Recent content by Hard Ball

Apple v. Samsung Jury Decision.

They have strong case that a later version like stock ICS does not infringe on any of these patents, since the implementations have been altered for these patents (and other possible things that Apple could claim violation, such as slide to unlock). The jury foreman actually said in an interview...
- Hard Ball
- Post #379
- Aug 30, 2012
- Forum: Mobile Devices
Apple v. Samsung Jury Decision.

That might be the case. They have already worked around the 381 patent "content bounce on scrolls/pinch-zoom/rotate"; but have yet to work on the workarounds for the other two utility patents. So there will be more updates coming down the pipe in the next few months. These might change the...
- Hard Ball
- Post #374
- Aug 29, 2012
- Forum: Mobile Devices
Apple v. Samsung Jury Decision.

It doesn't seem that you are capable of following a logical argument. I was not the one that pointed to the 3GS and said that was the device that Samsung modeled theirs after. It was Apple legal that did that, you should take that question verbatum from above and email it to their legal...
- Hard Ball
- Post #152
- Aug 25, 2012
- Forum: Mobile Devices
Apple v. Samsung Jury Decision.

No, you don't; You are still replying as if I was talking about the real-world scenarios. The scenario that Apple LAWYERS constructed during their argumentation specifically stated that it took only a few months to copy, in their own timeline.
- Hard Ball
- Post #147
- Aug 25, 2012
- Forum: Mobile Devices
Apple v. Samsung Jury Decision.

Again, read my actual original comment. I'm not arguing that it is actually the case that they actually copied, or that Samsung case was exactly the same. But I'm simply applying their own logic, and the way they constructed their own timeline, in their own closing argument, to point out the...
- Hard Ball
- Post #144
- Aug 25, 2012
- Forum: Mobile Devices
Apple v. Samsung Jury Decision.

Perhaps u should read my earlier response. Im not saying that it is the case that they copied. I think it's rather unlikely. But in their own closing argument, they constructed a timeline, and pointed to the 3gs picture and said that samsung copied that. And the ealiest phones that they...
- Hard Ball
- Post #131
- Aug 25, 2012
- Forum: Mobile Devices
Apple v. Samsung Jury Decision.

Not at all, since in the comparison pictures that Apple legal team showed during the trial itself, the model of the iphone used was actually 3GS
- Hard Ball
- Post #121
- Aug 25, 2012
- Forum: Mobile Devices
Apple v. Samsung Jury Decision.

No they are not shown off "days apart", and read my other comment
- Hard Ball
- Post #104
- Aug 25, 2012
- Forum: Mobile Devices
Apple v. Samsung Jury Decision.

It was shown off in the fall of 2006, well before the announcement of the original iphone. Im not saying that we can determine any act of copying (I actually think its unlikely), but im just going by the Apple legal team's own line of reasoning in the closing argument in terms of a established...
- Hard Ball
- Post #103
- Aug 25, 2012
- Forum: Mobile Devices
Apple v. Samsung Jury Decision.

Samsung are as much thieves in copying Apple, as Apple is a bunch of thieves in copying the LG Prada.
- Hard Ball
- Post #95
- Aug 24, 2012
- Forum: Mobile Devices
Rumour: Bulldozer 50% Faster than Core i7 and Phenom II.

That is very true; The term "throughput" by itself means very little in terms of actual work (in the mathematical sense) gets done by a pipeline. Most importantly, you will need to specify the fractions of the major instruction formats/types in the machine code. Something like 35% ALU, 15%...
- Hard Ball
- Post #2,369
- May 21, 2011
- Forum: CPUs and Overclocking
Rumour: Bulldozer 50% Faster than Core i7 and Phenom II.

That will be highly dependent on the fraction of mem references within the instruction stream; so you will need to analyze specific compiled applications as well as know more specific details about the microarchitecture than what is available in the public domain right now.
- Hard Ball
- Post #2,368
- May 21, 2011
- Forum: CPUs and Overclocking
So here it goes: possible beginning of the end for x86

All the system level code would run on the ARM cores, x86 would only be necessary for specific applications that are compiled in x86 binary. I don't think power consumption would be an issue, but yield and cost might be. So MCM or off package co-proc design would be another possibility, which...
- Hard Ball
- Post #4
- Apr 27, 2011
- Forum: CPUs and Overclocking
So here it goes: possible beginning of the end for x86

A couple of decades from now, 2011 maybe remembered as one of the titanic shifts in the chip industry. Not only with the success of iPad, the meteoric rise of Android in mobile, the rise of a number of ARM manufacturers (which include nVidia), and MS porting their main client OS to ARM, but now...
- Hard Ball
- Thread
- Apr 27, 2011
- Replies: 62
- Forum: CPUs and Overclocking
EE Times: Eight Possible Candidates for AMD's Top Job

I really loved that quote:
- Hard Ball
- Post #11
- Jan 16, 2011
- Forum: CPUs and Overclocking

RESOURCES

Top Bottom