Linked by Thom Holwerda on Fri 24th Aug 2012 23:54 UTC
Permalink for comment 532123
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
News
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/18/13 22:33 UTC
Linked by Anonymous on 06/18/13 22:26 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/18/13 22:25 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/18/13 17:45 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/18/13 17:32 UTC, submitted by poundsmack
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/17/13 17:58 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/17/13 17:52 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/14/13 21:03 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/14/13 20:46 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/14/13 17:32 UTC
More News »
Sponsored Links



Member since:
2006-01-01
Wow, dude, read and then think about what you read before you speak. Otherwise you wind up sounding pretty dumb ...
No, it didn't. SCOTUS said that abstract ideas that are not otherwise patentable don't become patentable just because their expressed in software. None of the Apple patents in question represent abstract ideas; their all very utilitarian in nature.
Moreover none of the trade dress patents are in any way 'abstract ideas'.
No it didn't. The only thing the 'suppression of evidence' that you are talking about would have impacted would be the trade dress part of the suit of which Apple only won for the 3GS.
Even if that whole trade dress piece gets tossed it would have only limited impact on either company (what's a few hundred million to these guys).
Did you even bother to read which patents Apple is asserting here? Because if you did you would understand how totally stupid that statement is.
Apple is 'killing itself' with a 48% y-o-y growth. I am sure Tim Cook cries every time he looks at that number.
]{