indigo plant leaves iphone case

SKU: EN-X10469

indigo plant leaves iphone case

indigo plant leaves iphone case

"Some of the Samsung executives they presented on video from Korea -- I thought they were dodging the questions. They didn't answer one of them. They didn't help their cause."Samsung didn't win a penny of its asked-for $421m damages. But Ilagan said it wasn't clear until after the first day of deliberations that the jurors were in agreement. The bounce-back and pinch-to-zoom patents proved particularly tricky topics to debate. But the deliberation process sped up once they agreed Samsung had infringed Apple's patents.

"Once you determine that Samsung violated the patents, it's easy to just go down those different [Samsung] products, because it was all the same," Ilagan said, "Like the trade dress -- once you determine Samsung violated the trade dress, the flat screen with the bezel., then you go down the products to see if it had a bezel, But we took our time, We didn't rush, We had a debate before we made a decision, Sometimes it was getting heated."He also denied there was any hometown bias for the California-based Apple, And he was clear the jury indigo plant leaves iphone case knew the ramifications their decision could cause..

"I realised that's a big deal if Samsung can't sell those phones," he said. "But I'm sure Samsung can recover and do their own designs. There are other ways to design a phone. What was happening was that the appearance [of Samsung's phone] was their downfall. You copied the appearance.. Nokia is still selling phones. BlackBerry is selling phones. Those phones aren't infringing. There are alternatives out there."It's been a controversial case from the off. What do you reckon of the outcome? Is it right, or a loss for the consumer? Let me know in the comments, or on our Facebook page.

A juror in the case has spilled the beans on how it came to award Apple more than $1bn, A juror in the Apple vs Samsung trial has spoken exclusively to our sister site CNET News, He's spilled the beans on how the jury decided Samsung had infringed Apple's patents, and how it came to award the Cupertino company more than $1bn, Be respectful, keep it civil and stay on topic, We delete comments that violate our policy, which we encourage indigo plant leaves iphone case you to read, Discussion threads can be closed at any time at our discretion..

The deal was controversial for two main reasons. First, it would have allowed Verizon to effectively double its spectrum holdings in the AWS-1 block. Many feared this would give Verizon too much control of a scarce resource at a time when other wireless operators without as strong a spectrum position also need access airwaves to deploy competing 4G services. The second issue many consumer advocates had with the deal concerned a commercial arrangement that would allow cable operators to resell and market Verizon Wireless services and also allow Verizon to resell and market cable service. This concerned regulators and consumer advocates because it might kill competition in the wired broadband market.