Actually it can. When you buy a CD technically you only own the physical medium and only license the music, and as we all know here the AAs are not above raiding peoples homes to get back control
"Customize and control Google Chrome" in the top right, the icon with the 3 bold lines, right below the Close X
Then chose "about Google Chrome"
It is basically the same as with any browser.
Wait, what? Apple stole every idea they had, then got mad someone stole their combination of stolen ideas. Jobs has come out talking about how he LOVES to steal other's ideas. In fact some of the ideas samsung "stole" they came up with first.
When a foreman tells the rest of the jury pool that he has patents and knows how they work and should therefore listen to him, even though it goes against the instructions, that is misconduct. Just saying. Several jurors, including the foreman himself have claimed this.
Say what? You mean waving fists at sucessful companies like IBM, Novell, and Redhat, wait they dont do that. I cant even remember the last time FOSS Patents has been correct on anything, groklaw on the other hand.
No they are not under "review" They have been invalidated pending appeals by Apple. Also SternisheFan, the appeal you quoted is about the injuction request, not the patent.
Thanks you, I love my TI NSpire because of its touch controls, drop down menus and larger screen. I would rather have a color screen that lets me see the different curves more clearly.
These are thing I can understand not being allowed to innovate, but a larger screen, touch controls, color, are all innovations they could have done years before now, without allowing for the items you mention.
Using your hyperbole, lets take a step back for a second. When you are called a bigot nothing happens other then maybe you get your feelings hurt. When you are labeled a terrorist, loads happen, other then the aforementioned hurt feelings, things like you losing your rights, possible treason charges and so on.
And the issue they were having trouble with was they did not believe there could not be prior art. And that is where the foreman stepped in and told them as an expert in patents that the prior art they had been shown could not be valid because it ran on a different processor.
So if you sue a company that is owned partially by another company, does that mean that it has nothing to do with the owning company? Yea, I CANT see that logic.
you are forgetting that the only reason Samsung lost was because of this foreman. Even the foreman stated that the rest of the jury was in favor of Samsung before he spoke up.
you are forgetting that the only reason samsung lost was because of this foreman. Even the foreman stated that the rest of the jury was in favor of samsung before he spoke up.
Slashdot Mirror
I read the entirely of the post and I agree it is overgeneralized and condescending.
ECU.edu, almost all their degree programs are online. You may need to get a proctor for the midterms and finals however.
That does not make it "totally separate" Corporate partners tend to work together to do things, such as go after their competitors.
Actually it can. When you buy a CD technically you only own the physical medium and only license the music, and as we all know here the AAs are not above raiding peoples homes to get back control
Not really a joke, here in the US we already recongize the corp as a person, see the citizens united case.
"Customize and control Google Chrome" in the top right, the icon with the 3 bold lines, right below the Close X Then chose "about Google Chrome" It is basically the same as with any browser.
They have already stated it should not have been granted at all.
Wait, what? Apple stole every idea they had, then got mad someone stole their combination of stolen ideas. Jobs has come out talking about how he LOVES to steal other's ideas. In fact some of the ideas samsung "stole" they came up with first.
When a foreman tells the rest of the jury pool that he has patents and knows how they work and should therefore listen to him, even though it goes against the instructions, that is misconduct. Just saying. Several jurors, including the foreman himself have claimed this.
Say what? You mean waving fists at sucessful companies like IBM, Novell, and Redhat, wait they dont do that. I cant even remember the last time FOSS Patents has been correct on anything, groklaw on the other hand.
No they are not under "review" They have been invalidated pending appeals by Apple. Also SternisheFan, the appeal you quoted is about the injuction request, not the patent.
Thanks you, I love my TI NSpire because of its touch controls, drop down menus and larger screen. I would rather have a color screen that lets me see the different curves more clearly.
These are thing I can understand not being allowed to innovate, but a larger screen, touch controls, color, are all innovations they could have done years before now, without allowing for the items you mention.
When you have a lock on the market what reason is to innovate?
As opposed to apple, who disregard, and even flaunt that disregard for IP.
Using your hyperbole, lets take a step back for a second. When you are called a bigot nothing happens other then maybe you get your feelings hurt. When you are labeled a terrorist, loads happen, other then the aforementioned hurt feelings, things like you losing your rights, possible treason charges and so on.
This is a circular argument. They only are required to pay less because they lobbied to do so. Previously they were required to pay more.
Because recent court cases have held that the 4th amendment does not cover emails, stored on public servers
And the issue they were having trouble with was they did not believe there could not be prior art. And that is where the foreman stepped in and told them as an expert in patents that the prior art they had been shown could not be valid because it ran on a different processor.
Revenge never makes sense.
So if you sue a company that is owned partially by another company, does that mean that it has nothing to do with the owning company? Yea, I CANT see that logic.
Since Samsung partially owns Seagate how is it not relevant?
Actually there was prior art, that the foreman talked the rest into ignoring because he was a supposed expert. That shows a problem with a jury.
you are forgetting that the only reason Samsung lost was because of this foreman. Even the foreman stated that the rest of the jury was in favor of Samsung before he spoke up.
you are forgetting that the only reason samsung lost was because of this foreman. Even the foreman stated that the rest of the jury was in favor of samsung before he spoke up.