20 replies to this topic

[FloatingFatMan]

Not without doing some googling, which I really can't be bothered to do. I remember reading it, but not where. Think it was a link off one of the threads on here, but c'mon dude. That was weeks ago now!

[.fahim]

FloatingFatMan, on 14 November 2012 - 22:20, said:

Not without doing some googling, which I really can't be bothered to do. I remember reading it, but not where. Think it was a link off one of the threads on here, but c'mon dude. That was weeks ago now!

If you don't have a link then you don't have a link. I think you are using a certain amount of creative license because I've not heard this from the many sources I've read. Obviously a link would prove me wrong...

[FloatingFatMan]

Just repeating what I've read. I'd go look, but it's late here now and I'm off to bed.

[FloatingFatMan]

OK, quickly before I go to bed, the following article mentions it, and though it doesn't explicitly state Apple use it, considering what his patent actually IS, it's very unlikely that they're not. I likely put 2 & 2 together in my memory. Still, it's a pretty damning bit of information.

http://www.cultofmac...uble-for-apple/

[Growled]

Good. It's about time someone stood up to Apple and said enough is enough.

[+techbeck]

And why should Samsung when Apple was asking $30 - $40 per Samsung device. And HTC gets what...$6 - $8 per device? Get real Apple. Offer fair terms to begin with and this wouldnt of escalated this far. But no you saw how success full Samsung was and got greedy. What will be interesting to see is how well HTC does now that this mess is over and if confidence in the company increases. Could prove well and would be nice to see them back on top...or at least close to it.