Free
Message: Re: PACER Samsung / Dischino
20
May 29, 2009 03:36PM

May 29, 2009 04:15PM
2
May 29, 2009 07:16PM
1
May 29, 2009 07:22PM
1
May 29, 2009 07:29PM
1
May 30, 2009 03:41AM
12
May 30, 2009 11:03AM
4
May 30, 2009 11:11AM
10
May 30, 2009 08:05PM
4
May 30, 2009 08:16PM
6
May 31, 2009 02:21AM
4
May 31, 2009 07:44AM
7
May 31, 2009 02:48PM
9
Jun 01, 2009 04:56AM

Jun 01, 2009 05:04AM
5
Jun 01, 2009 06:07AM
1
Jun 01, 2009 06:59AM
3
Jun 01, 2009 07:05AM

"Samsung is a big fish no doubt it......if it's decided to settle for fixed amounts while round filing 445 and 108 in the process.....at some point dilution of the tech will happen as it's utilized by the defendants."

One more time and I'm done with 445 and 108 commentary....

445 and 108 are dropped form the Samsung case...."with prejudice" we cannot haunt Samsung, or any other of it's owned entities over this issue for any future IP infringement..... case closed.

We, in essence, gave them, along with all related owned entities, the use of ideas.....where, IMO, we do not fork over the code at this level....perhaps at some point they will sell 445 and 108.

IMO, they do not have to wait for the formal closure of the case to implement, the only thing that blocks the use of the ideas are the methods of processor and console interface.

They're giving the the cart before the horse so to speak....IMO, without the source code.

doni




3
Jun 01, 2009 07:50AM
8
Jun 01, 2009 08:11AM
1
Jun 01, 2009 08:19AM
1
Jun 01, 2009 08:30AM
4
Jun 01, 2009 08:47AM
3
Jun 01, 2009 08:52AM
2
Jun 01, 2009 09:31AM
7
Jun 02, 2009 08:08AM
1
Jun 02, 2009 08:17AM
5
Jun 02, 2009 08:22AM

Jun 02, 2009 08:23AM
2
Jun 02, 2009 08:35AM
3
Jun 02, 2009 08:39AM

Jun 02, 2009 08:44AM
1
Jun 02, 2009 08:50AM

Jun 02, 2009 09:28AM
Share
New Message
Please login to post a reply