21–30 of 101 posts
Groklaw links to a BBC interview with the jury foreman. > we as jurors were sworn to abide by the rules and the stipulations in law as they exist today, at the time we made the decision. Can't jurors just ignore laws that they feel are unjust?
> These Four Horsemen of the Android Apocalypse are patents for what Apple claims are “key” product features -- “Slide to Unlock,” “Text Correction,” “Unified Search,” and “Special Text Detection. Wasn't "Slide to Unlock" invalidated in the process against HTC?
Does anyone see groklaw as a credible source any more? They used to have good reporting, but all I've seen since the Apple v Samsung verdict is spittle-flecked ranting.
[EDIT: Fixed gender pronoun.]
Some companies will have to pay a slightly higher per device royalty than they had wanted to and/or remove/modify some functionality. It's the Apocalypse! It's Thermonuclear War!
Requiring royalties for open source, independently developed software is Wrong. An attack on Android is an affront to all independent software developers. Also, Apple has said they are not interested in licensing.
This is a new claim and not one that will find many takers imho.
"Apple has said they are not interested in licensing"
This is far from the truth. They certainly offered licensing to Samsung. $30/device might sound like a lot but that was a starting point in a negotiation.
Does anyone see groklaw as a credible source any more? They used to have good reporting, but all I've seen since the Apple v Samsung verdict is spittle-flecked ranting.
Groklaw has proven pretty reliable in prior cases. Se's never truly impartial, but almost always quite close to the truth. And I can understand her, this really is an ugly set of cases. [EDIT: Fixed gender pronoun.]
Does anyone see groklaw as a credible source any more? They used to have good reporting, but all I've seen since the Apple v Samsung verdict is spittle-flecked ranting.
Groklaw has proven pretty reliable in prior cases. Se's never truly impartial, but almost always quite close to the truth. And I can understand her, this really is an ugly set of cases. [EDIT: Fixed gender pronoun.]
Groklaw links to a BBC interview with the jury foreman. > we as jurors were sworn to abide by the rules and the stipulations in law as they exist today, at the time we made the decision. Can't jurors just ignore laws that they feel are unjust?
Does anyone see groklaw as a credible source any more? They used to have good reporting, but all I've seen since the Apple v Samsung verdict is spittle-flecked ranting.
That analogy is not perfect, I do read and find value in both but the bias can be horribly grating and would love to find a reliable substitute.
Speaking of which The Verge's coverage has been excellent although there's a lot of forced false equivalence and it's pitched to a slightly lower information audience (I guess this make them CNN in my bad analogy?).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Groklaw has proven pretty reliable in prior cases. Se's never truly impartial, but almost always quite close to the truth. And I can understand her, this really is an ugly set of cases. [EDIT: Fixed gender pronoun.]
PJ is a she. Groklaw is often a reference to the whole community though.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
And didn't Google devise a workaround for Unified Search in a week or so?
I was under the impression that the patch removed universal search altogether.