argue it into being otherwise shows a distinct separation from reality. The same holds when they claim no other companies ever sue for injunctions or many of their other fantasies.

[mandrsn1]

Apple is negotiating with Samsung now. "Apple seeks $2.02 per unit for its ’318 “overscroll bounce” patent, $3.10 per unit for its ’915 “scrolling API” patent, $2.02 per unit for its ’163 “tap to zoom and navigate” and $24 per unit for the use of any of its “design patents or or trade dress rights." So that works out to about $31.14 per galaxy tab device.

Apple is offering to license Samsung's 3G essential patents for $0.0049 per iPad/iPhone.

[ceredon]

Apple is negotiating with Samsung now. "Apple seeks $2.02 per unit for its ’318 “overscroll bounce” patent, $3.10 per unit for its ’915 “scrolling API” patent, $2.02 per unit for its ’163 “tap to zoom and navigate” and $24 per unit for the use of any of its “design patents or or trade dress rights." So that works out to about $31.14 per galaxy tab device.

I don't think they really think they will get those amounts, but start high when negotiating what to be paid....

Apple is offering to license Samsung's 3G essential patents for $0.0049 per iPad/iPhone.

Sounds about right for a patent or set of patents that are a small part of the overall number of contributory patents to the standard. But again, start low when discussing what to pay...

[mandrsn1]

I don't think they really think they will get those amounts, but start high when negotiating what to be paid....


Sounds about right for a patent or set of patents that are a small part of the overall number of contributory patents to the standard. But again, start low when discussing what to pay...

That is exactly why Posner threw out the Apple/Motorola case. Apple had "unrealistically high" damages calculations and it wasn't even worth having a trial because of the stuff they were alleging was so far from reality.

[ceredon]

That is exactly why Posner threw out the Apple/Motorola case. Apple had "unrealistically high" damages calculations and it wasn't even worth having a trial because of the stuff they were alleging was so far from reality.

Didn't he base that, at least partly, on Apple's failure to present damages estimates from an 'expert'? And further claim that given Apple's size, calculating damages would be impossible? I could be wrong on both those counts, but that seems to be what I remember.

[mandrsn1]

Didn't he base that, at least partly, on Apple's failure to present damages estimates from an 'expert'? And further claim that given Apple's size, calculating damages would be impossible? I could be wrong on both those counts, but that seems to be what I remember.

No. He threw out Apple's damages expert. Posner said, “ [Apple] cannot base a claim to an injunction on a self-inflicted wound, such as sponsoring a damages expert who prepares a demonstrably inadequate report. ... The notion that these minor-seeming infringements have cost Apple market share and consumer goodwill is implausible, has virtually no support in the record, and so fails to indicate that the benefits to Apple from an injunction would exceed the costs to Motorola.”

However, he did rip on Motorola's assessment of overall damages as well. It wasn't one sided.

In sum, he said damages would be so small, that they would be trivial compared to the cost of a trial and/or injection, that the whole case is worthless.