damn man u guys really dont care about reading.

Its suing the sgs, in turn allows it to claim damages, based on future and current profit lost,

its remedies shall seek termination of the galaxy series line from within a specific timeframe which the judge would issue an injunction./

Estopel will definitely be used, plus since this is some big time shit court, apple definitely relies on judge's obiter dictum but I aint clear with us laws, but heck.... plus focusing on prima facie for the picture u guys were using to compare the sgs with iphone.

This is definitely going way out of the parol evidence rule d.

Why do u all just love talking bout that shit???
just leave it la.

This post has been edited by oldKyoo: Apr 21 2011, 02:24 PM

you badly interpreted it.
Its nothing like you have said.

---

Added on April 21, 2011, 2:30 pmthat depends, if i can find something that correlates what u r doing with mine with a help of solid evidence, probably i can sue u. recognition is ur only way to save ur arse if u refused to be sued, recognize who is the inventor.

its just like your essay, u can twist and turn, but the lecturer knows what source you have token, you cant fool him/her. thats why there is always a reference table/endnotes,footnotes.

This post has been edited by oldKyoo: Apr 21 2011, 02:30 PM

I dont think we should rely on Wikipedia....

But this does proved information we know......

well, except for bloody india, and the quiet singapore....

hypothetical situation should samsung decide not to.

Contracts. You cant simply stop supplying. Plus a reason of "to prepare for more space in production line of the samsung galaxy tab" would probably make samsung lose alot of money when they are sued. Judges dont simply accept bullshit.

you can come up with 30inches of paper for defence, but the judge might only allow less then 2 sheets for samsung's defence.