百家争鸣
明暗經緯錄
[主页]->[百家争鸣]->[明暗經緯錄]->[韓國特色的臆想症受到了打擊]
明暗經緯錄
·涇渭分明的行政區域與主權
·中華民國總統馬英九的政治責任
·傻瓜如何復興中國
·朗朗的杜撰藝術 偽國家英雄主義
·梅花革命 武昌起義的Domino Effect 骨牌效應
·重新洗牌後的主權與住得權
·笨蛋中共不把人當人! 才發展不成無人飛機
·人性的天空
·中華民族永遠的人民詩人 杜甫
·中華民國軍事委員會成就概要
·比較中國參政院與埃及的民主程序
·習近平可否斷尾求生
·紀念黨國青年代表外祖母
·美國國防部長蓋茨Robert Gates最後的國會聽證會
·勇猛精進的飛鷹對抗狡猾的九尾狐
·中共殺人金牌世界第一
·國花梅花盛開啦! 中華民國爭取自由的路與大方向
·罷買中國大陸基因改造黃豆食品
·共黨的灌輸無法根除茉莉花芬芳的花魂
·父親與湯誓 商的誓言
·總統節買藍寶石的冥冥訊息
·夢見胡錦濤在中南海園林
·中樞滌蕩
·民進黨競選中華民國總統的基本問題
·外交口德差的姜瑜
·日本關
·天津北京別嗆到福島Fukushima核子浮塵
·第一爐 第一原發
·中共原發爐的罪魁禍首準備自裁!
·日本核子專家們快快負責剖腹自殺
·還我河山 --岳飛
·日本大地震的濫觴
·日本放棄福島核能電廠 撤離所有工作人員
·撤日皇
·日本
·美國軍方勒令撤退出Fukushima福島80公里外
·當年河南省長李克強所給的批准書 鴉河核子電能
·台灣關係法的重要與中共海外作業
·溫家寶的永遠經濟發展國落後的瘟疫論
·骯髒的紅色政權整肅白俄車諾比
·永遠浪漫純情的島Shima
·地球之歌 この地球のどこかで
·民主選舉備忘錄
·父親種的梔子花又白又清香
·對抗共產黨貴族的一場和平謙卑的無產階級革命
·通告布魯金斯研究所 全世界第一愚蠢核站在中國河南省南陽
·中華民國執政大陸
·蘇莊駁斥蘇貞昌的參選理念與政見
·中央組織部李援朝處死南京之樹
·中華民國南京中央組織部
·江蘇民謠茉莉花
·為誰組織為誰忙﹖
·國父孫中山叮囑的話
·大陸有用不完新鮮的肝給美國快速裝配最新型電子產品Ipad與Iphone
·睿智的國民黨知道南京是中國的四大火爐
·民主建制下的自助金發啦!
·付零鴨蛋的稅美國奇異公司賺了500
·紙上談兵的核子專家們
·中國社會主義特色太監組織部發改委失蹤了!
·上海滅族滿門血案難不成也是中國社會主義特色
·1997英國把香港主權送錯了地方
·兩個中國的日曆各有千秋歲月
·日本福島核子爐需要幾年時間才能冷卻下來
·芭蕾湖的黑天鵝與白天鵝
·改革中國方案就是去毛澤
·俄羅斯總統定調
·馬英九EQ靈敏度很高
·國共均輸的國光石化在台中彰化掠奪海岸線大計劃
·笨蛋! 政府重在組織!不是意識治國!
·自認可以駕馭天下大亂的克林頓
·比較茶黨和民進黨
·美國聯邦政府的Cinderella仙德瑞拉的12點午夜神奇
·草泥巴 草泥馬
·南美Alpacha草泥馬大衣
·憑吊廣州議會閃過的民主光明
·俄對中國計劃
·為什麼中共腦殘
·中共精英的罩門
·美麗的呼聲自由的台中人
·袁項城的項羽帝國情懷
·國台辦總算做了件好事
·國之工程師胡錦濤給忘了安裝什麼
·笨蛋台灣彰化濕地石化報告故意省略兩次大地震
·笨蛋解放台灣! 8國槓上北京亡!
·奧斯卡最佳影片 國王的演講 King's Speech
· 美國起義 霸凌的核能機構改革刻不容緩
·蘇聯帝國倒塌原故係出自核安全系統管理
·蘇聯帝國倒塌原故係出自核安全系統管理
·
·無法投國民黨票的原因
·國與國之間的情感 中華民國與美國的邦交
·誰能代表中華民國的大志嚮就是共主
·當共產黨發現失去國民黨主政的台灣已經太晚了!
·關中之女慘死於中共統戰 管中窺豹可見一斑
·辛亥革命百年不是起鬨年
·春在堂主 淡煙疏雨落花天 中國心
·蘇莊獻上第一個youtube表演唱花好月圓 黃埔87週年校慶
·富春山居圖被隱蔽的故事 黃賓虹畫富春江
· 富春山居圖被隱蔽的故事 黃賓虹畫富春江
· 富春山居圖被隱蔽的故事
·建國100年的迷霧人物
[列出本栏目所有内容]
欢迎在此做广告
韓國特色的臆想症受到了打擊

   
   韓國特色的臆想症受到了打擊
   
   紐約時報﹐ 8月25日
   


   韓國三星敗訴, Apple 蘋果公司勝訴﹐陪審團判決﹐獲得$1 billion 10億美金的賠
   償。
   
   殺雞儆猴﹐誰敢亂說亂抄襲﹖
   
   版權所有﹐翻印必究。
   
   再說屈原是韓國人﹖
   
   老子告訴你﹐三星﹐是河南中原的星星。
   
   偷走咱的文化福祿壽三星﹐變成你的商標?
   
   哈哈哈! 大快人心!
   
   假三星﹐抄襲中原﹐受到美國的制裁。
   
   看來﹐唯有國民黨老派﹐才能讓台灣登上亞洲4小龍之首。
   
   牛郎織女星下凡 7夕時
   
   
   
   
   附錄
   
   http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/25/technology/jury-reaches-decision-in-apple-samsung-
   patent-trial.html?_r=1&nl=todaysheadlines&adxnnl=1&emc=edit_th_20120825&adxnnlx=1345888827-
   BbeRa/6dHXT7m5CxSCHJWw
   
   Jury Awards $1 Billion to Apple in Samsung Patent Case
   
   Apple won a decisive victory on Friday in a lawsuit against Samsung, a verdict
   that will give Apple ammunition in a far-flung patent war with its global
   competitors in the smartphone business.
   What the Verdict Said
   
   * Samsung violated a series of Apple's patents related to the software and
   design of mobile devices.
   * Apple's patents were valid.
   * Apple did not violate any of Samsung's patents.
   * Apple was awarded $1 billion in damages.
   
   The nine jurors in the case, who faced the daunting task of answering more than 700 questions on sometimes highly technical matters, returned a verdict after just three days of deliberations at a federal courthouse in San Jose, Calif. They found that Samsung infringed on a series of Apple’s patents on mobile devices, awarding Apple more than $1 billion in damages.
   
   That is not a big financial blow to Samsung, one of the world’s largest electronics companies. But the decision could essentially force it and other smartphone makers to redesign their products to be less Apple-like, or risk further legal defeats.
   
   Consumers could end up with some welcome diversity in phone and tablet design — or they may be stuck with devices that manufacturers have clumsily revamped to avoid crossing Apple.
   
   Samsung said it would ask the court to overturn the verdict and, if that is unsuccessful, appeal to a higher court.
   The jury found that various Samsung products violated Apple patents covering things like the “bounce back” effect when a user scrolls to the end of a list on the iPhone and iPad, and the pinch-to-zoom gesture that users make when they want to magnify an image. Samsung was also found to have infringed Apple patents covering the physical design of the iPhone.
   
   In its decision on a countersuit by Samsung, the jury added some sting by finding in favor of Apple across the board. Samsung had asked for more than $422 million from Apple, contending it had violated Samsung’s patents, but got nothing.
   Because Samsung was found to have willfully infringed Apple patents, the judge in the case could grant an Apple request to triple the damages Samsung is required to pay, though lawyers said the size of the initial award made this less likely.
   Despite the eye-popping award, one of the largest ever in a patent case, the more important effect of the jury’s decision could be the impact it has on Android, the Google operating system used by Samsung and a broad array of other companies in their devices. For every iPhone sold worldwide, more than three smartphones running Android are sold, reflecting the meteoric rise of Google’s software.
   
   Apple’s suit against Samsung, the world’s largest maker of smartphones, has partly been viewed as a proxy war against Google, which Apple executives have derided as a copycat, swiping Apple’s innovations. Steven P. Jobs, the late chief executive of Apple, told his biographer that Android was a “stolen product.”
   Apple is expected to ask the judge in the Samsung case for an injunction preventing Samsung from shipping products that infringe on Apple’s patents. The verdict could also bolster Apple’s legal attacks on Android devices from other companies.
   “It’s going to make it very difficult for not only Samsung, but for other companies to mimic the Apple products,” said Robert Barr, executive director of the Berkeley Center for Law and Technology at the University of California, Berkeley.
   
   Charles Golvin, an analyst at Forrester Research, said consumers could experience some discomfort in their use of smartphones if Samsung and other manufacturers are forced to design around certain basic functions to avoid violating Apple’s patents, though he believes the decision will prod them to innovate. “Consumers will adapt, but there will be some bumps in the road as they make that adaptation,” Mr. Golvin said.
   
   The trial provided a rare window into the inner workings of the two companies, especially the highly secretive Apple, forcing them to divulge sales figures, business negotiations and internal memos. Apple executives offered colorful detail, like the way its designers cook up new products around a kitchen table at the company’s headquarters.
   
   The evidence Apple presented, including internal Samsung memos and strategy documents, left little doubt that the iPhone inspired a major effort by the Korean manufacturer to overhaul its mobile phones. But a key question throughout the trial was whether the jury would decide that Samsung had stepped over the line by improperly copying Apple’s technologies. The members of the jury did not explain their decision before stealthily heading out a side exit.
   
   The verdict in the trial hardly concludes the legal battles over patents among companies in the mobile business. There are dozens of such cases winding their way through the courts; Samsung and Apple have also been battling in Germany, Australia and elsewhere. Even so, Samsung remains a major supplier of components for Apple products.
   
   While the decision is likely to weigh on Samsung shares, it sent Apple’s stock up 1.8 percent in after-hours trading. In a statement, Katie Cotton, an Apple spokeswoman, applauded the court for sending a “clear message that stealing isn’t right.”
   
   “We make these products to delight our customers, not for our competitors to flagrantly copy,” she said.
   
   Samsung said in a statement that the decision was a “loss for the American consumer.”
   
   “It will lead to fewer choices, less innovation, and potentially higher prices,” the company said. “This is not the final word in this case or in battles being waged in courts and tribunals around the world, some of which have already rejected many of Apple’s claims.”
   
   Lisa Alcalay Klug contributed reporting.
(2012/08/25 发表)
blog comments powered by Disqus

©Boxun News Network All Rights Reserved.
所有栏目和文章由作者或专栏管理员整理制作,均不代表博讯立场