Re: Android should stop using multi-touch
"It is not about rectangular objects at all."
It is actually. The US legal term is "Trade Dress".
832 publicly visible posts • joined 10 Mar 2008
eBay auctions are usually a good indicator of the 'worth' of a phone. I use those prices to way up the resulting monthly contract. In every situation I've looked at, I'm better off with buying up-front on eBay + PAYG SIM + selling 6 months later on eBay. But then my usage is quite low (around £7pcm for talk, text and data).
Even if the Jury decides Apple has proven it's case, with those unit sales, it seems bizarre that Apple claim their sales were affected by Samsung's phone and tablets. It would be interesting to compare Samsung's sales with Motorola's, HTCs, etc. to see if the alleged 'We Duped You' effect really had a positive impact for Samsung or whether their unit sales are no different from Motorola, HTC, etc.
"Samsung has argued before that of course it looked closely at what Apple was doing, because (duh!) the two firms are competitors so they're going to analyse each others' gear. But this document gives Apple yet more ammunition in its claims that the Korean firm had set out to intentionally copy the Jesus-mobe."
I must have missed it, but I couldn't make the connection between analysing a competing product and 'intentionally copying' it. Or is the sole purpose guilt-by-association?
...they'll throw every possible excuse but they won't recognise they got it wrong.
"I should be clear that over the first 3.5 years of our recovery plan, we've increased tech spend quite significantly and we've increased spend on the infrastructure as well as the fancy new stuff."
As an accountant, there is no clear definition of what "spend" means. It can mean many things. For example, it could include depreciation/amortisation of assets, ie. a non-cash "spend". Accelerate your depreciation - ie. write it off faster/over a shorter period - and your "spend" has increased without actually "spending" any cash. It could also include the cash spent on redundancy. Those costs could be allocated internally to the IT Department at RBS. If they were, then they could account for some of the increased "spend".
I'm not saying this is what happened. I'm saying this could be what happened.
You'll no doubt read tomorrow that the Judge did not allow Apple's "Recommendation". This is one of the most succint comments I've read about that:
"Actually, I felt whilst reading Samsung's filing that there was a continuing, albeit unstated, thread running through it: that their side of the story of the F700 design would have been a slam-dunk against Apple's case; that her refusal to let it be admitted would definitely be coming up at any appeal; and that if she didn't want the embarrassment of being reversed she'd better find a way to save face and let it in. But that's perhaps just me."
It came from Groklaw, btw.
I'll be interested to finally see these Win8 tablets that have been getting more press than Elvis. However, they're unlikely to change my believe that people have already "locked" themselves into the App Store or Google Play. I just can't see how MS will ever be a serious competitor in mobile.
...and the point that it was Apple that raised the original objection to the use of this evidence.
Everyone can see that this trial is no longer about the validity of any purported intellectual property rights. It is about using the law as a weapon to deal with a strong, credible competitor.
Quit your complaining. If you actually suffered a loss that you can prove was caused by their negligence, then give them the opportunity to compensate you for the FULL AMOUNT of your loss. They've admitted fault so, as long as you can prove your loss to your local County Court, they really don't have a legal defence.
Should you accept their current offer, however, then you may find it very difficult to make a further claim. So you really need to weigh up what they're offering with the size of your loss and the hassle of going through the Civil Justice system.
Neelie Kroes in March 2004 said: "Microsoft was the first company in fifty years of EU competition policy that the Commission has had to fine for failure to comply with an antitrust decision."
...and they've now gone and done it again. I don't think there'll be any leniency from the EC.