

Microsoft finds itself on the defensive for once




Customizable Live Tiles in Windows Phone 8



SurfCast designed a new concept referred to as 'Tiles'.





SurfStar v. Microsoft





Source: Prior Smart

Comments     Threshold


RE: Karma's a $$#@*
By Smilin on 10/31/2012 9:47:41 PM , Rating: 2
1. It does not have to be a stock version of android so long as an infringing part of android is still present. Stop acting like you know the details of the violation or settlement.
2. WTF Does apple have to do with an MS vs Android OEM settlement? Spare me the red herring and get back to which of the 4 statements above is false.

You are welcome to tell yourself that I am wrong but it doesn't make it so. Here, allow me to demonstrate...

You. Are. A. Monkey. (unless a banana just appeared in your hand when you read that then it's safe to say logic doesn't work that way)

RE: Karma's a $$#@*
By Reclaimer77 on 11/1/12, Rating: 0
RE: Karma's a $$#@*
By RufusM on 11/1/2012 12:01:20 PM , Rating: 2
Also, the original assumption was not correct. Google has assisted Samsung and HTC with litigation advice and some costs when it's been appropriate.

Having said that, Google should not be responsible for the last win Apple had over Samsung. Samsung's own internal communications clearly indicated a path of copying Apple's designs for the Galaxy S1 phone.

I dislike software design patents all together, but there are some things Google should keep its hands out of.

RE: Karma's a $$#@*
By Smilin on 11/1/2012 12:29:49 PM , Rating: 2
You are correct. #4 in my point above is not 100% accurate. I had forgotten that there has been some limited assistance.

Wish I could +1 you for disagreeing with my own post. It's refreshing to have a conversation with a grown-up.

RE: Karma's a $$#@*
By Smilin on 11/1/2012 12:24:44 PM , Rating: 2
If you want grown-ups to listen to you then act like one.

Instead of having an outright temper tantrum, begin by pointing out which of my assertions is incorrect:


It's not FUD in the slightest.

1. If you sell a device then you are liable for any patents that device infringes. (any disagreement so far?)
2. If some part of that device comes from elsewhere then you are still liable because you are the one manufacturing and selling it. (still with me?)
3. Microsoft agrees to indemnify anyone who is sued because of a part (the OS) that they supplied. (is this the part that is BS?)
4. Google does not. (am I lying yet?)

Explain to me which part is FUD?

It may very well be that the reason your point is not coming across is that you are explaining it inadequately, or it is flat out wrong . That doesn't seem to be a reality you are capable of facing so you keep getting mad at your reader.

I believe the flaw that your thoughts keep circling around is that you think you know the details of the settlement. In your mind it is exclusively hardware and UI. Since each settlement involves different hardware and UI yet contains the common Android OS it would imply otherwise. Yet here is the key: You don't know. Neither do I. One of us gets that we don't know it. The other is stomping around red faced and mad with spittle on their chin.

Grow up Reclaimer.

