I would just use soft word wrap - well, I always have soft wrap on, but especially in this case it seems simplest to me to let long sentences/clauses soft wrap and retain the mapping from line to semantic unit.
Note that by "going to the moon" he actually means "sponsoring a robot to go to the moon"...
I don't know about that. Consoles tend to have strict certification requirements, and presumably the manufacturer gets a cut of game sales, both of which are reasons to prevent sideloading unrelated to piracy.
If you take asking for the additional damages the law allows (most of which is based on willfulness, which the jury explicitly upheld), plus an injunction (which everyone always asks for) as anything other than lawyers…
Note that the jury found that Samsung diluted Apple's trade dress, which is part of trademark law, not just infringed its design patents.
When reading patents, only the claims matter. In this case, anything that matches claim 19, which is anything that does bounce-back scrolling the way iOS does it, is infringing.
The Samsung Galaxy Tab 2 10.1 costs $100 less than the latest iPad, and the same as the iPad 2. May I assume that "Samsung's iPad" in this case was actually a seven inch model, and a blatantly unfair comparison? edit:…
This Apple expert purports to rebut the SmartSkin as prior art: it notes the "touch-sensitive display" thing plus claims that SmartSkin might not use an "event object" or "scroll or gesture call" to achieve the effect.…
I would just use soft word wrap - well, I always have soft wrap on, but especially in this case it seems simplest to me to let long sentences/clauses soft wrap and retain the mapping from line to semantic unit.
Note that by "going to the moon" he actually means "sponsoring a robot to go to the moon"...
I don't know about that. Consoles tend to have strict certification requirements, and presumably the manufacturer gets a cut of game sales, both of which are reasons to prevent sideloading unrelated to piracy.
If you take asking for the additional damages the law allows (most of which is based on willfulness, which the jury explicitly upheld), plus an injunction (which everyone always asks for) as anything other than lawyers…
Note that the jury found that Samsung diluted Apple's trade dress, which is part of trademark law, not just infringed its design patents.
When reading patents, only the claims matter. In this case, anything that matches claim 19, which is anything that does bounce-back scrolling the way iOS does it, is infringing.
The Samsung Galaxy Tab 2 10.1 costs $100 less than the latest iPad, and the same as the iPad 2. May I assume that "Samsung's iPad" in this case was actually a seven inch model, and a blatantly unfair comparison? edit:…
This Apple expert purports to rebut the SmartSkin as prior art: it notes the "touch-sensitive display" thing plus claims that SmartSkin might not use an "event object" or "scroll or gesture call" to achieve the effect.…