Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.os.linux.advocacy > #241546 > unrolled thread

Judge orders Samsung to pay Apple $119 Million in patent case.

Back to article view | Back to comp.os.linux.advocacy

Contents

  Judge orders Samsung to pay Apple $119 Million in patent case. 	flatfish+++ <phlatphish@yahoo.com> - 2014-05-03 09:40 -0400
    Re: Judge orders Samsung to pay Apple $119 Million in patent case. Lusotec <nomail@nomail.not> - 2014-05-03 15:01 +0100
      Re: Judge orders Samsung to pay Apple $119 Million in patent case. 	flatfish+++ <phlatphish@yahoo.com> - 2014-05-03 10:07 -0400
        Re: Judge orders Samsung to pay Apple $119 Million in patent case. Lusotec <nomail@nomail.not> - 2014-05-03 15:53 +0100
          Re: Judge orders Samsung to pay Apple $119 Million in patent case. 	flatfish+++ <phlatphish@yahoo.com> - 2014-05-03 11:47 -0400
            Re: Judge orders Samsung to pay Apple $119 Million in patent case. Lusotec <nomail@nomail.not> - 2014-05-04 00:25 +0100
              Re: Judge orders Samsung to pay Apple $119 Million in patent case. Hadron<hadronquark@gmail.com> - 2014-05-04 01:34 +0200
              Re: Judge orders Samsung to pay Apple $119 Million in patent case. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2014-05-03 16:40 -0700
                Re: Judge orders Samsung to pay Apple $119 Million in patent case. Steve Carroll <fretwizzen@gmail.com> - 2014-05-03 21:06 -0700
              Re: Judge orders Samsung to pay Apple $119 Million in patent case. 	flatfish+++ <phlatphish@yahoo.com> - 2014-05-03 19:47 -0400
                Re: Judge orders Samsung to pay Apple $119 Million in patent case. Steve Carroll <fretwizzen@gmail.com> - 2014-05-03 16:56 -0700
                Re: Judge orders Samsung to pay Apple $119 Million in patent case. Lusotec <nomail@nomail.not> - 2014-05-07 14:19 +0100
                  Re: Judge orders Samsung to pay Apple $119 Million in patent case. 	flatfish+++ <phlatphish@yahoo.com> - 2014-05-07 09:35 -0400
                    Re: Judge orders Samsung to pay Apple $119 Million in patent case. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2014-05-07 08:18 -0700
              Judge orders troll to "get a clue" Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> - 2014-05-03 20:44 -0400
                I Think I Pissed Off Chris Ahlstrom. 	flatfish+++ <phlatphish@yahoo.com> - 2014-05-03 20:47 -0400
          Re: Judge orders Samsung to pay Apple $119 Million in patent case. Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> - 2014-05-03 12:45 -0400
            Re: Judge orders Samsung to pay Apple $119 Million in patent case. Steve Carroll <fretwizzen@gmail.com> - 2014-05-03 12:43 -0700
            Re: Judge orders Samsung to pay Apple $119 Million in patent case. chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2014-05-06 07:35 -0500
          Re: Judge orders Samsung to pay Apple $119 Million in patent case. JEDIDIAH <jedi@nomad.mishnet> - 2014-05-05 12:55 -0500
            Re: Judge orders Samsung to pay Apple $119 Million in patent case. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2014-05-05 11:49 -0700
              Re: Judge orders Samsung to pay Apple $119 Million in patent case. Steve Carroll <fretwizzen@gmail.com> - 2014-05-05 16:42 -0700
      Re: Judge orders Samsung to pay Apple $119 Million in patent case. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2014-05-03 13:09 -0700
        Re: Judge orders Samsung to pay Apple $119 Million in patent case. Steve Carroll <fretwizzen@gmail.com> - 2014-05-03 13:55 -0700
        Re: Judge orders Samsung to pay Apple $119 Million in patent case. GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> - 2014-05-03 15:28 -0600
      Re: Judge orders Samsung to pay Apple $119 Million in patent case. Ian Hilliard <nospam@nospam.org> - 2014-05-04 17:17 +0200
        Re: Judge orders Samsung to pay Apple $119 Million in patent case. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2014-05-04 08:27 -0700
          Re: Judge orders Samsung to pay Apple $119 Million in patent case. Steve Carroll <fretwizzen@gmail.com> - 2014-05-04 09:09 -0700
          Re: Judge orders Samsung to pay Apple $119 Million in patent case. Ian Hilliard <nospam@nospam.org> - 2014-05-04 19:21 +0200
            Re: Judge orders Samsung to pay Apple $119 Million in patent case. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2014-05-04 10:47 -0700
              Re: Judge orders Samsung to pay Apple $119 Million in patent case. Ian Hilliard <nospam@nospam.org> - 2014-05-04 20:10 +0200
                Re: Judge orders Samsung to pay Apple $119 Million in patent case. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2014-05-04 11:37 -0700
                  Re: Judge orders Samsung to pay Apple $119 Million in patent case. Steve Carroll <fretwizzin@gmail.com> - 2014-05-04 11:52 -0700
                Re: Judge orders Samsung to pay Apple $119 Million in patent case. Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> - 2014-05-04 15:14 -0400
                  Re: Judge orders Samsung to pay Apple $119 Million in patent case. 	flatfish+++ <phlatphish@yahoo.com> - 2014-05-04 15:19 -0400
                    Re: Judge orders Samsung to pay Apple $119 Million in patent case. Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> - 2014-05-04 21:43 +0200
                      Re: Judge orders Samsung to pay Apple $119 Million in patent case. 	flatfish+++ <phlatphish@yahoo.com> - 2014-05-04 15:45 -0400
                        Re: Judge orders Samsung to pay Apple $119 Million in patent case. Tattoo Vampire <sitting@this.computer> - 2014-05-04 20:13 +0000
                          Re: Judge orders Samsung to pay Apple $119 Million in patent case. 	flatfish+++ <phlatphish@yahoo.com> - 2014-05-04 16:15 -0400
                            Re: Judge orders Samsung to pay Apple $119 Million in patent case. Steve Carroll <fretwizzen@gmail.com> - 2014-05-04 14:05 -0700
                            Re: Judge orders Samsung to pay Apple $119 Million in patent case. GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> - 2014-05-04 15:37 -0600
                              Re: Judge orders Samsung to pay Apple $119 Million in patent case. 	flatfish+++ <phlatphish@yahoo.com> - 2014-05-04 17:42 -0400
                                Re: Judge orders Samsung to pay Apple $119 Million in patent case. GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> - 2014-05-04 19:04 -0600
                                Re: Judge orders Samsung to pay Apple $119 Million in patent case. Tattoo Vampire <sitting@this.computer> - 2014-05-05 01:12 +0000
                      Re: Judge orders Samsung to pay Apple $119 Million in patent case. Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> - 2014-05-04 16:05 -0400
                        Re: Judge orders Samsung to pay Apple $119 Million in patent case. 	flatfish+++ <phlatphish@yahoo.com> - 2014-05-04 16:07 -0400
                          Re: Judge orders Samsung to pay Apple $119 Million in patent case. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2014-05-04 13:15 -0700
                        Re: Judge orders Samsung to pay Apple $119 Million in patent case. GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> - 2014-05-04 15:36 -0600
                          Re: Judge orders Samsung to pay Apple $119 Million in patent case. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2014-05-04 14:54 -0700
                          Re: Judge orders Samsung to pay Apple $119 Million in patent case. Lusotec <nomail@nomail.not> - 2014-05-04 23:26 +0100
                            Re: Judge orders Samsung to pay Apple $119 Million in patent case. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2014-05-04 15:42 -0700
                              Re: Judge orders Samsung to pay Apple $119 Million in patent case. Steve Carroll <fretwizzen@gmail.com> - 2014-05-04 17:23 -0700
                            Re: Judge orders Samsung to pay Apple $119 Million in patent case. Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> - 2014-05-04 20:17 -0400
                              Re: Judge orders Samsung to pay Apple $119 Million in patent case. Steve Carroll <fretwizzen@gmail.com> - 2014-05-04 17:22 -0700
                              Re: Judge orders Samsung to pay Apple $119 Million in patent case. GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> - 2014-05-04 19:02 -0600
                            Re: Judge orders Samsung to pay Apple $119 Million in patent case. GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> - 2014-05-04 19:01 -0600
                              Re: Judge orders Samsung to pay Apple $119 Million in patent case. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2014-05-04 18:53 -0700
                                Re: Judge orders Samsung to pay Apple $119 Million in patent case. Steve Carroll <fretwizzen@gmail.com> - 2014-05-04 21:20 -0700
                  Re: Judge orders Samsung to pay Apple $119 Million in patent case. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2014-05-04 12:59 -0700
                  Re: Judge orders Samsung to pay Apple $119 Million in patent case. Lusotec <nomail@nomail.not> - 2014-05-04 23:05 +0100
                    Re: Judge orders Samsung to pay Apple $119 Million in patent case. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2014-05-04 15:24 -0700
                      Re: Judge orders Samsung to pay Apple $119 Million in patent case. Ian Hilliard <nospam@nospam.org> - 2014-05-05 16:13 +0200
                        Re: Judge orders Samsung to pay Apple $119 Million in patent case. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2014-05-05 08:46 -0700
                          Re: Judge orders Samsung to pay Apple $119 Million in patent case. Ian Hilliard <nospam@nospam.org> - 2014-05-06 10:39 +0200
                            Re: Judge orders Samsung to pay Apple $119 Million in patent case. 	flatfish+++ <phlatphish@yahoo.com> - 2014-05-06 07:19 -0400
                              Re: Judge orders Samsung to pay Apple $119 Million in patent case. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2014-05-06 09:04 -0700
                                Re: Judge orders Samsung to pay Apple $119 Million in patent case. Steve Carroll <fretwizzen@gmail.com> - 2014-05-06 09:56 -0700
                              Re: Judge orders Samsung to pay Apple $119 Million in patent case. Ian Hilliard <nospam@nospam.org> - 2014-05-07 01:48 +0200
                                Re: Judge orders Samsung to pay Apple $119 Million in patent case. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2014-05-06 17:16 -0700
                                  Re: Judge orders Samsung to pay Apple $119 Million in patent case. Ian Hilliard <nospam@nospam.org> - 2014-05-07 10:12 +0200
                                    Re: Judge orders Samsung to pay Apple $119 Million in patent case. Hadron<hadronquark@gmail.com> - 2014-05-07 11:12 +0200
                                    Re: Judge orders Samsung to pay Apple $119 Million in patent case. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2014-05-07 08:21 -0700
                                    Re: Judge orders Samsung to pay Apple $119 Million in patent case. JEDIDIAH <jedi@nomad.mishnet> - 2014-05-07 14:17 -0500
                                      Re: Judge orders Samsung to pay Apple $119 Million in patent case. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2014-05-07 12:40 -0700
                                      Re: Judge orders Samsung to pay Apple $119 Million in patent case. Steve Carroll <fretwizzen@gmail.com> - 2014-05-07 13:05 -0700
                                Re: Judge orders Samsung to pay Apple $119 Million in patent case. 	flatfish+++ <phlatphish@yahoo.com> - 2014-05-06 20:41 -0400
                                  Re: Judge orders Samsung to pay Apple $119 Million in patent case. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2014-05-06 18:32 -0700
                                  Re: Judge orders Samsung to pay Apple $119 Million in patent case. Tattoo Vampire <sitting@this.computer> - 2014-05-07 11:22 +0000
                                    Re: Judge orders Samsung to pay Apple $119 Million in patent case. Silver Slimer <slvrslmr@lv.c> - 2014-05-07 09:08 -0400
                                      Re: Judge orders Samsung to pay Apple $119 Million in patent case. 	flatfish+++ <phlatphish@yahoo.com> - 2014-05-07 09:16 -0400
                                        Re: Judge orders Samsung to pay Apple $119 Million in patent case. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2014-05-07 08:16 -0700
                                        Re: Judge orders Samsung to pay Apple $119 Million in patent case. Silver Slimer <slvrslmr@lv.c> - 2014-05-07 12:29 -0400
                                          Re: Judge orders Samsung to pay Apple $119 Million in patent case. Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2014-05-07 10:17 -0700
                                      Re: Judge orders Samsung to pay Apple $119 Million in patent case. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2014-05-07 08:31 -0700
                                    Re: Judge orders Samsung to pay Apple $119 Million in patent case. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2014-05-07 08:31 -0700
                                Re: Judge orders Samsung to pay Apple $119 Million in patent case. Steve Carroll <fretwizzen@gmail.com> - 2014-05-07 12:56 -0700
                            Re: Judge orders Samsung to pay Apple $119 Million in patent case. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2014-05-06 08:52 -0700
        Re: Judge orders Samsung to pay Apple $119 Million in patent case. Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> - 2014-05-04 13:14 -0400
          Re: Judge orders Samsung to pay Apple $119 Million in patent case. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2014-05-04 10:51 -0700
            Re: Judge orders Samsung to pay Apple $119 Million in patent case. Steve Carroll <fretwizzen@gmail.com> - 2014-05-04 13:29 -0700
    Re: Judge orders Samsung to pay Apple $119 Million in patent case. Steve Carroll <fretwizzen@gmail.com> - 2014-05-03 09:03 -0700
    Re: Judge orders Samsung to pay Apple $119 Million in patent case. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2014-05-03 13:00 -0700

Page 1 of 5  [1] 2 3 4 5  Next page →

#241546 — Judge orders Samsung to pay Apple $119 Million in patent case.

So where is RonB to bring us this news about Apple?

Has he taken his finger off the pulse of Apple?

Oh, I get it, this isn't negative to Apple so he puts his obsessions
away for a while.

lol!


"A federal-court jury ruled Friday that some Samsung devices
infringed on two Apple software patents, but didn't infringe on two
others; the judge had earlier ruled that Samsung infringed on a fifth
patent.

The jury ordered Samsung to pay Apple $119.6 million in damages, far
short of the $2.2 billion Apple had been seeking, and less than the
$930 million Apple was awarded in an earlier trial in the same
courtroom."

A small victory but it does show that Samsung willingly copied Apple.

http://tinyurl.com/nxdf7qe

-- 
flatfish+++

163 Reasons not to deal with Michael "Snit" Glasser, the Prescott 
Computer Guy
http://cosmicpenguin.com/snitlist.html

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#241547

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA256

flatfish+++ wrote:
> "A federal-court jury ruled Friday that some Samsung devices
> infringed on two Apple software patents, but didn't infringe on two
> others; the judge had earlier ruled that Samsung infringed on a fifth
> patent.
> 
> The jury ordered Samsung to pay Apple $119.6 million in damages, far
> short of the $2.2 billion Apple had been seeking, and less than the
> $930 million Apple was awarded in an earlier trial in the same
> courtroom."
> 
> A small victory but it does show that Samsung willingly copied Apple.

It shows no such thing. If anything it shows how ridiculously broken the USA 
patent system is.

Patents like US 5946647 (given in 1999) are something any minimally 
competent IT graduate student can come up with and it had plenty of prior 
art at the time. This patent is ridiculous trivial and there is nothing even 
remotely inventive in it. Given a patent for such a thing is ridiculous. 
Awarding millions of USD for such a thing goes way beyond ridiculous.
http://www.patents.com/us-5946647.html

> http://tinyurl.com/nxdf7qe

Regards
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.10 (GNU/Linux)

iF4EAREIAAYFAlNk9qgACgkQGQjO2ccW76o8aQD+K17R8iQ3KQu5yWEWouNdKnS/
UA/eyBAGy9zhCMLW/ZUA/jeXA4yqXAf3Pfodo348dKgEi5wHZblSn+kWGMGuoZlO
=4Yng
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#241549

On Sat, 03 May 2014 15:01:12 +0100, Lusotec wrote:

> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA256
> 
> flatfish+++ wrote:
>> "A federal-court jury ruled Friday that some Samsung devices
>> infringed on two Apple software patents, but didn't infringe on two
>> others; the judge had earlier ruled that Samsung infringed on a fifth
>> patent.
>> 
>> The jury ordered Samsung to pay Apple $119.6 million in damages, far
>> short of the $2.2 billion Apple had been seeking, and less than the
>> $930 million Apple was awarded in an earlier trial in the same
>> courtroom."
>> 
>> A small victory but it does show that Samsung willingly copied Apple.
> 
> It shows no such thing. If anything it shows how ridiculously broken the USA 
> patent system is.

 http://tinyurl.com/nxdf7qe

Sour grapes.

Had it been the other way around, you Linux freedom fighters would be
frothing from both sides of your mouth.

lol!

-- 
flatfish+++

163 Reasons not to deal with Michael "Snit" Glasser, the Prescott 
Computer Guy
http://cosmicpenguin.com/snitlist.html

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#241554

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA256

flatfish+++ wrote:
> Lusotec wrote:
>> flatfish+++ wrote:
>>> "A federal-court jury ruled Friday that some Samsung devices
>>> infringed on two Apple software patents, but didn't infringe on two
>>> others; the judge had earlier ruled that Samsung infringed on a fifth
>>> patent.
>>> 
>>> The jury ordered Samsung to pay Apple $119.6 million in damages, far
>>> short of the $2.2 billion Apple had been seeking, and less than the
>>> $930 million Apple was awarded in an earlier trial in the same
>>> courtroom."
>>> 
>>> A small victory but it does show that Samsung willingly copied Apple.
>> 
>> It shows no such thing. If anything it shows how ridiculously broken the
>> USA patent system is.
> 
>  http://tinyurl.com/nxdf7qe
> 
> Sour grapes.

I don't have any interests and grapes in Apple or Samsung so I don't care in 
the least who pays who and how much.

My position on the USA (and others) patent system has nothing to do with any 
company in particular or piece of hardware/software in particular.

> Had it been the other way around, you Linux freedom fighters would be
> frothing from both sides of your mouth.
> 
> lol!

Wow, making up stuff about what I would have hypothetically done? That is a 
new level of dishonest! Maybe next you could post some words on the actual 
topic instead.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.10 (GNU/Linux)

iF4EAREIAAYFAlNlAtEACgkQGQjO2ccW76rrnQD9FZIUmAZfCU9/aeCXJqWa4UQp
ROgkhesnoENj9PBlaIwA/RKAhfKfxmMBG7+j9S5SQT0BAVfuDdSt9gNlxDO9LzM7
=e7Ma
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#241557

On Sat, 03 May 2014 15:53:05 +0100, Lusotec wrote:

> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA256
> 
> flatfish+++ wrote:
>> Lusotec wrote:
>>> flatfish+++ wrote:
>>>> "A federal-court jury ruled Friday that some Samsung devices
>>>> infringed on two Apple software patents, but didn't infringe on two
>>>> others; the judge had earlier ruled that Samsung infringed on a fifth
>>>> patent.
>>>> 
>>>> The jury ordered Samsung to pay Apple $119.6 million in damages, far
>>>> short of the $2.2 billion Apple had been seeking, and less than the
>>>> $930 million Apple was awarded in an earlier trial in the same
>>>> courtroom."
>>>> 
>>>> A small victory but it does show that Samsung willingly copied Apple.
>>> 
>>> It shows no such thing. If anything it shows how ridiculously broken the
>>> USA patent system is.
>> 
>>  http://tinyurl.com/nxdf7qe
>> 
>> Sour grapes.
> 
> I don't have any interests and grapes in Apple or Samsung so I don't care in 
> the least who pays who and how much.

Sure you don't.
 
> My position on the USA (and others) patent system has nothing to do with any 
> company in particular or piece of hardware/software in particular.

So fight to change it.

>> Had it been the other way around, you Linux freedom fighters would be
>> frothing from both sides of your mouth.
>> 
>> lol!
> 
> Wow, making up stuff about what I would have hypothetically done? That is a 
> new level of dishonest! Maybe next you could post some words on the actual 
> topic instead.

I did.
You were the one who went off on the patent system instead of the
fact that Samsung, a Linux friendly company, has been caught yet a
again.

This is the system we have.
It's far from perfect.

But until it is changed, we must abide by the rules.

Samsung, a Linux friendly company, doesn't seem to want to do that.
This is just another example of how nasty and nefarious that company
is. And it doesn't surprise me that the Linux community ignores those
facts.
They do the same with Google.

Like I said, had Apple lost, ya'll would be foaming at the mouth
following RonB's posts with +1 posts.



-- 
flatfish+++

163 Reasons not to deal with Michael "Snit" Glasser, the Prescott 
Computer Guy
http://cosmicpenguin.com/snitlist.html

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#241695

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA256

flatfish+++ wrote:
> Lusotec wrote:
>> flatfish+++ wrote:
>>> Lusotec wrote:
>>>> flatfish+++ wrote:
>>>>> "A federal-court jury ruled Friday that some Samsung devices
>>>>> infringed on two Apple software patents, but didn't infringe on two
>>>>> others; the judge had earlier ruled that Samsung infringed on a fifth
>>>>> patent.
>>>>> 
>>>>> The jury ordered Samsung to pay Apple $119.6 million in damages, far
>>>>> short of the $2.2 billion Apple had been seeking, and less than the
>>>>> $930 million Apple was awarded in an earlier trial in the same
>>>>> courtroom."
>>>>> 
>>>>> A small victory but it does show that Samsung willingly copied Apple.
>>>> 
>>>> It shows no such thing. If anything it shows how ridiculously broken
>>>> the USA patent system is.
>>> 
>>>  http://tinyurl.com/nxdf7qe
>>> 
>>> Sour grapes.
>> 
>> I don't have any interests and grapes in Apple or Samsung so I don't care
>> in the least who pays who and how much.
> 
> Sure you don't.

I have no vested interest in any of those companies and it is not my money 
so I don't care who pays who and how much. That said, wasting resources on a 
parasitic judicial system that produces nothing but fat leaches is a big no 
no for me. I would much prefer to see the resources wasted in litigation 
instead used to produce and innovate products people want to use.

>> My position on the USA (and others) patent system has nothing to do with
>> any company in particular or piece of hardware/software in particular.
> 
> So fight to change it.

I do fight against software patents in Portugal and the EU but I'm not a USA 
citizen. It would not be correct for me to interfere with USA politics just 
like I would not consider correct for a USA citizen to interfere with 
Portuguese politics.

>>> Had it been the other way around, you Linux freedom fighters would be
>>> frothing from both sides of your mouth.
>>> 
>>> lol!
>> 
>> Wow, making up stuff about what I would have hypothetically done? That is
>> a new level of dishonest! Maybe next you could post some words on the
>> actual topic instead.
> 
> I did.
> You were the one who went off on the patent system instead of the
> fact that Samsung, a Linux friendly company, has been caught yet a
> again.

Maybe you should read my post again! I was very clear on why the court 
ruling in question says nothing about Samsung copying Apple, willingly or 
not.

And Samsung is "a Linux friendly company", why?

Is it because it contributes to Linux? Then Microsoft is a "Linux friendly 
company" too!

Is it because it uses to Linux servers? Then Microsoft is a "Linux friendly 
company" too!

Is it because it uses to Androud/Linux in phones? Then Microsoft is a "Linux 
friendly company" too!

> This is the system we have.
> It's far from perfect.
> 
> But until it is changed, we must abide by the rules.

"We" being mostly the USA but some others also to a lesser degree. The rest 
of the world does not have and should not abide by such idiocies!

> Samsung, a Linux friendly company, doesn't seem to want to do that.

Do what? Abide by very many trivial USA patents with plenty of prior art?

> This is just another example of how nasty and nefarious that company
> is.

If this is an example of Samsung being "nasty and nefarious" then my cat 
beats them easily in "nasty and nefarious".

Patenting other people's work is truly "nasty and nefarious". Writing some 
non-trivial amount of code that happens to be covered by one or many patents 
is *inevitable*, considering the amount patents about trivial and basic 
stuff. That is the reality of the current software patents situation.

> And it doesn't surprise me that the Linux community ignores those
> facts.
> They do the same with Google.
> Like I said, had Apple lost, ya'll would be foaming at the mouth
> following RonB's posts with +1 posts.

There you go again making up stuff about what others think, ignore, say, 
would say. The "Linux community" is not the over simplistic one mind entity 
you seem to think it is.

I personally am roting for Apple/iOS (and Microsoft/WP8) in the smartphone 
and tablet markets. I would very much like to see a more balanced mobile 
market. As is, the mobile market runs the risk of turning in to the same 
crappy situation that we have in the desktop market.

Oh, and one more thing, I don't do "+1" posts!

Regards
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.10 (GNU/Linux)

iF4EAREIAAYFAlNlevgACgkQGQjO2ccW76qS6QD/VUyZWLLJXQmI9rk0orP0uBtD
wZnqR7UE09hRnYhldGwA/2MwrqQua9h5ec+vefPohOaJCWhgh16l4+HCmRUaul68
=1Dh2
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#241697

Lusotec <nomail@nomail.not> writes:

> flatfish+++ wrote:
>> Lusotec wrote:
>>> flatfish+++ wrote:
>>>> Lusotec wrote:
>>>>> flatfish+++ wrote:
>>>>>> "A federal-court jury ruled Friday that some Samsung devices
>>>>>> infringed on two Apple software patents, but didn't infringe on two
>>>>>> others; the judge had earlier ruled that Samsung infringed on a fifth
>>>>>> patent.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The jury ordered Samsung to pay Apple $119.6 million in damages, far
>>>>>> short of the $2.2 billion Apple had been seeking, and less than the
>>>>>> $930 million Apple was awarded in an earlier trial in the same
>>>>>> courtroom."
>>>>>>
>>>>>> A small victory but it does show that Samsung willingly copied Apple.
>>>>>
>>>>> It shows no such thing. If anything it shows how ridiculously broken
>>>>> the USA patent system is.
>>>>
>>>>  http://tinyurl.com/nxdf7qe
>>>>
>>>> Sour grapes.
>>>
>>> I don't have any interests and grapes in Apple or Samsung so I don't care
>>> in the least who pays who and how much.
>>
>> Sure you don't.
>
> I have no vested interest in any of those companies and it is not my money
> so I don't care who pays who and how much. That said, wasting resources on a
> parasitic judicial system that produces nothing but fat leaches is a
> big no

Or spending a fortune on the design and look and feel only to see a fat
leach copy it?

Losertec, you're such an apologetic freetard.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#241698

On 5/3/14, 4:25 PM, in article lk3ttv$f7e$1@dont-email.me, "Lusotec"
<nomail@nomail.not> wrote:

...
>>>>  http://tinyurl.com/nxdf7qe
>>>> 
>>>> Sour grapes.
>>> 
>>> I don't have any interests and grapes in Apple or Samsung so I don't care
>>> in the least who pays who and how much.
>> 
>> Sure you don't.
> 
> I have no vested interest in any of those companies and it is not my money
> so I don't care who pays who and how much. That said, wasting resources on a
> parasitic judicial system that produces nothing but fat leaches is a big no
> no for me. I would much prefer to see the resources wasted in litigation
> instead used to produce and innovate products people want to use.

Absolutely agreed - which is why it is bad when companies such as Samsung
are clearly willfully copying others to an extreme (and, to a large extent,
Google as well). They should spend their time making innovative products and
not just copying Apple. As we have seen here, though, such immoral behavior
often pays off. Yes, Samsung (and Google) are copying Apple, but in the long
run they made a *lot* more money doing so than it is costing them in the
courts. This only serves to encourage such behavior.
...


-- 
* Mint MATE: Trash, Panel, Menu:    <http://youtu.be/C0y74FIf7uE>
* Mint KDE bugs or Easter eggs?     <http://youtu.be/CU-whJQvtfA>
* Mint KDE working with folders:    <http://youtu.be/7C9nvniOoE0>
* Mint KDE creating files:          <http://youtu.be/N7-fZJaJUv8>
* Mint KDE help:                    <http://youtu.be/3ikizUd3sa8>
* Mint KDE general navigation:      <http://youtu.be/t9y14yZtQuI>
* Mint / LibreOffice:               <http://youtu.be/USU9iqppfto>
* Win 8 / Word 2013:                <http://youtu.be/z8gUL2TCcV4>
* Mavericks / Pages 5.1:            <http://youtu.be/D3BPWANQoIk>

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#241735

On Saturday, May 3, 2014 11:40:20 PM UTC, Snit wrote:
> On 5/3/14, 4:25 PM, in article lk3ttv$f7e$1@dont-email.me, "Lusotec"
> 
> <nomail@nomail.not> wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> ...
> 
> >>>>  http://tinyurl.com/nxdf7qe
> 
> >>>> 
> 
> >>>> Sour grapes.
> 
> >>> 
> 
> >>> I don't have any interests and grapes in Apple or Samsung so I don't care
> 
> >>> in the least who pays who and how much.
> 
> >> 
> 
> >> Sure you don't.
> 
> > 
> 
> > I have no vested interest in any of those companies and it is not my money
> 
> > so I don't care who pays who and how much. That said, wasting resources on a
> 
> > parasitic judicial system that produces nothing but fat leaches is a big no
> 
> > no for me. I would much prefer to see the resources wasted in litigation
> 
> > instead used to produce and innovate products people want to use.
> 
> 
> 
> Absolutely agreed - which is why it is bad when companies such as Samsung
> 
> are clearly willfully copying others to an extreme (and, to a large extent,
> 
> Google as well).

They copy Google by using their open source software, dumb ass.

> They should spend their time making innovative products and
> 
> not just copying Apple.

Apple copies others. They did not invent the smart phone or the tablet or the computer. 

 As we have seen here, though, such immoral behavior
> 
> often pays off. 

Your immoral behavior is paying off in ways you do not like. Have you done some Google searches yet?

Yes, Samsung (and Google) are copying Apple, but in the long
> 
> run they made a *lot* more money doing so than it is costing them in the
> 
> courts. This only serves to encourage such behavior.

I am discouraging your behavior. You are reaping what you have sown. How does it feel to get a taste of your own medicine?

> ...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> 
> * Mint MATE: Trash, Panel, Menu:    <http://youtu.be/C0y74FIf7uE>
> 
> * Mint KDE bugs or Easter eggs?     <http://youtu.be/CU-whJQvtfA>
> 
> * Mint KDE working with folders:    <http://youtu.be/7C9nvniOoE0>
> 
> * Mint KDE creating files:          <http://youtu.be/N7-fZJaJUv8>
> 
> * Mint KDE help:                    <http://youtu.be/3ikizUd3sa8>
> 
> * Mint KDE general navigation:      <http://youtu.be/t9y14yZtQuI>
> 
> * Mint / LibreOffice:               <http://youtu.be/USU9iqppfto>
> 
> * Win 8 / Word 2013:                <http://youtu.be/z8gUL2TCcV4>
> 
> * Mavericks / Pages 5.1:            <http://youtu.be/D3BPWANQoIk>

Another thread ruined by Michael Glasser Prescott Computer Guy of Prescott, Arizona.

http://prescottcomputerguy.com

His web design expertise is shown here

http://prescottcomputerguy.com/web_design.html

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#241699

On Sun, 04 May 2014 00:25:44 +0100, Lusotec wrote:

> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA256
> 
> flatfish+++ wrote:
>> Lusotec wrote:
>>> flatfish+++ wrote:
>>>> Lusotec wrote:
>>>>> flatfish+++ wrote:
>>>>>> "A federal-court jury ruled Friday that some Samsung devices
>>>>>> infringed on two Apple software patents, but didn't infringe on two
>>>>>> others; the judge had earlier ruled that Samsung infringed on a fifth
>>>>>> patent.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> The jury ordered Samsung to pay Apple $119.6 million in damages, far
>>>>>> short of the $2.2 billion Apple had been seeking, and less than the
>>>>>> $930 million Apple was awarded in an earlier trial in the same
>>>>>> courtroom."
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> A small victory but it does show that Samsung willingly copied Apple.
>>>>> 
>>>>> It shows no such thing. If anything it shows how ridiculously broken
>>>>> the USA patent system is.
>>>> 
>>>>  http://tinyurl.com/nxdf7qe
>>>> 
>>>> Sour grapes.
>>> 
>>> I don't have any interests and grapes in Apple or Samsung so I don't care
>>> in the least who pays who and how much.
>> 
>> Sure you don't.
> 
> I have no vested interest in any of those companies and it is not my money 
> so I don't care who pays who and how much. That said, wasting resources on a 
> parasitic judicial system that produces nothing but fat leaches is a big no 
> no for me. I would much prefer to see the resources wasted in litigation 
> instead used to produce and innovate products people want to use.

Sounds like you are a freetard..... I sense you are either a student
or new to the business world.
Don't worry, you can unlearn your freeloading ways.
Ask [Homer] or Roy Schestowitz.

Personally, when I spend a huge amount of money on R&D the last thing
I want is for some other company to copy it and I will spend whatever
it takes to protect my investment.

Of course I am not a freetard.
I'm a capitalist.


-- 
flatfish+++

163 Reasons not to deal with Michael "Snit" Glasser, the Prescott 
Computer Guy
http://cosmicpenguin.com/snitlist.html

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#241705

On Saturday, May 3, 2014 11:47:57 PM UTC, flatfish+++ wrote:
> On Sun, 04 May 2014 00:25:44 +0100, Lusotec wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> 
> > Hash: SHA256
> 
> > 
> 
> > flatfish+++ wrote:
> 
> >> Lusotec wrote:
> 
> >>> flatfish+++ wrote:
> 
> >>>> Lusotec wrote:
> 
> >>>>> flatfish+++ wrote:
> 
> >>>>>> "A federal-court jury ruled Friday that some Samsung devices
> 
> >>>>>> infringed on two Apple software patents, but didn't infringe on two
> 
> >>>>>> others; the judge had earlier ruled that Samsung infringed on a fifth
> 
> >>>>>> patent.
> 
> >>>>>> 
> 
> >>>>>> The jury ordered Samsung to pay Apple $119.6 million in damages, far
> 
> >>>>>> short of the $2.2 billion Apple had been seeking, and less than the
> 
> >>>>>> $930 million Apple was awarded in an earlier trial in the same
> 
> >>>>>> courtroom."
> 
> >>>>>> 
> 
> >>>>>> A small victory but it does show that Samsung willingly copied Apple.
> 
> >>>>> 
> 
> >>>>> It shows no such thing. If anything it shows how ridiculously broken
> 
> >>>>> the USA patent system is.
> 
> >>>> 
> 
> >>>>  http://tinyurl.com/nxdf7qe
> 
> >>>> 
> 
> >>>> Sour grapes.
> 
> >>> 
> 
> >>> I don't have any interests and grapes in Apple or Samsung so I don't care
> 
> >>> in the least who pays who and how much.
> 
> >> 
> 
> >> Sure you don't.
> 
> > 
> 
> > I have no vested interest in any of those companies and it is not my money 
> 
> > so I don't care who pays who and how much. That said, wasting resources on a 
> 
> > parasitic judicial system that produces nothing but fat leaches is a big no 
> 
> > no for me. I would much prefer to see the resources wasted in litigation 
> 
> > instead used to produce and innovate products people want to use.
> 
> 
> 
> Sounds like you are a freetard..... I sense you are either a student
> 
> or new to the business world.
> 
> Don't worry, you can unlearn your freeloading ways.
> 
> Ask [Homer] or Roy Schestowitz.
> 
> 
> 
> Personally, when I spend a huge amount of money on R&D the last thing
> 
> I want is for some other company to copy it and I will spend whatever
> 
> it takes to protect my investment.
> 
> 
> 
> Of course I am not a freetard.
> 
> I'm a capitalist.

Careful. You are sounding like Snit there.
> -- 
> 
> flatfish+++
> 
> 
> 
> 163 Reasons not to deal with Michael "Snit" Glasser, the Prescott 
> 
> Computer Guy
> 
> http://cosmicpenguin.com/snitlist.html

Excellent work. Keep it up. Notice Snit is not replying to most of your posts as he was. We are chasing him off.

Work with us to chase off Michael Glasser Prescott Computer Guy of Prescott, Arizona.

http://prescottcomputerguy.com

His web design expertise is shown here

http://prescottcomputerguy.com/web_design.html

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#242308

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA256

flatfish+++ wrote:
> Lusotec wrote:
>> I have no vested interest in any of those companies and it is not my
>> money so I don't care who pays who and how much. That said, wasting
>> resources on a parasitic judicial system that produces nothing but fat
>> leaches is a big no no for me. I would much prefer to see the resources
>> wasted in litigation instead used to produce and innovate products people
>> want to use.
> 
> Sounds like you are a freetard..... 

Not wanting millions wasted on lawyers and a parasitic judicial system 
"sounds like" a "freetard" exactly how?!

> I sense you are either a student or new to the business world.

Neither for many years.

> Don't worry, you can unlearn your freeloading ways.

Exactly how will I learn to like a parasitic judicial system that gives no 
value to society?

> Ask [Homer] or Roy Schestowitz.
>
> Personally, when I spend a huge amount of money on R&D the last thing
> I want is for some other company to copy it and I will spend whatever
> it takes to protect my investment.

And if you are against a large company you will loose not only your R&D 
investment but also the resources you wasted trying to defend it.

Heck, considering that the USA patent system is a first come first served 
you may even have someone else patent your work and sue you for using your 
own work, even if your work is prior-art and was previously published.

Contesting a patent is very difficult and very expensive, even if there is 
blatant prior art. Just look at Apple's "slide-to-unlock" patent. Slide to 
(un)lock is one of the oldest if not the oldest method for (un)locking 
anything. It is thousands of years old and yet there is a patent on it!

> Of course I am not a freetard.
> I'm a capitalist.

Well, I'm a capitalist, and a democrat, and a republican, and a liberal, and 
a conservative. What I'm not is a thief. I would never patent other people's 
work and I would never uses those patents to gain a unfair advantage in the 
market.

Regards
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.10 (GNU/Linux)

iF4EAREIAAYFAlNqMuIACgkQGQjO2ccW76oiZAD/aair4fy1eQE38qlI4Wa02Ptb
yoAb7pO/76mpTpGNBIwA/0qOyg7XnAt+mnIbmaoQNMfG0/DbrKUycSwCchdvhDjh
=7XBs
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#242309

On Wed, 07 May 2014 14:19:29 +0100, Lusotec wrote:

> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA256
> 
> flatfish+++ wrote:

> Contesting a patent is very difficult and very expensive, even if there is 
> blatant prior art. Just look at Apple's "slide-to-unlock" patent. Slide to 
> (un)lock is one of the oldest if not the oldest method for (un)locking 
> anything. It is thousands of years old and yet there is a patent on it!

And that is an example of something ridiculous and should never have
been patentable IMHO.
 
>> Of course I am not a freetard.
>> I'm a capitalist.
> 
> Well, I'm a capitalist, and a democrat, and a republican, and a liberal, and 
> a conservative. What I'm not is a thief. I would never patent other people's 
> work and I would never uses those patents to gain a unfair advantage in the 
> market.

And neither would I, but there are people who would and do.
And in general, the wealthy have a clear advantage in a capitalist
society.
It goes all the way to the justice system as well.


-- 
flatfish+++

163 Reasons not to deal with Michael "Snit" Glasser, the Prescott 
Computer Guy
http://cosmicpenguin.com/snitlist.html

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#242325

On 5/7/14, 6:35 AM, in article y9xxtng5cqvs.omhyimks6lgs$.dlg@40tude.net,
"flatfish+++" <phlatphish@yahoo.com> wrote:

> On Wed, 07 May 2014 14:19:29 +0100, Lusotec wrote:
> 
>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>> Hash: SHA256
>> 
>> flatfish+++ wrote:
> 
>> Contesting a patent is very difficult and very expensive, even if there is
>> blatant prior art. Just look at Apple's "slide-to-unlock" patent. Slide to
>> (un)lock is one of the oldest if not the oldest method for (un)locking
>> anything. It is thousands of years old and yet there is a patent on it!
> 
> And that is an example of something ridiculous and should never have
> been patentable IMHO.
>  
>>> Of course I am not a freetard.
>>> I'm a capitalist.
>> 
>> Well, I'm a capitalist, and a democrat, and a republican, and a liberal, and
>> a conservative. What I'm not is a thief. I would never patent other people's
>> work and I would never uses those patents to gain a unfair advantage in the
>> market.
> 
> And neither would I, but there are people who would and do.
> And in general, the wealthy have a clear advantage in a capitalist
> society.
> It goes all the way to the justice system as well.
> 
It goes everywhere, at least in the U.S. (and realistically most other
places): <http://www.princeton.edu/~bartels/economic.pdf>.

What is sad is how the wealthy have convinced so many - generally right
wingers - how it is the poor who are getting unfair advantages and are being
"lazy" and taking from the society. The reality is it is the wealthy who do
so far, far more.


-- 
* Mint MATE: Trash, Panel, Menu:    <http://youtu.be/C0y74FIf7uE>
* Mint KDE bugs or Easter eggs?     <http://youtu.be/CU-whJQvtfA>
* Mint KDE working with folders:    <http://youtu.be/7C9nvniOoE0>
* Mint KDE creating files:          <http://youtu.be/N7-fZJaJUv8>
* Mint KDE help:                    <http://youtu.be/3ikizUd3sa8>
* Mint KDE general navigation:      <http://youtu.be/t9y14yZtQuI>
* Mint / LibreOffice:               <http://youtu.be/USU9iqppfto>
* Win 8 / Word 2013:                <http://youtu.be/z8gUL2TCcV4>
* Mavericks / Pages 5.1:            <http://youtu.be/D3BPWANQoIk>

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#241724 — Judge orders troll to "get a clue"

Lusotec wrote this copyrighted missive and expects royalties:

> Oh, and one more thing, I don't do "+1" posts!

 +1

-- 
Like corn in a field I cut you down,
I threw the last punch way too hard,
After years of going steady, well, I thought it was time,
To throw in my hand for a new set of cards.
And I can't take you dancing out on the weekend,
I figured we'd painted too much of this town,
And I tried not to look as I walked to my wagon,
And I knew then I had lost what should have been found,
I knew then I had lost what should have been found.
	And I feel like a bullet in the gun of Robert Ford
	I'm as low as a paid assassin is
	You know I'm cold as a hired sword.
	I'm so ashamed we can't patch it up,
	You know I can't think straight no more
	You make me feel like a bullet, honey,
		a bullet in the gun of Robert Ford.
		-- Elton John "I Feel Like a Bullet"

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#241725 — I Think I Pissed Off Chris Ahlstrom.

On Sat, 3 May 2014 20:44:32 -0400, Chris Ahlstrom wrote:

> Lusotec wrote this copyrighted missive and expects royalties:
> 
>> Oh, and one more thing, I don't do "+1" posts!
> 
>  +1

I think I must have pissed Chris Ahlstrom off.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/new-brunswick/angry-beaver-delays-traffic-roams-around-miramichi-1.2628083

"An angry beaver was roaming around Miramichi on Tuesday, creating
traffic delays and chasing onlookers.

Jim O'Neill was driving his taxi when he noticed a man being chased
by a beaver off King George Highway on Tuesday.

"You look out the corner of your eye and see a beaver backing
somebody up the driveway,” he said."

Bwaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa!


-- 
flatfish+++

163 Reasons not to deal with Michael "Snit" Glasser, the Prescott 
Computer Guy
http://cosmicpenguin.com/snitlist.html

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#241580

Lusotec wrote this copyrighted missive and expects royalties:

> flatfish+++ wrote:
>
>> <snipped>
>
> Wow, making up stuff about what I would have hypothetically done? That is a 
> new level of dishonest!

New level?  No.

Same old shit.

-- 
Sign here without admitting guilt.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#241625

On Saturday, May 3, 2014 4:45:27 PM UTC, Chris Ahlstrom wrote:
> Lusotec wrote this copyrighted missive and expects royalties:
> 
> 
> 
> > flatfish+++ wrote:
> 
> >
> 
> >> <snipped>
> 
> >
> 
> > Wow, making up stuff about what I would have hypothetically done? That is a 
> 
> > new level of dishonest!
> 
> 
> 
> New level?  No.
> 
> 
> 
> Same old shit.

Maybe, but this shit smells better than Snit's.

> -- 
> 
> Sign here without admitting guilt.

Another thread ruined by Michael Glasser Prescott Computer Guy of Prescott, Arizona.

http://prescottcomputerguy.com

His web design expertise is shown here

http://prescottcomputerguy.com/web_design.html

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#242073

Chris Ahlstrom wrote:

>Lusotec wrote this copyrighted missive and expects royalties:
>
>> flatfish+++ wrote:
>>
>>> <snipped>
>>
>> Wow, making up stuff about what I would have hypothetically done? That is a 
>> new level of dishonest!
>
>New level?  No.
>
>Same old shit.

Kreep loves to do that.  He's the biggest hypocrite in cola, so he's
bent on proving that the advocates are the hypocrites, and *always*
based-upon a *lie*.

-- 
"Let's see - my earlier post of how it's better to just build the
nano-computer right into a power-brick (like the Sheeva plug) is a
stupid idea according to [chrisv]."  -  trolling fsckwit "Ezekiel",
lying shamelessly

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#242016

On 2014-05-03, Lusotec <nomail@nomail.not> wrote:
>
> flatfish+++ wrote:
>> Lusotec wrote:
>>> flatfish+++ wrote:
>>>> "A federal-court jury ruled Friday that some Samsung devices
>>>> infringed on two Apple software patents, but didn't infringe on two
>>>> others; the judge had earlier ruled that Samsung infringed on a fifth
>>>> patent.
>>>> 
>>>> The jury ordered Samsung to pay Apple $119.6 million in damages, far
>>>> short of the $2.2 billion Apple had been seeking, and less than the
>>>> $930 million Apple was awarded in an earlier trial in the same
>>>> courtroom."
>>>> 
>>>> A small victory but it does show that Samsung willingly copied Apple.
>>> 
>>> It shows no such thing. If anything it shows how ridiculously broken the
>>> USA patent system is.
>> 
>>  http://tinyurl.com/nxdf7qe
>> 
>> Sour grapes.

    Nonsense. This goes both ways and everyone is guilty of some nonsense
patent that should never have been granted in the first place. The entire
industry is a minefield of bogus patents that keep all but the largest
incumbents out of the market.

    Even a successful patent defense would bankrupt a small company. That's 
why patent trolling is such a lucrative field. It's easy to intimidate the
smaller companies into bogus settlements.

[deletia]

    ...the sig is random but still quite apropos.

-- 
    "There has grown up in the minds of certain groups in this country the notion 
    that because a man or corporation has made a profit out of the public for a 
    number of years, the government and the courts are charged with the duty of 
    guaranteeing such profit in the future, even in the face of changing 
    circumstances and contrary to public interest. This strange doctrine is not 
    supported by statute or common law. Neither individuals nor corporations have 
    any right to come into court and ask that the clock of history be stopped, 
    or turned back."
		--- Robert A. Heinlein (1939)

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

Page 1 of 5  [1] 2 3 4 5  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | comp.os.linux.advocacy

csiph-web