Apple Claims Samsung and Motorola Patent Monopoly

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Apple Claims Samsung and Motorola Patent Monopoly

Posted by Unknown on Thursday September 1, 2011 @03:42AM from the patent-vs-patent dept.

esocid writes with a bit in Daily Tech about the ongoing spat between Apple and the rest of the mobile world. From the article: "Apple lawyers are crying foul about Samsung, and ... Motorola's allegedly 'anticompetitive,' use of patents. ... Apparently Apple is irate about these companies' countersuits, which rely largely on patents covering wireless communications, many of which are governed by the 'fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory' (F/RAND) principle, as they were developed as part of industry standards. ... Apple takes issue with the fact that Motorola in its countersuit declines to differentiate the 7 F/RAND patents in its 18 patent collection. ... Regardless of what Florian Mueller says, it's hard to dispute that the 'rules' of F/RAND are largely community dictated and ambiguous."

276 of 381 comments (clear)

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

How dare they sue us! by Kenja · 2011-09-01 03:46 · Score: 5, Insightful

We where just minding our own business, suing them, and then THEY SUED US for no reason!

--

"Have you ever thought about just turning off the TV, sitting down with your kids, and hitting them?"
1. Re:How dare they sue us! by mvar · 2011-09-01 03:55 · Score: 1
  
  Apple has been on lawsuit-rampage during the last 6 months, its nice to see at last some action from Google. This is going to be fun!
2. Re:How dare they sue us! by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · 2011-09-01 04:01 · Score: 5, Funny
  
  It's really very unfair. Here we were, just defending our rightful monopoly over all things rectangular with screens on the front, and these uppity bastards with their "patents" on "foundational RF technologies" that they supposedly "invented" are getting all touchy about it. WTF?
3. Re:How dare they sue us! by h4rr4r · 2011-09-01 04:13 · Score: 2
  
  Too bad the court disagreed and even named a tablet that looked quite similar. Thicker, but that was only due to technology limits at the time. The icon layout does not look default on those Samsung devices, someone rigged it to look similar.
4. Re:How dare they sue us! by dc29A · 2011-09-01 04:14 · Score: 2
  
  Have you watched ST:TNG? Or 2001 Space Odyssey? Of course every company making blatant copies of this 'awesome' Apple patent.
5. Re:How dare they sue us! by Kenja · 2011-09-01 04:14 · Score: 2
  
  There have been thousands of tablets before the iPad. Many of them looked very simular. Your single counter example does not negate this. Technology progresses, devices get lighter and thinner. If only Apple is allowed to have a rectangular device with icons, what exactly would you suggest others use. And keep in mind that there have been tablet computers since the late 80s.
  
  --
  
  "Have you ever thought about just turning off the TV, sitting down with your kids, and hitting them?"
6. Re:How dare they sue us! by ColdWetDog · 2011-09-01 04:16 · Score: 1
  
  Too bad you both missed your humorTab(C)(Patent Pending by Johnson's wax) today.
  Double up tomorrow. Remember, side effects may include nausea, blurred vision and priapism.
  
  --
  Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
7. Re:How dare they sue us! by Anonymous Coward · 2011-09-01 04:24 · Score: 1
  
  Odd the ipad looks much like the screen on my old pre-ipad laptop, but without the keyboard bit... How innovative >.>
8. Re:How dare they sue us! by recoiledsnake · 2011-09-01 04:31 · Score: 2
  
  It's really very unfair. Here we were, just defending our rightful monopoly over all things rectangular with screens on the front, and these uppity bastards with their "patents" on "foundational RF technologies" that they supposedly "invented" are getting all touchy about it. WTF?
  Problem with your thinking is....no tablet looked anything remotely like the ipad until the ipad came out. Look at the picture at the bottom of the link to see the blatant copying Samsung did. http://www.appleinsider.com/articles/11/08/30/apple_accuses_motorola_samsung_of_monopolizing_markets_with_patents.html
  http://techcrunch.com/2009/06/03/crunchpad-the-launch-prototype/
  http://lawpundit.blogspot.com/2011/08/samsung-digital-picture-frame-2006-is.html
  
  --
  This space for rent.
9. Re:How dare they sue us! by geekoid · 2011-09-01 04:41 · Score: 1
  
  Rhombus with icons on it.
  Of course, it may have a PR problem:
  http://www.penny-arcade.com/comic/2009/1/9/
  
  --
  The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
10. Re:How dare they sue us! by increment1 · 2011-09-01 04:42 · Score: 1
  
  How about a video clip of a tablet long before they were ever made?
  http://www.techspot.com/news/45209-samsung-stanley-kubrick-invented-the-tablet-in-2001-a-space-odyssey.html
11. Re:How dare they sue us! by geekoid · 2011-09-01 04:44 · Score: 1
  
  The first electronic table was in 1888, used for handwriting over wire.
  And there have been more. In fact 'tablet' was coined by Microsoft. regarding a computing device, natch.
  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tablet_computer
  Apple has never done anything first; which is fine. They do improve them and make stylish devices.
  
  --
  The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
12. Re:How dare they sue us! by RicoX9 · 2011-09-01 04:45 · Score: 1
  
  That appears to be a patent on a rectangular solid. Sad.
13. Re:How dare they sue us! by eparker05 · 2011-09-01 04:50 · Score: 1
  
  While Apple had to Photoshop the Galaxy Tab to fool the courts into thinking it looked like an iPad, your source was much more clever. They strategicly tilted the galaxy tab when comparing it to the iPad to shorten the apparent aspect ratio to closer match the iPad.
  Do Apple lawyers write their articles? Probably not, cause whoever did that was much more clever than Apple lawyers.
14. Re:How dare they sue us! by drinkypoo · 2011-09-01 05:08 · Score: 1
  
  I have a GRiDPad 1910 and a 2390 as well. Both are a black rectangle. The 1910 is very square, but the 2390 has rounded corners. If you can extrapolate a trend from two data points (there are others that show it, but these are the only ones for which I have examples in my actual possession) then we get a flatter black rectangle with more rounded corners. Both of these PCs are somewhere between XT and AT class. In my case, both of these run GEOS with Graffiti from Palm Computing, but only the 2390 came that way.
  
  --
  "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
15. Re:How dare they sue us! by Anonymous Coward · 2011-09-01 05:10 · Score: 2, Informative
  
  You do realize the 'tablets' shown in this movie were display only (a monitor) and had no means of input whatsoever, even in the movie?
16. Re:How dare they sue us! by uniquename72 · 2011-09-01 05:11 · Score: 1
  
  I had a Toshiba Portege in 2006 -- it was awesome for the time. With the screen turned around, its form factor was little different from a modern tablet (scroll down for the pic). All Apple did was remove the keyboard, strip away the ports and other useful stuff, and add a touchscreen.
  
  btw - HP also made similar devices that were even more iPad-like in 2002. This page has pics.
17. Re:How dare they sue us! by drinkypoo · 2011-09-01 05:12 · Score: 1
  
  I don't think anyone is arguing the fact that there wasn't tablets before the iPad, but the "Many of them looked similar" line is what is getting everyone's panties in a bunch. There was not a single tablet on the market or even introduced to the market that looked anything like the iPad. Everyone had some sort of bulky case thingy that held the display, no one had a flat surfaced tablet. Tablet Designs Before and After the iPad.
  Fuck you and your bullshit link, which is a lying lie told by a liar, and you are a liar too for repeating it. How about the GRiDPad 1910 or the GRiDPad 2390? Okay, so they have some buttons on them; so did all the portable devices of their day. I also own a DT360 which seems like a good example of what you're saying, but the big rubber stuff is an optional accessory and while mine is red, it was also offered in black. I'm running Debian Lenny with Matchbox on mine; Lenny is probably the earliest Linux with the proper kernel patches for the Dt3?? machines, which are cheap, low power, and fanless.
  Er, anyway, I digress. The point is that there WERE black rectangle tablets before the iPad. They had some buttons, but so did everything. If "remove the buttons" is deserving of a design patent, then digital picture frames are sufficient to prove that the idea is obvious.
  
  --
  "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
18. Re:How dare they sue us! by azgard · 2011-09-01 05:15 · Score: 1
  
  14 Apple engineers worked very hard to invent this.. rectangular dingus.
19. Re:How dare they sue us! by marsu_k · 2011-09-01 05:16 · Score: 1
  
  How about a more realistic comparison?
20. Re:How dare they sue us! by recoiledsnake · 2011-09-01 05:17 · Score: 3, Interesting
  
  http://techcrunch.com/2008/07/21/we-want-a-dead-simple-web-tablet-help-us-build-it/
  
  --
  This space for rent.
21. Re:How dare they sue us! by cforciea · 2011-09-01 05:21 · Score: 1
  
  How about a EO Personal Communicator?
22. Re:How dare they sue us! by 517714 · 2011-09-01 05:28 · Score: 1
  
  I'll bet you can't tell the Chrysler Building from the Empire State Building either.
  
  --
  The US government have made it clear that we have no inalienable rights; any we do not defend vigorously will be taken.
23. Re:How dare they sue us! by gstoddart · 2011-09-01 05:30 · Score: 2
  
  Everyone had some sort of bulky case thingy that held the display, no one had a flat surfaced tablet. Tablet Designs Before and After the iPad [osxdaily.com].
  Oh, come on ... I have an iPad, and I'm hard pressed to see how any of these are different.
  Here's my short take on this ... unless it's radically different in shape from an Etch-A-Sketch, or a tablet of paper ... how the hell is the shape of an iPad even something you could consider having any protection on?
  The Greeks had stone tablets, and a mathematical ratio of an appealing size. This whole debate is stupid -- it's a fscking rectangle.
  
  --
  Lost at C:>. Found at C.
24. Re:How dare they sue us! by Runaway1956 · 2011-09-01 05:46 · Score: 2
  
  I think you err. Stanley Kubrick and Arthur C. Clarke were both smart enough to remove the inputs and the icons to avoid being sued by Apple. Frigging GENIUSES, weren't they?
  
  --
  "Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
25. Re:How dare they sue us! by RoccamOccam · 2011-09-01 05:53 · Score: 1
  
  Nokia N810. Other than the bezel not being black, it seems to match the requirements.
26. Re:How dare they sue us! by Runaway1956 · 2011-09-01 05:58 · Score: 3, Interesting
  
  I don't remember where I first heard this - possibly from a teacher in junior high school. "If you're not part of the solution, then you're part of the problem." I'm another person who is sick of these patent wars. One day, you want to cheer this side, or the other side, the next day you want to cheer the interlopers who file those "friend of the court" briefs, then a week later, you want to see the real low-life trolls burnt at the stake. It's an endless drama among the lawyers trying to milk the techworld.
  And, I'm just sick of it. Apple hasn't been part of the solution, nor has Microsoft, or Samsung, or Motorola, or IBM, or - well, I could go on. Everyone who has ever filed a software and/or frivolous design patent like basic description of the Apple iPad is part of the problem. Most patents need to be done away with. I can't remember now what the numbers were, but apparently more patents have been granted in the past ten years, than were granted in all of patent history. It's ridiculous. Worse, it's insane.
  Idiots sitting at a corporate conference mull the need to patent a shape, because they might use that shape sometime in the unforseeable future. Preposterous.
  
  --
  "Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
27. Re:How dare they sue us! by arose · 2011-09-01 06:00 · Score: 1
  
  Yes, Apple operates in complete design vacuum, not influenced by anyone else.
  
  --
  Analogies don't equal equalities, they are merely somewhat analogous.
28. Re:How dare they sue us! by Anonymous Coward · 2011-09-01 06:16 · Score: 1
  
  What about these?
  GRiDPad (1989)
  EO Personal Communicator (1993)
  DEC Lectrice (1996)
  PaceBook D110 (2000)
  Microsoft Tablet PC (2002)
  HP TC1000 (2003)
  Samsung Q1 (2006)
  JooJoo (2010, about one week before iPad release)
  And those are just a few of them. If anyone did some design copying, it was Apple.
29. Re:How dare they sue us! by Anonymous Coward · 2011-09-01 06:45 · Score: 1
  
  Amen! I'll serve Apple right if they end up owing like $50 per iPhone sold while nobody else owes them anything. lol
  I've been happily using Mac OS X since maybe 2004 but Apple became evil when they started turning the software world into a lawyer's playground.
30. Re:How dare they sue us! by Bleeblah · 2011-09-01 06:53 · Score: 1
  
  "For 'tis the sport to have the Engineer / Hoist on his own petard"!
31. Re:How dare they sue us! by drinkypoo · 2011-09-01 06:58 · Score: 1
  
  We are talking about minor evolutionary differences here.
  
  --
  "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
32. Re:How dare they sue us! by Solandri · 2011-09-01 07:01 · Score: 1
  
  Problem with your thinking is....no tablet looked anything remotely like the ipad until the ipad came out. Look at the picture at the bottom of the link to see the blatant copying Samsung did
  Look at the picture inside this link to see the blatant copying Samsung did. Clearly Samsung built a time machine in 2006, jumped ahead to 2010 to see what the iPad would look like, and stole its design to use in their digital picture frame!
  
  As people have been trying to tell you Apple fans, there is nothing innovative about a flat black rectangle with rounded corners. If there is, then it's Apple who should be criticized for ripping off Samsung's design from 2006.
33. Re:How dare they sue us! by scot4875 · 2011-09-01 07:13 · Score: 1
  
  Your job isn't as a professional sports stadium builder, is it? You seem to excel at moving goalposts.
  --Jeremy
  
  --
  Jesus was a liberal
34. Re:How dare they sue us! by node+3 · 2011-09-01 08:27 · Score: 1
  
  We where just minding our own business, suing them, and then THEY SUED US for no reason!
  Apple is suing people over non-critical things. Things that these companies have done to too closely copy Apple's designs. The Samsung Galaxy hardware looks almost *exactly* like an iPad. Apple's not saying they can't make their own tablets, on the contrary, they are asking them to actually make *their own* tablets, and not just clone Apple's.
  The patents Apple is talking about here are FRAND patents, which are critical to entering a market. They are supposed to be offered under Fair, Reasonable, And Non-Discriminatory terms, which Apple is complaining that they aren't doing.
35. Re:How dare they sue us! by node+3 · 2011-09-01 08:29 · Score: 3
  
  Apple has been on lawsuit-rampage during the last 6 months, its nice to see at last some action from Google. This is going to be fun!
  Define "rampage". They've sued Samsung in multiple jurisdictions for copying the iPad and iPhone. And they've got maybe one or two other suits, that aren't merely countersuits, against other companies.
  So, where's this "rampage" you speak of?
36. Re:How dare they sue us! by gstrickler · 2011-09-01 08:38 · Score: 1
  
  Apple has a patent. Whether you believe the patent should have been granted or not is a separate issue, the fact is that the USPTO issued the patent. If a patent holder doesn't try to enforce it when they believe it's been infringed upon, they lose the ability to enforce it. The only options they had when they believed that Samsung infringed on their patent(s) were to either get Samsung to license the patent(s) (arguably a better option, but that's a business decision), sue Samsung for infringement, or risk losing the ability to enforce that patent. That's what the law says, if you don't like the law, work on changing it.
  If you believe that the (US) patent system is broken, work on changing it. In the meantime, stop blaming companies for following the laws as currently written. They must follow the laws as they exist, and they must protect their IP or they have failed their fiduciary responsibility to the stockholders. I don't like it, I think the US patent system is seriously broken, but it's what we've got right now, so this is the way things (don't) work.
  
  --
  make imaginary.friends COUNT=100 VISIBLE=false
37. Re:How dare they sue us! by shutdown+-p+now · 2011-09-01 09:01 · Score: 1
  
  Of all the recent lawsuits in "mobile space", Apple's is the only one I'm aware of where not only they have demanded to ban sales of their competitors' products (rather than merely asking for $$$), but have actually succeeded in that.
38. Re:How dare they sue us! by Kalriath · 2011-09-01 09:20 · Score: 1
  
  Now off you go to find an unbiased source. Roughly Drafted is as fair and balanced as Fox News.
  
  --
  For a site about things like basic rights, Slashdot users sure do like to censor "dissent".
39. Re:How dare they sue us! by node+3 · 2011-09-01 09:32 · Score: 1
  
  Of all the recent lawsuits in "mobile space", Apple's is the only one I'm aware of where not only they have demanded to ban sales of their competitors' products (rather than merely asking for $$$), but have actually succeeded in that.
  Because the products are a copy of the iPad. They look just like an iPad. That's not something you demand money for, that's something you outright ban.
40. Re:How dare they sue us! by AdamWill · 2011-09-01 09:35 · Score: 1
  
  Except that Apple is suing Samsung, in Europe, under community design law - not patent law. So your protestations as to the operation of U.S. patent law seem rather irrelevant.
  (Besides, isn't 'use it or lose it' a feature of *trademark* law, not patent law?)
41. Re:How dare they sue us! by Superken7 · 2011-09-01 09:50 · Score: 1
  
  Oh please.
  I am sure that has nothing to do with apple being a design company and not actually having (almost) any hardware or radio patents.
  I don't see Apple applying common sense like they are doing now when they want a product to be banned for having rounded corners.
  If we start applying common sense like Samsung is doing for defense against Apple (or like Apple is doing right now) then 99.9% of all patents and lawsuits should be invalidated. But oh boy, do they like to play the patents game!
  All of them are just obvious and not innovative at all (ipad/iphone design is just *popular*, nothing *new*, and there's no patent for "popular"), or critical to entering a market, like these FRAND patents.
  Apple saying now that they think its unfair because its a silly patent when they are King Of Suing For Silly Patents is just being hypocrite.
  I'd like to see how others compete with Apple if they can't produce stuff with rounded corners, horizontal picture scrolling, a grid of icons, etc... like Apple wants them to.
42. Re:How dare they sue us! by shutdown+-p+now · 2011-09-01 09:52 · Score: 1
  
  European courts have already shot down the argument that "they look just like an iPad"; let's leave it at that.
43. Re:How dare they sue us! by CnlPepper · 2011-09-01 09:58 · Score: 1
  
  A bloody picture frame looks like a iPad ffs. Its an old concept and an old design.
44. Re:How dare they sue us! by CnlPepper · 2011-09-01 10:00 · Score: 1
  
  It has already been pointed out in numerous articles that the Samsung Galaxy and the iPad are not even the same shape. Apple doctored the images in their filing to make them look the same. How could you miss this? Practically every major newspaper has had an article on it!
45. Re:How dare they sue us! by node+3 · 2011-09-01 10:04 · Score: 1
  
  A bloody picture frame looks like a iPad ffs. Its an old concept and an old design.
  I've never seen a single picture frame that looks like an iPad. There are plenty of ways to make a tablet, just look at the market. The Galaxy Tab is all but an exact clone of the iPad from the front.
46. Re:How dare they sue us! by node+3 · 2011-09-01 10:10 · Score: 1
  
  European courts have already shot down the argument that "they look just like an iPad"; let's leave it at that.
  No, but one Scandinavian court did say "slide to unlock" was too broad.
  And if one court is enough to "just leave it at that", what about all the other courts that have a different opinion? Besides, just look at the Galaxy Tab from the front. It looks almost exactly like an iPad. There are plenty of different ways to design your tablet (and phone, and computer), and for some reason, Samsung's offerings seem to look a lot like Apple's offerings, even though other companies seem to have no trouble coming up with their own designs.
  Nerds here like to pretend like Apple is claiming the rights to "rectangular tablet". They aren't. They are claiming the rights to a rectangular tablet with a certain, recognizable design. There are near infinite ways to make a rectangular tablet, and Apple has come up with one. They are merely demanding that other companies do the same.
47. Re:How dare they sue us! by node+3 · 2011-09-01 10:15 · Score: 1
  
  It has already been pointed out in numerous articles that the Samsung Galaxy and the iPad are not even the same shape. Apple doctored the images in their filing to make them look the same. How could you miss this? Practically every major newspaper has had an article on it!
  A slightly different aspect ratio. And only *SOME* of the images have incorrect ratios.
  But it's not the *exact* ratio that makes the Tab look like an iPad. It's the black bezel, rounded rectangle with a metallic border. Look at this picture: Galaxy Tab. It's extremely similar to an iPad.
48. Re:How dare they sue us! by Nom+du+Keyboard · 2011-09-01 10:24 · Score: 1
  
  If you believe that the (US) patent system is broken, work on changing it.
  I would, but the (US) copyright system is broken even worse and it's taking all of my efforts to try and get that one fixed first.
  
  --
  "It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
49. Re:How dare they sue us! by clampolo · 2011-09-01 10:26 · Score: 1
  
  I've never seen a single picture frame that looks like an iPad.
  So you have never seen a picture frame in the shape of a rectangle that has either a black or a white border?
  Were you out hunting a woolly mammoth when you fell into the icy water and only recently thawed yourself out?
50. Re:How dare they sue us! by node+3 · 2011-09-01 10:26 · Score: 1
  
  Oh please.
  I am sure that has nothing to do with apple being a design company and not actually having (almost) any hardware or radio patents.
  Are you dense? Apple has *thousands* of hardware patents. I'm not sure what this has to do with the topic at hand however.
  
  I don't see Apple applying common sense like they are doing now when they want a product to be banned for having rounded corners.
  No, it's being banned for looking like an iPad, plain and simple.
  
  If we start applying common sense like Samsung is doing for defense against Apple (or like Apple is doing right now) then 99.9% of all patents and lawsuits should be invalidated. But oh boy, do they like to play the patents game!
  Citation. How many lawsuits does Apple have currently that they've initiated over patents. I'm sure this must be a very long list, since they "like to play" that game so much!
  They use patents to protect certain things (like the look of the iPad, or to keep control of how the dock connector is used), and not simply as a way to sue for money or block other companies from competing with their own designs.
  
  All of them are just obvious and not innovative at all (ipad/iphone design is just *popular*, nothing *new*, and there's no patent for "popular"), or critical to entering a market, like these FRAND patents.
  They aren't critical, and they aren't "obvious". Apple isn't claiming the rights to a slab with a screen. They are claiming the rights to a slab with a screen that looks like theirs. There are countless ways to design a slab with a screen, and Apple has theirs. They are only demanding that Samsung choose one of the others. Coke claims the right to the shape of their bottles. Apple claims the right to the design of their tablets. On what kind of bizarro world is this not rational?
  
  Apple saying now that they think its unfair because its a silly patent when they are King Of Suing For Silly Patents is just being hypocrite.
  Such as?
  
  I'd like to see how others compete with Apple if they can't produce stuff with rounded corners, horizontal picture scrolling, a grid of icons, etc... like Apple wants them to.
  Straw man overgeneralization. Apple isn't suing simply over "rounded corners, horizontal picture scrolling, a grid of icons". They are suing over specific implementations of these that are too similar to Apple's inventions.
51. Re:How dare they sue us! by node+3 · 2011-09-01 10:30 · Score: 1
  
  I've never seen a single picture frame that looks like an iPad.
  So you have never seen a picture frame in the shape of a rectangle that has either a black or a white border?
  I've seen plenty, and not a single one looked like an iPad.
  
  Were you out hunting a woolly mammoth when you fell into the icy water and only recently thawed yourself out?
  Funny you should say that, since I'm not the one acting like a caveman. "Ogg see shape like square, all square-like things the same!"
  There are countless ways to make a rectangular device like an iPad (or a picture frame). To think they are all the same is absurd. Look at all the smartphones. there are plenty of designs. Apple has theirs. Well, sort of. Right now Samsung seems to think they have it too. Which is what Apple is trying to block.
52. Re:How dare they sue us! by easyTree · 2011-09-01 10:45 · Score: 1
  
  "Waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa they make phones that look just like ours, have far better cameras and screens, faster processors, better operating systems, better and freer update mechanisms. Waaaaaaaaaa"
  
  --
  Requiem for the American Dream
53. Re:How dare they sue us! by CheerfulMacFanboy · 2011-09-01 10:53 · Score: 1
  
  Of all the recent lawsuits in "mobile space", Apple's is the only one I'm aware of where not only they have demanded to ban sales of their competitors' products (rather than merely asking for $$$), but have actually succeeded in that.
  Maybe because they are right? Nah, can't be it. Meanwhile the new Samsung Galaxy S II now sports a big hardware home button right below the screen. Which doesn't look like the iPhone 4's at all - more like that seen in the sketches based on rumored iPhone 5 cases.
  
  --
  Fandroids hate facts.
54. Re:How dare they sue us! by shutdown+-p+now · 2011-09-01 10:59 · Score: 2
  
  Besides, just look at the Galaxy Tab from the front. It looks almost exactly like an iPad.
  
  It looks like a black rectangle with rounded edges, filled with a touchscreen covered by a panel. This is exactly how all other Honeycomb tablets look - e.g. Xoom looks the same from the front, and so does Asus Transformer. The idea that such a look can be patentable is ridiculous on its face.
  For that matter, it quite obviously doesn't look "exactly like an iPad" because it doesn't have the signature hardware home button of the latter. Furthermore, the frontal camera is oriented such that it is centered when the laptop is held in landscape mode (as that is the "default" mode for Honeycomb tablets), whereas on iPad 2 frontal camera is oriented to be used in portrait mode.
  
  They are claiming the rights to a rectangular tablet with a certain, recognizable design.
  
  Can you pinpoint the design element that are part of iPad's "certain, recognizable design" other than "rectangular", "rounded edges", and "full glass cover in front"?
55. Re:How dare they sue us! by shutdown+-p+now · 2011-09-01 11:06 · Score: 1
  
  Meanwhile the new Samsung Galaxy S II now sports a big hardware home button right below the screen. Which doesn't look like the iPhone 4's at all
  I happen to own SGS2, and my previous phone was iPhone 4, so I dare say I have experience to compare - and yes, SGS2 looks nothing like an iPhone. The hardware home button is square, and there are capacitive touch LED-marked buttons for back and context menu to the left & right of it, which light up when the phone is operated. If anything, the layout actually most closely resembles WP7 phones, which also have three hardware buttons in a similar arrangement. The back of the phone is textured plastic, again nothing like iPhone's glass. The back is also not perfectly flat, with a bump near the lower edge. The bezel is not accented in any way, unlike iPhone's aluminum one - SGS2 is pure black all around.
  So the only actual physical semblance to iPhone is that it is rectangular (duh), black (duh), and has rounded edges (obvious ergonomic requirement for holding it for a long time without corners stabbing the hand). In fact, the software in this case - Samsung's TouchWiz - looks more like iPhone ("pinned" bottommost row of icons, tab switching in the browser) than the hardware.
56. Re:How dare they sue us! by symbolset · 2011-09-01 11:14 · Score: 1
  
  The Apple products are a copy of the Motorola wireless. They work just like the Motorola Wireless. That's not something you demand money for, that's something you outright ban.
  This is going to be fun. Here's a hint: the Motorola patents are not on "a rectangle". They're on important stuff.
  This is just the beginning. Microsoft has used Non Practicing Entities (NPEs) for this for years. Nokia, probably on Microsoft's suggestion, is doing the same. You can't sue an NPE back. They don't make products. But turnabout is fair play and Motorola Mobility has got what it takes to play this game.
  Motorola Mobility (MMI) could take a handful of patents, an executive, a lawyer and a dozen paralegals, and stand it up as a business unit and spin it off in an IPO, retaining only a minority interest and with a license back to the patents. Just like the Nokia NPE, they can make the patents revert to MMI in the event of a "change of control," like bankruptcy or hostile takeover. This mini-NPE could then file suit, borrow money against future court winnings and set to work pursuing injunctions of products from companies that suing them directly or standing up NPE sockpuppets to do so - like Apple, Microsoft, Nokia and Oracle. May as well throw HP in there too. The Street just loves these high-risk, high-reward IP pureplay instruments.
  And then they could do it again. And again. And on the second day they can do it again three times. They can turn it into a business model, and do it three times a day for a year. MMI has many thousands of very strong patents in hand to do this with. Because the mini-NPEs have differing ownership and different patents at issue the suits don't get joined and have to be defended separately. They can get their lawyers and such at bulk rates and set up a spinoff assembly line.
  The load on the courts goes logarithmic. Most mini-NPEs flameout and revert the patents at 0 cost to retry, but some few hit it big and get injunctions until there's no tech product left to ship, anywhere in the world. And none of them settle, ever.
  It's the IPocalypse. Mutually Assured Destruction. The end of tech as we know it.
  
  --
  Help stamp out iliturcy.
57. Re:How dare they sue us! by walshy007 · 2011-09-01 11:44 · Score: 1
  
  But it's not the *exact* ratio that makes the Tab look like an iPad. It's the black bezel, rounded rectangle with a metallic border.
  Now from an earlier post from you.
  
  Nerds here like to pretend like Apple is claiming the rights to "rectangular tablet". They aren't.
  So.. it should be protected because of the use of black/white/metal (probably the three most popular colours in electronics, btw) combined with *gasp* rounding the edges.... troll harder.
58. Re:How dare they sue us! by shutdown+-p+now · 2011-09-01 12:19 · Score: 1
  
  Maybe I'm colour blind, but the ASUS Transformer sitting on my desk looks decidedly brown. And has a keyboard and touchpad attached.
  
  I have one on my desk, too. However, Transformer is brown only when viewed from the back; I (and GP) were only talking about the front side; quote:
  
  Besides, just look at the Galaxy Tab from the front. It looks almost exactly like an iPad.
  
  From the front, Transformer is also black, with the entire front panel covered by glass. Just like Galaxy Tab, or iPad.
  As for Transformer keyboard/trackpad dock - it is a separate, detachable accessory, not part of the tablet itself (indeed, there are remotely similar ones for iPad also, though nothing as convenient).
59. Re:How dare they sue us! by rtb61 · 2011-09-01 12:30 · Score: 1
  
  Every TV looks pretty much the same, every desktop computer looks pretty much the same, every LCD screen looks pretty much the same, every notebook looks pretty much the same, and why shouldn't every tablet look the same. Ohh that's right because the Apple wanks compared drop resistant tablets (with corner protectors etc,) to basically a eReader.
  
  --
  Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
60. Re:How dare they sue us! by serviscope_minor · 2011-09-01 12:39 · Score: 1
  
  Seriously? You have picked a site called "OSX daily" for unbiased comments about Apple's design? They've picked all the wierd-ass tablet designs that they could find.
  How about the with the kayboard detached?
  What does it look like? Oh yeah. A featureless rectangle with a glass screen. And it predates the iPad. In other words Apple (and you) are full of it.
  
  --
  SJW n. One who posts facts.
61. Re:How dare they sue us! by serviscope_minor · 2011-09-01 12:50 · Score: 1
  
  What the hell is it with you people that insist that Apple must have done everything first, and cherry picking examples to prove your point. It's pathetic: just enjoy whatever devices you have but lose your misplaced sense of superiority. And really, son't expect "appleinsider" to give unbiased opinions.
  Now, here's the proof that they (and you) are full of it:
  A tablet PC looking like a thin featureless rectangle from 2005.
  A phone with nothing but a big touch screen and a single buton from 1992.
  So what that Samsung copied Apple? Apple copied HP/Compaq and IBM, so Apple have absoloutely no business complaining.
  
  --
  SJW n. One who posts facts.
62. Re:How dare they sue us! by E+IS+mC(Square) · 2011-09-01 14:33 · Score: 1
  
  If you look in the mirror, your arsehole would look like it has steve jobs' dick in yours arsehole. does that mean anything to you other than you being Apple's bitch?
63. Re:How dare they sue us! by mug+funky · 2011-09-01 14:58 · Score: 1
  
  "allegedly" copying the iPad.
  just like you're allegedly an Apple shill, and if you're not being paid for your comments, you're just a sad, fashion victim loser who thinks a multibillion dollar corporation is in dire need of his personal skills to defend them.
64. Re:How dare they sue us! by LynnwoodRooster · 2011-09-01 16:14 · Score: 1
  
  It's not like Samsung had a picture and media playing frame back in early 2006 that looks just like an iPad. Or more like a Samsung Galaxy Tab.
  
  --
  Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
65. Re:How dare they sue us! by LynnwoodRooster · 2011-09-01 16:20 · Score: 1
  
  I think that Samsung probably influenced the design of the iPad. Take a look at Samsung circa March 2006. Looks a lot like the iPad - flat, black, rounded corners, silver edges - and it plays media like pictures, movies and music. So it's more of a case of the Samsung Galaxy Tab building on earlier Samsung ID, and Apple copying Samsung.
  
  --
  Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
66. Re:How dare they sue us! by LynnwoodRooster · 2011-09-01 16:23 · Score: 1
  
  No, the Samsung Galaxy Tab looks exactly like a Samsung media player from March 2006. It's Apple that's clearly copying - flat, black front, rounded corners metal sides - clearly Apple was inspired by the Samsung product, given that it was out 3 years before the iPad, and a year before the iPhone...
  
  --
  Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
67. Re:How dare they sue us! by LynnwoodRooster · 2011-09-01 16:26 · Score: 1
  
  If a patent holder doesn't try to enforce it when they believe it's been infringed upon, they lose the ability to enforce it.
  
  Sorry, that's not true. If to do not enforce a copyright or trademark you can lose it, but patents are not that way; it is at the sole discretion of the patent holder whether or not to enforce their rights, and you can enforce them as you like - preferred for some, never for others different terms and conditions. And if you choose not to enforce them, then you do not lose your patent or any strength of enforcement for the future.
  
  --
  Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
68. Re:How dare they sue us! by lpq · 2011-09-01 18:45 · Score: 1
  
  As far as 'being part of the problem or the solution'...
  I saw some people on another forum (can't remember what it was, but I did post)... where they were harshing on google for NOT having bought into the patent-pool of MS-Apple-HP-SamSung..and whoever...
  This was in regards to them defending a lawsuit on the Android...that seems to be mostly (?) in open source code. Yet these other players are suing google to stop it's market penetration as they claim that 200-300 Android tablets don't begin to cover the extra 200-400 in license fees they'd have to tack sell a device as a member of the patent-pool club.
  Someone else said google was going to have to stop stealing other's IP and begin to pay up.....blah blah blah...
  (those dirty pirates)...(does this sound like the RIAA/MPAA/Movie shills shoving laws down N.Z and Australia so the US capitalists can continue to live on producing nothing?
  Not saying google is a saint, BUT they maybe aren't old school enough to have been bought off completely yet.
  It seemed by NOT buying into a the patent-protection racket that the other biggies were pushing, they were (perhaps inadvertently) being part of the solution.
  It's interesting .. the rise of IP. I suspect (though I haven't researched it well enough to say for sure, that as using humans as slaves as become less well regarded (in became illegal in law in the US, but not everywhere, and then came decades of game playing -- that still continues to this day where groups of people are systematically underpaid -- allowing that form of "capitalist profit" to still survive -- but it's getting alot harder with unions and all those pesky 'liberal'-ish worker rights laws....
  So...lets try to sell the idea that ideas are 'property' to be bought and
  sold! Producing physical products has always been a less than stellar way to easy street...but if you don't have to product a physical product and can get laws passed to recognize/acknowledge 'IP', then we can REALLY make money from nothin, and still continue to grow the disparity between 'working class' and those who don't have to work for a living.
  Just a new form of slavery ... as we work our lives for imaginary property!...(or so they are trying...)
69. Re:How dare they sue us! by gstrickler · 2011-09-01 19:40 · Score: 1
  
  No, you're incorrect. Laches can effectively nullify the enforceability of a patent in the US. It's not an automatic exemption defense, however, it is an affirmative defense that can have the effect of nullifying the enforceability in some circumstances. Therefore, a rights holder must defend all known infringement of either patents, copyrights, or trademarks in a timely fashion or risk losing the ability to enforce it against that infringer, as well as other infringers.
  In this case, waiting until the Samsung or Motorola products were well established in the marketplace would definitely increase the likelihood of a laches defense being allowed. Apple did have to take action to protect their interests in the patent.
  
  --
  make imaginary.friends COUNT=100 VISIBLE=false
70. Re:How dare they sue us! by KDR_11k · 2011-09-01 20:41 · Score: 1
  
  I'd be more understanding if the design Apple is trying to protect wasn't such a damn simple one. It's pretty much reduced to the bare essentials for functioning. Once you strip something down to that level the options for varying designs diminish.
  
  --
  Justice is the sheep getting arrested while an impartial judge declares the vote void.
71. Re:How dare they sue us! by justforgetme · 2011-09-01 22:38 · Score: 1
  
  ... "Ogg ...
  
  I welcome your inclination to free and open source media formats ;-)
  
  --
  -- no sig today
72. Re:How dare they sue us! by justforgetme · 2011-09-01 22:41 · Score: 1
  
  has anybody actually succeeded in patenting something as subjective as "design"?
  That's like say trying to patent computer code. Oh wait....
  
  --
  -- no sig today
73. Re:How dare they sue us! by justforgetme · 2011-09-01 22:47 · Score: 1
  
  and on the color thing it isn't even that absolute.
  SGS2 is totaly black when off
  iph4 is mostly black with an aluminium bezel
  galaxy tab has a metal finish back (at least the 10.1 ones that I saw)
  apple tab is completely black or completely white.
  And trying to compare the software is a bit like demanding for all leafs on a tree to be different.
  It is evolution, the better performing layout gets adopted. Full stop.
  
  --
  -- no sig today
74. Re:How dare they sue us! by justforgetme · 2011-09-01 22:51 · Score: 1
  
  here you go Samsung picture frame of 2006
  and quite fitting since apple obviously sourced the design of the first iphone (revealed a year after said appliance) on this.
  Die bad apple die! :-P
  
  --
  -- no sig today
75. Re:How dare they sue us! by Kristian+T. · 2011-09-02 00:26 · Score: 1
  
  It's like the good old cold war, with each side holding enough firepower to destroy the other 1000 times over. Now it seems like Apple went against the advice of game theory, thinking it could make a "limited war" against another. The real question is how many of the other "patent superpowers" will get engulfed in the ensuing patent armageddon... Samsung, Google, Intel, IBM
  
  --
  Run with the lemmings, and you'll get your feet wet.
76. Re:How dare they sue us! by adumonit · 2011-09-02 00:46 · Score: 1
  
  Not forgetting the trade mark on touchy when they issue a press statement
77. Re:How dare they sue us! by lsatenstein · 2011-09-02 01:10 · Score: 1
  
  As a consumer I love patents. It forces me to pay double the price to three times the price of the worth of the product. Imagine. Lawsuits, frivolous lawsuits because of mis-use of a product. I the manufacturer must warn the consumer to not keyboard for 16 hours per day. I have to be paying for a patent on the use of a for-loop or another programming construct.
  The Country is down the tubes, and you can see it with almost 9.1% unemployment. The lawyers and big corps own the government and hold the middle class and lower classes hostage.
  Sorry, I am a business man and my rambling about what I perceive is wrong. In Canada the small business man is cherished, because he creates local jobs. In the USA, it is only the Big guys that are cherished. A real problem of prestige for the USA as noone outside of the USA wants to hold USA$
  
  --
  Leslie Satenstein Montreal Quebec Canada
78. Re:How dare they sue us! by LynnwoodRooster · 2011-09-02 06:31 · Score: 1
  
  Nope. See section III of this informative document from FDML. Laches applied to patents may limit your ability to collect on previous infringements, but do not limit your ability for any and all actions and penalties from the filing of the suit and forward. At most, you may give up the right to enforce past infringements, but you still have the right to stop all current and future infringements.
  
  --
  Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
79. Re:How dare they sue us! by gstrickler · 2011-09-02 07:31 · Score: 1
  
  Keep reading to section III, B, 2, "The Wanlass Cases". The fact that the courts (indeed, the same court in the two cited cases) have ruled in a seemingly contradictory fashion when the patent holder did not even know about the infringement dictates that it's prudent for a patent holder to pursue all cases of potential or suspected infringement in a timely fashion or risk loss of protection from laches. It's obviously not nearly as clear cut as you imply, therefore, a patent holder must take prompt action to ensure continued enforceability. Bottom line, failure to actively pursue potential infringement can allow, and has in fact has allowed, laches to apply.
  
  --
  make imaginary.friends COUNT=100 VISIBLE=false
80. Re:How dare they sue us! by mcvos · 2011-09-02 10:58 · Score: 1
  
  If you believe that the (US) patent system is broken, work on changing it.
  I would, but the (US) copyright system is broken even worse and it's taking all of my efforts to try and get that one fixed first.
  How? The US election system is broken worst of all.
81. Re:How dare they sue us! by LynnwoodRooster · 2011-09-02 11:00 · Score: 1
  
  If you want to collect damages, you need to take action, and within a few years of your learning of the infringement; however, failing to take action in no way diminishes your future ability to sue for infringement and future damages - only those that have happened in the past. You don't lose the right to assert your patent in the future, but you do lose the ability to collect damages for past infringements.
  
  --
  Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
82. Re:How dare they sue us! by gstrickler · 2011-09-02 11:29 · Score: 1
  
  Actually, if you read the decisions, even taking action within a short time of your learning of the infringement may not be sufficient, if the court determines that you should have known ("constructive knowledge") about the infringement years earlier. It's more accurate to say you must take action within a reasonable timeframe after which you should have been aware of possible infringement.
  Which is completely consistent with what I said in the first post that you disagreed with. Quote from my first post If a patent holder doesn't try to enforce it when they believe it's been infringed upon, they [may] lose the ability to enforce it. The word "may" was omitted from my first post, and while that makes it more accurate, my initial statement is still valid without it. Losing the ability to collect past royalties IS losing the ability to enforce it (for some timeframe). The patent has a limited lifetime, and the technology it embodies may have an even more limited window of market value, therefore, losing the ability to collect past royalties can significantly decrease, or even eliminate the value of the patent. This is especially in a rapidly changing field such as the market for computers.
  
  --
  make imaginary.friends COUNT=100 VISIBLE=false
83. Re:How dare they sue us! by LynnwoodRooster · 2011-09-02 16:16 · Score: 1
  
  No, they don't lose the ability to enforce the patent. They may lose the ability to recoup damages for past infringements, but that in no way limits your ability to assert your patent in current and future actions. That is quite different from Trademarks where failure to assert can cost you loss of ability to assert in the future as well. There is NO loss or limitation of patent rights if you do not assert your rights; at most you may lose past infringement damages, but you will not lose any future rights.
  
  --
  Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
84. Re:How dare they sue us! by node+3 · 2011-09-02 16:44 · Score: 1
  
  It simply means you're still a jackass, nothing more.
85. Re:How dare they sue us! by gstrickler · 2011-09-02 18:01 · Score: 1
  
  You can argue semantics all you want, but losing the ability to collect past royalties (which on tech patents may very well be the majority of royalties) is effectively losing the ability to enforce the patent. How much you lose depends upon the specifics of each case. You can argue the point all you want, but losing the ability to collect royalties IS IN FACT losing the ability to enforce the patent for the infringed time & products, no matter how you try to spin it. You may not lose all royalties, but you can lose some, potentially most, and in extreme cases, essentially all. Spin that however you want, you've still lost the ability to collect some royalties, and that loss is permanent, even if it doesn't affect future royalties.
  If you can't collect royalties, and you didn't stop competitors from using your invention, what exactly is it you think you've enforced? When laches applies, you have lost the ability to enforce your IP rights against a specific company for a specific timeframe. Period, end of discussion.
  If someone were able to deny you your earnings for the past 6+ years, you would consider that a loss, even if they can't stop future earnings. The effect is still the same and you would still be very upset about the loss. It's a permanent loss of the ability to collect, and any attempt to spin it another way is semantic gamesmanship.
  
  --
  make imaginary.friends COUNT=100 VISIBLE=false
86. Re:How dare they sue us! by Coren22 · 2011-09-06 05:31 · Score: 1
  
  Did you look at the link? The Padd from Star Trek and the unnamed tablets from 2001 a space odyssey looked exactly like the iPad. There were also many tablets that ran Windows that were the same shape, just thicker due to constraints of the hardware.
  
  --
  APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
World Class Hypocrisy by Anonymous Coward · 2011-09-01 03:46 · Score: 5, Insightful

So when Apple sues its competitors with overly broad patents it's "protecting its innovations"
When the targets of Apple's anti-competitive lawsuits counter-sue Apple cries "anti-competitive" monopoly.
Apple gets more evil every day.
1. Re:World Class Hypocrisy by Culture20 · 2011-09-01 04:15 · Score: 3, Funny
  
  Steve Jobs wouldn't have allowed this to happen. I blame Tim.
2. Re:World Class Hypocrisy by Joce640k · 2011-09-01 04:27 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  Here's Steve Jobs explaining his point of view on design
  
  --
  No sig today...
3. Re:World Class Hypocrisy by phantomfive · 2011-09-01 04:42 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  Apple (lawyers) are saying (lawyers don't actually get irate as long as they get paid and the court time lasts longer and longer) that the patents were part of a standard. That Motorola et al purposely made their patents part of a standard, and are now using them to extort concessions out of Apple. This is unfair, because there is no way to work around the patents: you can't use a GSM network without using Motorola patents. So when the standard was made, all players agreed to license their patents for a reasonable cost.
  
  This is different than the Apple patents, which theoretically can be worked around. Apple doesn't even want to license them, they want to prevent competitors from using the stuff they invented. Other people should go invent their own stuff. And legally, patents give them that right. It's great, isn't it? (sarcasm) But not hypocritical, unless you have no understanding of the issue.
  
  --
  "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
4. Re:World Class Hypocrisy by phantomfive · 2011-09-01 04:44 · Score: 1
  
  This isn't actually a surprise, if you watch the keynote where the iphone was introduced, about 3/4 of the way through, Jobs says, "We've patented this." The meaning was clear, that they intended to protect their product in court.
  
  The surprising thing is that it took them so long to bring a lawsuit against Android.
  
  --
  "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
5. Re:World Class Hypocrisy by geekoid · 2011-09-01 04:48 · Score: 1
  
  Maybe the judge will agree with Apple and abolish all the patents.
  heh.
  
  --
  The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
6. Re:World Class Hypocrisy by DJRumpy · 2011-09-01 05:18 · Score: 1
  
  You folks do realize what a F/RAND patent is, yes? This is what is considered an essential patent in order to compete in an industry. For a phone for instance, it may be something like the underlying cellular technology used to allow the device to communicate with a cell tower.
  The spat with Apple and Samsung/Motorola has to do with the fact that both of those companies have attempted to leverage F/RAND patents as a means to totally prevent competition. Legal bickering about non-essential patents happens across the board in every company in the tech industry, but this is a far more basic (and vile) practice of which they are being accused.
  This special class of patents involves industry standards, and leveraging such to keep any other competitor out of a market should never be tolerated regardless of who the company is that's doing this (in this case, Motorola and Samsung stand accused).
  From TFA:
  
  "Samsung's contention that Apple has failed to allege valid antitrust and related counterclaims is particularly remarkable given its own extensive history of asserting worldwide that similar standard-setting abuses violate antitrust and related laws. For example, Samsung argued to the Federal Trade Commission that another company’s (Rambus) failure 'to disclose its patent rights” and “other misleading conduct” led an SSO to standardize its technologies and convey monopoly power, and that Rambus should be barred from enforcing its patent rights as a result of its “antitrust violations.”1 In related private litigation, Samsung alleged that Rambus’s subversion of the standard-setting process violated the California Unfair Competition Law (UCL) because it 'violat[ed]' 'federal and state antitrust laws.' Similarly, in a complaint in the United Kingdom, Samsung alleged that Ericsson violated both Articles 81 and 82 of the EC Treaty – the EU analogues to Sections 1 and 2 of the Sherman Act – by failing to fulfill its promises to the European Telecommunications Standards Institute ('ETSI'), the standards body significantly responsible for the promulgation of the UMTS standard, to license on FRAND terms patents it claimed were essential to UMTS. Again, in a complaint against InterDigital, Samsung alleged that '[w]ithout certain rules,' SSOs 'would be illegal trusts,' and '[t]o prevent patent owners from imposing monopolistic royalties,” SSOs “condition the standardization of proprietary technology upon the patent owner’s promise to make the technology available to the public . . . on [FRAND] terms.'"
7. Re:World Class Hypocrisy by E+IS+mC(Square) · 2011-09-01 06:04 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  So wait - Motoroal who invented something which is integral part of a mobile phone should not ask for any return on that from Apple and Apple should use such core technology for free, but Apple can charge anybody for rectangles and others should bend over and pay them???
  And also, Apple's lawyers do all this without Apple's wish?
  *head explodes*
8. Re:World Class Hypocrisy by Anonymous Coward · 2011-09-01 06:05 · Score: 1
  
  A patent is a patent, Motorola's and Samsung's patents are US patents and filed in the US just like Apple's patents are US patents are file in the US.
  The only distinction is that Motorola and Samsung agreed not to sue others over the use of their patents, though it's a gentlemen's agreement between companies and I believe the underlying understanding is that you don't sue us and we won't sue you. Guess what, Apple broke the agreement and that gives Motorola and Samsung free reign to do what they want with their patents.
9. Re:World Class Hypocrisy by Anonymous Coward · 2011-09-01 06:09 · Score: 1
  
  Nobody said Apple had to use GSM, CDMA, or whatever in its designs. They could have developed their own wireless standard, or partnered with Clear for WiMAX, or some other such nonsense. Now of course that would make no business sense but they could have done it. Patents are patents and lawsuits are lawsuits.
  Not only is Apple being hypocritical, they're even worse because their patents cover obvious things that which are, arguably, good designs, but could have been done by anyone with some Autodesk products and time on their hands. Apple not wanting to license their patents is yet another issue. Motorola obviously licensed Apple to use GSM at one point, and Apple obviously was ok with the price and has profited greatly from the use of that patent. Now they're saying nobody else can make a phone or tablet that looks even remotely close to their design? A design which while certainly svelte is by no means original and possibly one of only a few configurations that will work with human physiology? Why don't you just sign your post "- Tim Cook. Dictated but not read." because that's how I read it.
10. Re:World Class Hypocrisy by DJRumpy · 2011-09-01 06:09 · Score: 1
  
  No, it does count for something but they shouldn't be leveraged in a way that would flat out lock someone out from competing. This is a different class of patents that can completely block someone from entering a market (critical design element).
  Legal wrangling aside between all of these companies, they always settle or cross license, but RAND patents shouldn't be used to extort those kind of cross licensing deals. They are supposed to be offered equitably to any interested party who pays the same price for them as any other potential competetor.
  In this case, Apple is accusing Samsung and Motorola of doing exactly that (requiring different pricing or deals in order to enter the market which they hold unavoidable patents on since those patents are used as part of the 'standard' for that market.
11. Re:World Class Hypocrisy by Shadow99_1 · 2011-09-01 06:14 · Score: 1
  
  Well first it's 6 of 18 patents Motorola is using...
  & second Motorola probably wouldn't have including their wireless network patent if Apple weren't being jackasses about everything. But they are, so why not use patents Apple has to use?
  
  --
  we are all invisible unless we choose otherwise
12. Re:World Class Hypocrisy by Anonymous Coward · 2011-09-01 06:23 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  Most F/RAND patent licenses include retaliation clauses. A patent retaliation clause allows a company who is being sued over patent infringement to revoke licenses to its IP. I don't know about you, but generally when I sign a piece of paper I look at it what it says and think before I act because it may cost me.
  Not only that, Apple seems to think they own rectangular device with an LCD touchscreen. Most of these Apple patents shouldn't even be valid. They "Just want" their competitors not to make phones with touch screens or process phone numbers to link them directly to the call function, or use an "Object oriented messaging system". Take your pick, most of these patents are crap.
13. Re:World Class Hypocrisy by Fahrvergnuugen · 2011-09-01 06:26 · Score: 1
  
  If you read the article you would understand that they are suing because Motorola is trying to extort Apple for more money than they normally license these patents that are part of F/RAND.
  In the case of Samsung, they are being sued because they are a bunch of copy cats. You can't argue that they have blatantly ripped off Apple in every way possible, right down to the boxes their devices are packaged and sold in. Just look at this.
  
  --
  Kiteboarding Gear Mention slashdot and get 10% off!
14. Re:World Class Hypocrisy by gstrickler · 2011-09-01 06:45 · Score: 2
  
  No, Motorola and Samsung should be paid for their patents that are part of the GSM (and other essential wireless standards), no one has claimed they shouldn't be. What they aren't allowed to do is use those patents to coerce/extort Apple or others into granting rights to non-essential patents (those which aren't part of a standard required for compatibility or interoperability) held by the other party. Patents which are part of an essential standard must be licensed under terms that are fair, reasonable, and non-discriminatory (F/RAND), it's a choice you commit to when you submit your patented technology for inclusion in an an industry standard. If you won't want to offer F/RAND terms, don't submit your patents for inclusion in a standard. Demanding cross licensing of non-essential patents that you want to use (rather than work around) is not F/RAND. F/RAND says that anyone can license and use the patents by paying the established licensing fee. Withholding F/RAND licensing for essential patents has been found to be anti-competitive, discriminatory, and in violation of US and EU antitrust regulations.
  
  --
  make imaginary.friends COUNT=100 VISIBLE=false
15. Re:World Class Hypocrisy by gstrickler · 2011-09-01 06:49 · Score: 2
  
  Wrong, GSM and CDMA are government mandated standards, their use is required to distribute cell phones in various countries. All of the patents required to implement GSM and CDMA must be offered for license under F/RAND terms because of their inclusion in these "essential standards".
  
  --
  make imaginary.friends COUNT=100 VISIBLE=false
16. Re:World Class Hypocrisy by Vegemeister · 2011-09-01 06:57 · Score: 1
  
  I think 'don't sue me' is a reasonable and non-discriminatory term in a license agreement.
17. Re:World Class Hypocrisy by ZombieBraintrust · 2011-09-01 07:00 · Score: 1
  
  It was also a gentlemens agreement between the companies involved with the standard. It is not even an agreement they made with Apple. Apple is upset that they didn't extend the agreement to them.
18. Re:World Class Hypocrisy by Scragglykat · 2011-09-01 07:29 · Score: 1
  
  And yet the use of rectangular devices with black trim and screens is something that you agree should be blocked for use by anyone but Apple? Seems that's pretty anti-competitive as well. I guess everyone else could still make triangular devices with white trim... wait, I bet Apple owns white too.
19. Re:World Class Hypocrisy by Scragglykat · 2011-09-01 07:32 · Score: 4, Funny
  
  Maybe they'd be interested in trading their wireless radio technology for Apple's rectangle technology.
20. Re:World Class Hypocrisy by DJRumpy · 2011-09-01 08:04 · Score: 1
  
  No, I said no such thing. I could care less about legal wrangling about basic design accusations. The courts can decide those merits.
  If you want a good idea of the far reaching effects of messing around with this class of patent, Google Rambus.
  Sitting here cheering this sort activity on this type of patent is shortsighted at best. This type of patent is the very basis of encouraging open standards and a level playing field for all competitors, including folks like Google and their entry into the smartphone market.
21. Re:World Class Hypocrisy by darkonc · 2011-09-01 08:15 · Score: 1
  
  The patents were almost certainly under RAND (Reasonable And Non Discriminatory) conditions, which would have almost certainly included an "As long as you don't sue us" clause. Apple signed onto that agreement -- even though they could have paid more for am unconditional license or used a different protocol. Then apple went ahead and sued Motorola.
  It's apple who started a gunfight with a really really sharp knife -- and now they're complaining that their intended victim actually has a gun. I don't feel sorry for them.
  Furthermore, Apple is lining up it's (slimy) software patents against Motorola's hardware patents. The FOSS community doesn't really have much complaint against hardware patents... It's software patents that are seriously pissing in our soup.
  
  --
  Sometimes boldness is in fashion. Sometimes only the brave will be bold.
22. Re:World Class Hypocrisy by F.Ultra · 2011-09-01 08:31 · Score: 1
  
  Well such is the bitch that is called patents. This is nothing new, Intel forces their patent license with HDMI. The MPEG consortium does the same, Blu-Ray does it etc etc. This is the industry standard practice that companies like Apple signed on to when they said that they liked the patent system.
23. Re:World Class Hypocrisy by Isaac+Remuant · 2011-09-01 09:10 · Score: 1
  
  That's a great documentary. Specially the part where he goes to Xerox labs and is allowed to look at all their development (they even had GUIs) because the execs in charge are too dumb to listen to their employees.
  
  --
  "Science can amuse and fascinate us all, but it is engineering that changes the world. " - Asimov.
24. Re:World Class Hypocrisy by Isaac+Remuant · 2011-09-01 09:16 · Score: 1
  
  Thanks for that comment. You made my day. :)
  
  --
  "Science can amuse and fascinate us all, but it is engineering that changes the world. " - Asimov.
25. Re:World Class Hypocrisy by Superken7 · 2011-09-01 09:55 · Score: 1
  
  Yeah, so just because FRAND technology is so important they get the right to get away with it? Last time I checked, the wicked patent system existed to prevent just that. Apple could just license it and use it, but no, they want to use it for free and complain that they are getting sued when they themselves are suing for stupid patents.
  I say it serves them well. If they want to play the Patents Game, the rules apply equally to all of them.
  Apple reminds me to those kids that would make up their own rules on the fly just so they would not lose. Bad losers, except they are drowning in cash, which makes them just evil and hypocrites.
26. Re:World Class Hypocrisy by AdamWill · 2011-09-01 10:11 · Score: 1
  
  I don't see anyone cheering on Samsung, exactly. I see people laughing at Apple's blatant hypocrisy. There's a difference.
27. Re:World Class Hypocrisy by Bob9113 · 2011-09-01 11:37 · Score: 1
  
  This is different than the Apple patents, which theoretically can be worked around.
  Yes -- I've been thinking about developing a tablet computer with a triangular screen...
  
  --
  Stop-Prism.org: Opt Out of Surveillance
28. Re:World Class Hypocrisy by mjwx · 2011-09-01 13:51 · Score: 1
  
  So when Apple sues its competitors with overly broad patents it's "protecting its innovations"
  When the targets of Apple's anti-competitive lawsuits counter-sue Apple cries "anti-competitive" monopoly.
  Apple gets more evil every day.
  Yep, Apple started the patent war, now they find their abilty to fight it is lacking.
  
  Well you get what you deserve, sow the wind, reap the whirlwind.
  
  Or for a more Australian phrase, suffer in you jocks.
  
  --
  Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
29. Re:World Class Hypocrisy by gstrickler · 2011-09-01 14:25 · Score: 1
  
  No, because they VOLUNTARILY submitted their patented technology to be an essential part of the standard (and thus guaranteed themselves royalties from ALL competitors using that standard), they agreed to F/RAND licensing, part of which means they can't use those patents in disputes over non-essential technologies because doing so is discriminatory licensing, thus violating the Non-Discriminatory part of F/RAND. Samsung and Motorola both know this as they have both made the EXACT SAME argument Apple is making in prior cases where Moto/Samsung were the plaintiffs.
  
  --
  make imaginary.friends COUNT=100 VISIBLE=false
30. Re:World Class Hypocrisy by gstrickler · 2011-09-01 14:27 · Score: 1
  
  That's something to be decided as the facts of the case and/or settled out of court. It has nothing to do with the issue at hand.
  
  --
  make imaginary.friends COUNT=100 VISIBLE=false
31. Re:World Class Hypocrisy by LynnwoodRooster · 2011-09-01 16:29 · Score: 1
  
  Apple (lawyers) are saying (lawyers don't actually get irate as long as they get paid and the court time lasts longer and longer) that the patents were part of a standard. That Motorola et al purposely made their patents part of a standard, and are now using them to extort concessions out of Apple. This is unfair, because there is no way to work around the patents: you can't use a GSM network without using Motorola patents. So when the standard was made, all players agreed to license their patents for a reasonable cost.
  That sounds suspiciously like something Apple is doing with HTML5 and the W3C standards. Maybe Apple is literally getting a taste of their medicine?
  
  --
  Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
32. Re:World Class Hypocrisy by phantomfive · 2011-09-01 16:36 · Score: 1
  
  It seems similar, but it's different. Apple is willing to pay money to license patents that are necessary to meet standards, they just aren't willing to pay an unusual amount. They were/are paying for the Motorola patents already.
  
  --
  "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
33. Re:World Class Hypocrisy by sonicmerlin · 2011-09-01 19:00 · Score: 1
  
  Really? Because I've seen that joke used at least 1000 times on forums EVERYWHERE in just the last few weeks.
34. Re:World Class Hypocrisy by stupid_is · 2011-09-01 21:10 · Score: 1
  
  So when Motorola/Samsung/Nokia/... each spend $Millions researching stuff to stick in the aforementioned patents, under the understanding that they can all cross-license at a reasonable cost (i.e. share the pool, probably at an overall expense of near $0), it is unreasonable to then charge more to a new entrant who has contributed nothing to the standards (and who has more cash than the US govmt)?
  
  --
  -- Intelligence is soluble in alcohol
35. Re:World Class Hypocrisy by CheerfulMacFanboy · 2011-09-02 06:03 · Score: 1
  
  http://news.techwhack.com/3150-samsung-asian-mobile-manufacturers/
  
  --
  Fandroids hate facts.
36. Re:World Class Hypocrisy by CheerfulMacFanboy · 2011-09-02 07:44 · Score: 1
  
  A more reasonable comparison: http://i.imgur.com/NbDRW.jpg
  So how many of the "after-the-iPad-tablets that don't look like the iPad" were made by Samsung? Yup, exactly - none. So you obviously don't have to copy the iPad. Thanks for pointing that out.
  
  --
  Fandroids hate facts.
37. Re:World Class Hypocrisy by Isaac+Remuant · 2011-09-03 08:06 · Score: 1
  
  Yeah, well. I've been pretty busy to hand around on teh forums lately so this litte bit of "spam joke" came as a surprise
  
  --
  "Science can amuse and fascinate us all, but it is engineering that changes the world. " - Asimov.
For Chrissakes by MightyMartian · 2011-09-01 03:47 · Score: 4, Insightful

Look, you pack of fucking navel-gazing fucktards. Put down the fucking guns, agree to pool your resources to buy sufficient hookers and Caribbean vacations for Congresscritters to have the existing patent system tossed out the door. We get it that you all sort of started out accruing vast numbers of patents, some good, some bad, some absolutely fucking moronic, in no small part to fend off attacks from each other and from evil little patent trolls, but look at how it's complicating your lives. You couldn't roll out a steaming turd without someone somewhere trying to claim you infringed on a patent they own.
Apple, you're now one of the biggest companies around. If anyone can afford the required number of prostitutes, golf club memberships, or whatever it is those corrupted evil bastards in Congress have an appetite for. Google, come on, you could help out here, same with Samsung. Then you can, you know, compete on the quality of your products, rather than trying to stuff newspaper down each others throats in what can only be described as the bonfire of the idiots.

--
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
1. Re:For Chrissakes by arisvega · 2011-09-01 04:02 · Score: 1
  
  If anyone can afford the required number of prostitutes, golf club memberships, ..
  Sure Apple can do that- but so can Microsoft
  
  --
  The three laws of thermodynamics:(1) You can't win. (2) You can't break even. (3) You can't even quit.
2. Re:For Chrissakes by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · 2011-09-01 04:04 · Score: 1
  
  Given Apple's recent litigation history, which seems to have kicked the spat off, they would appear to want to have their cake and eat it too. They went and attempted to have Samsung's products kicked out of Europe for being too damn rectangular, and are somehow surprised that people with patents on actual technology are fighting back?
3. Re:For Chrissakes by MightyMartian · 2011-09-01 04:07 · Score: 1
  
  So the real solution here is to make hypocrisy a capital offense.
  
  --
  The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
4. Re:For Chrissakes by SiChemist · 2011-09-01 04:16 · Score: 2
  
  Florian Mueller is not a patent lawyer. From the wikipeida entry:
  "He blogs frequently about patent issues and gives legal advice, despite having no formal legal training."
  So, appeals to his authority are suspect at best.
  
  --
  God is imaginary
5. Re:For Chrissakes by h4rr4r · 2011-09-01 04:16 · Score: 1
  
  Since when is Florian a patent lawyer?
  He is a professional troll, nothing more.
  Is apple part of the body that defined those standards, is that group still open for new members?
  F/RAND agreements often don't apply to the public, or in a more limited matter. This are contracts not matters of law.
6. Re:For Chrissakes by stating_the_obvious · 2011-09-01 04:32 · Score: 2, Interesting
  
  I don't think you understand Apple's business model. They're entire growth strategy is based on novel innovation and a locking up of supply chains to keep them 1-2 years ahead of product offerings from competing companies.
  
  The expectation of backlash suits was likely expected as less innovative companies scan their patent portfolios in a desperate attempt to limit the innovation gap between their company and Apple. You can only lose a patent argument a few times before the patent becomes toothless against precedent.The current end game from litigation is that Apple will likely win more battles than they lose and Apple will stay 1-2 years ahead of competing product offerings. The current end game for the industry overall isn't yet known -- either other companies will replicate Apple's mix of innovation and supply chain control and compete against Apple, or they'll settle to be 2nd tier technology companies.
  
  You're "real manufacturer" comment is off the mark. Apple uses it's war chest of cash to finance the build out of supply chain fab plants in return for first choice / monopoly supply. the "real manufacturers" you're referring to (I assume Taiwanese ODMs) can't get the parts to replicate.
  
  Either way, geeks who love new toys win -- so long as you're not an apple hater.
7. Re:For Chrissakes by phantomfive · 2011-09-01 04:34 · Score: 1
  
  Really? You're asking Apple to help get rid of patents? There is no tech company I know of that likes patents more.
  
  --
  "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
8. Re:For Chrissakes by h4rr4r · 2011-09-01 04:36 · Score: 1
  
  1 or 2 years ahead?
  So then why did they not have copy paste until after android?
  You are a nut.
9. Re:For Chrissakes by ArhcAngel · 2011-09-01 04:37 · Score: 1
  
  You say that like it's a bad thing...
  
  --
  "A person is smart. People are dumb, panicky dangerous animals and you know it." - K
10. Re:For Chrissakes by X.25 · 2011-09-01 04:46 · Score: 2
  
  The expectation of backlash suits was likely expected as less innovative companies scan their patent portfolios in a desperate attempt to limit the innovation gap between their company and Apple.
  So, creating easy-to-use UI is "innovation", and Motorola (and probably others) is one of "less innovative companies"?
  You are a retard.
11. Re:For Chrissakes by erroneus · 2011-09-01 04:47 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  Apple's "bigness" is pending their continued popularity. The moment they cease to be popular, they will implode. They are not diversified enough to sustain itself as the market changes. Given that they base themselves exclusively on the consumer market, there may never be such a thing as "critical mass" in any of Apple's market places.
  Critical mass is crucial to successful staying power. As it is, nothing that Apple offers is "necessary" and the cost of moving away from Apple at any point in time is trivial. Let's make the argument that Apple's iDevice apps have created something that resembles critical mass which I am sure many people would try to argue. Let's look at the money that users actually put into the software. $2 here, $5 there... $25? Unheard of for the most part. The numerous apps attract consumers to buy the iDevices, but the sunk costs aren't quite high enough to keep people married to them.
  Now if we were talking about serious enterprise investments, even those nickel-and-dime expenses could equal something big, but Apple doesn't market to the enterprise and I have yet to see an iPhone deployment in a business that resembles deployments like blackberry. The same goes for Apple computers. I recall one jerk who used Apple itself as an Apple enterprise deployment. Dear god... that simply does not qualify.
  Apple, I believe, has strategically limited itself so that it does not fall under various antitrust and other law/rules so that it can continue its "style" of business/abuse.
12. Re:For Chrissakes by UnknowingFool · 2011-09-01 05:05 · Score: 1
  
  If you didn't read carefully the poster was referring to manufacturing and parts not software. For instance there were rumors that Apple controlled 60% of the 10" tablet screen market which would make sense seeing how few Android tablets used 10" screens until recently. While other manufacturers can get parts, they are likely to be more expensive and/or limited in quantity because Apple locked up their supply a year before them. This also applies to things like flash memory where Apple has long term contracts. Before you complain about how unfair this practice might be, realize any other company can do this if they are willing to do so. Few have.
  
  --
  Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
13. Re:For Chrissakes by UnknowingFool · 2011-09-01 05:12 · Score: 1
  
  That was one of the issues with Nokia. Apple wasn't part if the GSM group so Nokia felt they should be charged more. Also normally there is some cross-licensing involved but Apple didn't have a lot of phone type patents so Nokia asked for Apple's other patents on things like multi-touch to which Apple objected. That's how I understood it; my sources could have been wrong.
  
  --
  Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
14. Re:For Chrissakes by stating_the_obvious · 2011-09-01 05:26 · Score: 1
  
  I never said Apple invented that business model, I said they followed that model -- and that their huge capital cushion allows them to be very good at that model. Also, you really should look at modern manufacturing supply chains for laptops, smartphones, and tablets. Original Design Manufacturers (Quanta, HTC, etc.) do the majority of manufacturing based on designs developed solely by branded technology companies (OEM model) or through partnership design (ODM model). In either case, those designs are dependent on component suppliers, and Apple has been very good as locking up the component suppliers through a mix of contracts and investments. All that is one half of how Apple stays ahead.
  
  The other half of the way Apple stays ahead is aggressively defending it's look and feel and UI patents. Whether you or I think that patent system is good or bad doesn't matter. It exists in it's current form and Apple (and all others) make the best of it they can.
15. Re:For Chrissakes by Belial6 · 2011-09-01 05:32 · Score: 1
  
  So, the "Innovative" Apple is expecting to be sued by "less innovative" companies over patents on technology that the "less innovative" company came up with first?
  
  That makes no sense at all.
16. Re:For Chrissakes by stating_the_obvious · 2011-09-01 05:38 · Score: 1
  
  Seriously, you're calling me a retard? On behalf of retards everywhere, thank you.
  
  There is a fundamental difference between innovation and invention that I'm not sure you're considering. Invention is the creation of a new idea, concept, or technology. Innovation is the viable application of novel and existing technology.
  
  So, Apple is good at innovation and their development of a unique smartphone interface that (as one example) removes the file system as the dominant form of information organization and access pretty much defines innovation. Since the current patent system allows it, Apple patents innovations and then defends them.
  
  I didn't imply that Motorola isn't inventive, but they haven't shown real innovation since the RAZR line. There are plenty of innovations and inventions occurring all over the place, and if Apple uses one without licensing, they should pay. But back to the original point of this posting, using patents that have become toothless as part of the development of standards isn't patent defense based on innovation or invention, it's grasping at straws.
17. Re:For Chrissakes by i_b_don · 2011-09-01 05:38 · Score: 1
  
  maybe not a capital offense, but if it were a crime, life in this country would be so much better.
  d
  
  --
  all language nazi's will burne in heil!
18. Re:For Chrissakes by Sunshinerat · 2011-09-01 05:45 · Score: 1
  
  Excellent point. Without their enterprise stronghold, Blackberry would be truly irrelevant today.
  The question is though, who will take the flag from Blackberry and create a framework that enterprises want to embrace (focus on cost, security, deployability and control).
  I believe Android or Microsoft/Nokia are the only two who could have a chance at doing so, especially since Apple does not show any interest in this area (corporate phones on corporate plans are typically locked down from spending corporate money on nonsense apps).
  
  --
  Load New Commander (Y/N)?
19. Re:For Chrissakes by stating_the_obvious · 2011-09-01 05:56 · Score: 1
  
  Yes, see my comment above on the difference between innovation and invention. If Motorola or anyone else has a claim to Apple's use of patented inventions they should pursue them, but it's not OK to try to invalidate a patent by using other patents that became unenforceable when they were contributed to the establishment of standards.
  
  As surprising at it may sound, Motorola can defend an invention while Apple defends an innovation that may use the underlying invention from Motorola. If that's the case, Apple would need to license the invention from Motorola, or have confidence that the underlying patent on the invention is unenforceable.
20. Re:For Chrissakes by stating_the_obvious · 2011-09-01 06:16 · Score: 1
  
  Invention is the creation of a new idea, concept, or technology. Innovation is the viable application of novel and existing technology. Many people use the two terms as if they're synonymous, but in fact they are very different things. I explicitly used the term "less innovative", and not "less inventive". I agree that Motorola is very inventive, but they haven't been innovative since the RAZR. I know less about Samsung, but I'll take your word for it that they're both innovative and inventive. That doesn't change the fact that Apple is innovative, and it defends it's innovations.
21. Re:For Chrissakes by Amtrak · 2011-09-01 07:19 · Score: 1
  
  Yeah a real solution.
22. Re:For Chrissakes by bws111 · 2011-09-01 07:38 · Score: 1
  
  It's kind of cute how you try to make it sound like Motorola woke up one day and said 'let's screw with Apple'. Did you miss the whole part about how Apple started this by suing (attempting to crush, in your words) Motorola for daring to compete in 'their' market?
  Did you ever hear the phrase 'don't bite the hand that feeds you'? Apparently Apple did not.
23. Re:For Chrissakes by shutdown+-p+now · 2011-09-01 09:09 · Score: 1
  
  unique smartphone interface that (as one example) removes the file system as the dominant form of information organization
  Indeed. I so love all those 5-star-rated "File Manager" apps in iOS App Store, which try to badly emulate a proper file system within the constraints of iOS app sandbox, with numerous comments from users like "I couldn't live without this awesome app". It's so refreshingly innovative.
24. Re:For Chrissakes by sonicmerlin · 2011-09-01 19:03 · Score: 1
  
  Yep, you've hit the nail on the hard. An old quote of Steve Jobs has him pointing out that in the PC industry, with so many competitors that all have so much experience, it's impossible to get a product out that's twice as good as a competitor's. And even if you manage 1 and a half as good, competitors will have something out just as good in six months. So Apple's strategy to stay ahead is to literally monopolize the supply chain of new and innovative technology by including it into their most popular products. It's genius, really, and it requires a huge amount of foresight to determine what technologies and products will end up being popular.
25. Re:For Chrissakes by justforgetme · 2011-09-01 23:30 · Score: 1
  
  Is capital offense the one where you get de-capita-ted?
  Then count me in!
  (goes away to sharpen axe....)
  
  --
  -- no sig today
26. Re:For Chrissakes by CheerfulMacFanboy · 2011-09-02 07:50 · Score: 1
  
  Given Apple's recent litigation history, which seems to have kicked the spat off
  http://news.techwhack.com/3150-samsung-asian-mobile-manufacturers/
  South Korea based tech giants Samsung has revealed that they are considering filing lawsuits against a couple of mobile phone makers based in Taiwan, mainland China and Hong Kong. They claim that these companies copied its products and breached its patents.
  However, the interesting point to note here is that Samsung itself has copied several popular models of Nokia and Motorola in the past couple of years.
  
  --
  Fandroids hate facts.
27. Re:For Chrissakes by CheerfulMacFanboy · 2011-09-02 08:36 · Score: 1
  
  1 or 2 years ahead? So then why did they not have copy paste until after android? You are a nut.
  First note that for many things you "need" copy'n'paste for, you didn't need it on iPhone from the beginning.
  But to answer your question: Maybe because they wanted to get it right - IOW unlike Android.
  http://androidcommunity.com/forums/f29/how-do-you-copy-paste-text-from-the-gmail-app-5522/
  
  How do you copy/paste text from the Gmail app?
  U can only copy/paste from text fields. I think gmail is like the browser in the sense that it seems to render like a big image hence u can't copy and paste from it. If an email app does not come out with copy and paste then the g1 will never go big with busiiness users.
  http://code.google.com/p/android/issues/detail?id=3190
  
  Issue 3190: Improve copy-paste in Browser/WebView
  The iPhone ad is what prompted me to submit this ticket. I love nothing more than showing off my G1 to shush some over hyping iPhone user. Simple things like "yeah I can send picture messages" or "does your phone have a metal detector too" hahaha. But I can stand having any iphone user best us with their nifty copy paste abilities.
  Yes, copy/paste must be at least as functional as iPhone and be available anywhere there is text. Even Windows Mobile 6.1 on my Motorola Q9m was much better.
  Do you want me to go on, or would that be nuts too?
  
  --
  Fandroids hate facts.
Pot, meet Kettle by Kagetsuki · 2011-09-01 03:48 · Score: 5, Insightful

Remember that little kid that hit the other kids, but as soon as another kid hit back he'd start crying? Apple is now that kid.
1. Re:Pot, meet Kettle by NecroPuppy · 2011-09-01 04:08 · Score: 1
  
  And Florian Mueller is the parent of that kid, attempting to defend their precious little snowflake, through misinterpretation and obfuscation.
  
  --
  I like you, Stuart. You're not like everyone else, here, at Slashdot.
2. Re:Pot, meet Kettle by MrHanky · 2011-09-01 04:26 · Score: 1
  
  Sounds like one of those weird SF stories in which someone travels back in time, fucks their grandmother and alters history completely.
Coincidense? by Mensa+Babe · 2011-09-01 03:48 · Score: 5, Insightful
1. 1. Apple frivolously sue companies using Google's software using its bogus patents for rectangles.
2. 2. Google buys Motorola to use its patent portfolio defensively to protect themselves against such companies like Apple.
3. 3. Apple attacks Motorola who used to be so great in the past (Apple would never use the inferiour intel CPUs, right?) and now it is Motorola that is being a problem with their patents?! Make up your mind, Apple. Make up your mind.
--
Karma: Positive (probably because of superiour intellect)
1. Re:Coincidense? by dave562 · 2011-09-01 04:12 · Score: 1
  
  Here we go again. Perfectly insightful and on point analysis of Apple gets modded down. I sure hope this ends up in meta-moderation and someone fixes this abuse of the system. Or barring that, hopefully enough people reply to this with posts that are then modded up to keep it part of the discussion.
  Yes Apple, we know you have your fanboys here from the PR department with mod points to try to control the discourse. As Streissand learned, you can't control teh intarwebz. We all know how much your company sucks, and how shady your business practices are.
2. Re:Coincidense? by Anonymous Coward · 2011-09-01 04:57 · Score: 1
  
  This is so true! I remember like *every* Apple fanboy was bending backwards to prove how cheaper and faster x86 chips were so much worse than the PowerPC chips used by Apple and how Apple would *never* use intel chips because the main reason everyone loves Apple computers is because it has better hardware then everything else! It was before this Apple Switching to Intel story in 2005, after which *every* Apple fanboy started to justify this decision saying that now the x86 architecture is the best thing since sliced bread! Of course this post will get modded down by the Apple fanboys in no time, but it was worth knowing that someone still remembers the history ... thanks!
3. Re:Coincidense? by UnknowingFool · 2011-09-01 05:24 · Score: 1
  
  First of all Apple has sued only Samsung for design patents. They have not sued every Android manufacturer over design patents. They are suing HTC and Motorola over functional patents. In fact in the mobile business who isn't suing each other? Second Motorola spun off their chip business to Freescale 7 years ago. Considering that Apple recently purchased some 200 patents in March from Freescale so it is likely they believe what once Motorola technology has some merit.
  
  --
  Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
hoist by their own petard by YesIAmAScript · 2011-09-01 03:48 · Score: 5, Insightful

Apple's unyielding patent attack has to come to trouble for them eventually. It's bad enough MS wants $15 from every Android phone, but Apple just plain is trying to bar companies from competing.
The industry will eventually respond with the only tool they have, more patent garbage.
Perhaps this is the start of that.
It's going to take a long time before Apple realizes they can't win this legal battle and they should have just kept competing in the marketplace instead. They're pretty good at that, I'm not sure why they want to try to turn the business into a web of red tape for everyone instead of just pushing forward.

--
http://lkml.org/lkml/2005/8/20/95
1. Re:hoist by their own petard by Reverand+Dave · 2011-09-01 04:06 · Score: 1
  This is a pretty similar trend as to what has happened in our economy.
  
  1. Innovate to become a world class company/economy
  2. Exhaust your innovative edge as your ideas stagnate and competition follows market trends
  3. Slow or stop all real innovation
  4. Find and innovative way to make more money instead of innovating the advancing the technology/growing your economy
  5. Give up on real innovation and use the courts/government/taxpayers to make your money for you
  The financial institutions came up with a lot of innovative ways to get the nations wealth into the hands of a few people but when they had so much of it that they couldn't beg, borrow, or, steal it from the peasants anymore they went to the government and asked for a bailout.
  
  Suing and Counter Suing is only going to work for so long until these guys are going to go to the congress they own and ask for some kind of reprieve.
  --
  I got here through a series of tubes
2. Re:hoist by their own petard by chrb · 2011-09-01 04:25 · Score: 1
  
  The industry will eventually respond with the only tool they have, more patent garbage.
  This is exactly it. It was inevitable that, when faced with patent attacks, companies would acquire patents to defend themselves in a "Mutually Assured Destruction" scenario. Microsoft thought that they could charge a slice of every Android handset sold. Apple wanted HTC and Samsung phones and tablets taken off the market. What did they think was going to happen? That these companies would just shut up and die? Of course not. Instead, HTC acquired S3 for its large patent portfolio, and Google acquired Motorola for its patent portfolio.
  When you threaten people with a weapon, their first response will be to try and acquire one of those weapons for themselves. When you have a knife, they will try to get a knife. When you have a gun, they will try to get a gun. When you have a nuke, they will try to get a nuke. It's simple psychology.
3. Re:hoist by their own petard by SpiralSpirit · 2011-09-01 04:31 · Score: 1
  
  apple suing for design patents, and then getting sued back for fundamental cell tech patents is more like bringing a knife to a bear fight.
4. Re:hoist by their own petard by yodleboy · 2011-09-01 05:26 · Score: 2
  
  well, the message Apple should be getting from this is "if you're going to be a dick and patent the only shape anyone is likely to use for a tablet and then sue everyone as if you're some great visionary then we're going to take our patents on something a bit more substantial and that we've so far been gracious enough not to ask you about and make you regret your decision."
  
  Apple is honestly convinced that the rules really don't apply to them because they are soooo cooool. They are ALWAYS the victim...even when they aren't.
5. Re:hoist by their own petard by thetartanavenger · 2011-09-01 08:30 · Score: 1
  
  It's going to take a long time before Apple realizes they can't win this legal battle and they should have just kept competing in the marketplace instead.
  Apple have already won, that's why they do it. It won't be a long time before they realise they can't win, they know they can't win the lawsuit but in playing this game they're holding back everyone long enough so that they can make a tiny improvement and claim to have the latest and greatest. If they weren't able to hold everyone back like this people would progress and try to stay ahead of everyone else through actual improvement and innovation, but then they'd have to share a piece of the pie and actually innovate something.
  
  --
  Who need's speling and grammar?
6. Re:hoist by their own petard by Kalriath · 2011-09-01 09:42 · Score: 1
  
  Apple is honestly convinced that the rules really don't apply to them because they are soooo cooool. They are ALWAYS the victim...even when they aren't.
  Yup. It's a repeat of the Cisco iPhone fiasco aaaaaaall over again.
  
  --
  For a site about things like basic rights, Slashdot users sure do like to censor "dissent".
7. Re:hoist by their own petard by SpiralSpirit · 2011-09-01 11:53 · Score: 1
  
  Except when they lose this one, they're going to be losing a whole lot. Apple has made bitter enemies of what was before simply competitors. It isn't people wanting to compete - companies know apple's existence is bad for them due to aggressive patent lawsuits, and apple has posed to set themselves up literally AGAINST the entire computing world.
8. Re:hoist by their own petard by jonwil · 2011-09-01 13:03 · Score: 1
  
  Apples problem is that they cant keep competing in the marketplace forever.
  Android is already out-selling Apple in the handset market (depending on which set of numbers you look at) and could do so in the tablet market if a vendor produces a compelling offering at the right price point.
  The iPod cant survived forever, many people dont use a MP3 player and instead listen to their music on their phone. Or on their car radio. (more and more radios now have the ability to load songs directly into internal storage or to use a USB key for music). Plus the iPod is being challenged by its competitors (including devices such as the Galaxy Player from Samsung and the Walkman from Sony)
  As music moves into the "cloud" (either through cloud storage or through streaming services like Spotify) we will see increased use of mobile phones for music, further eroding the iPod.
  Apple knows they wont be king of the hill in mobile devices forever and they want to use their patent portfolio to shut down their competitors and maintain their dominance of the market.
9. Re:hoist by their own petard by Serpents · 2011-09-01 21:07 · Score: 1
  
  I'm not sure why they want to try to turn the business into a web of red tape for everyone instead of just pushing forward.
  The original iPhone was a breakthrough - a smartphone for the masses, but since then it's just been a series of minor updates and they were caught unprepared for the revolution they started. A front camera? Only in iPhone 4, when it was already a standard and it looks like iPhone 5 will not be cutting edge either. iPad vs iPad 2? An updated processor and more memory - nothing breathtaking here. It looks like they're out of revolutionary ideas and afraid of being eaten alive by everyone else, who jumped on the bandwagon they started. Neither a smartphone or a tablet were invented by Apple but they managed to make them mainstream and... that's it. Since then we've only seen them introduce incremental changes to their hardware and software, usually lagging behind the rest of the industry. Once the other players realized that such devices did not have to be marketed only to business users they've managed to innovate much faster than Apple.
HAHAHAHAHAHA by Baloroth · 2011-09-01 03:48 · Score: 1

HAHAHAHAHAHA, ah, now my stomach hurts. Apple isn't playing nice in patents, and now they're bitching about others not playing nice? You know, I guess maybe Steve Jobs Reality Distortion Field must have lasting effects.
Seriously though they'd have a point if Apple wasn't acting like, well, a total and complete legal asshole. Keep in mind these are countersuits to Apple. Apple is basically using Motorola's good will, turning around and stabbing them in the back, and then complaining that Motorola doesn't act nice towards them anymore. Or if getting rid of Apple would be actually anti-competitive, since there are what, at least 5 major smartphone makers?

--
"None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license." --John Milton
1. Re:HAHAHAHAHAHA by Virtucon · 2011-09-01 07:11 · Score: 1
  
  Wait, I have a patent on HAHAHAHAHAHA you are infringing!
  Expect a letter from my lawyers from Delaware any day now.
  
  --
  Harrison's Postulate - "For every action there is an equal and opposite criticism"
What's good for the goose is good for the gander by sandytaru · 2011-09-01 03:49 · Score: 3, Insightful

Or the pot is calling the kettle black. Honestly, the only people all these lawsuits are really helping are the corporate lawyers. Why don't all the technology companies just agree to drop ALL the lawsuits and instead invest that money into R&D? We could have had the next iPad killer by now if they weren't wasting time and money on lawsuits!

--
Occasionally living proof of the Ballmer peak.
Hey Apple by L473ncy · 2011-09-01 03:49 · Score: 2

Here's a tissue.
Didn't you learn anything as a kid, Apple? by poofmeisterp · 2011-09-01 03:49 · Score: 3, Interesting

Apple is irate about these companies' countersuits, which rely largely on patents covering wireless communications, many of which are governed by the 'fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory' (F/RAND) principle, as they were developed as part of industry standards
And yours are all artistic and nothing else, eh? The industry shouldn't use any of your mechanisms for compatibility or interchange, right?
Grow up. You started the sh**, now deal with it.
1. Re:Didn't you learn anything as a kid, Apple? by Antisyzygy · 2011-09-01 04:05 · Score: 2
  
  Whats funny about this is that had they not tried to sue in the first place, they could have probably out-competed them in the marketplace.
  
  --
  That brings me to an interesting point, / . is just "the ramblings of socially-inept, technology-literate news-mongers".
2. Re:Didn't you learn anything as a kid, Apple? by poofmeisterp · 2011-09-01 04:28 · Score: 1
  
  ... History does repeat itself, it would seem.
  A-effin'-men. And Humans wonder why things take so long to improve. Focus, people, focus.
3. Re:Didn't you learn anything as a kid, Apple? by yodleboy · 2011-09-01 05:38 · Score: 2
  
  well exactly. if you poke a hornets nest when it's just sitting there not hurting you, don't be shocked when you get stung. It's not that Apple wants to win, they want everyone else to lose. It almost seems Apple sees competition as "stealing" customers. The truth is the only way they'd have had these customers is if there was NO competition at all.
  
  Personally, I don't know anyone with an iPad that seriously considered another device and i don't know anyone that picked another device that seriously considered an iPad. For both groups the fact that it was Apple was reason enough to buy or not buy an iPad.
4. Re:Didn't you learn anything as a kid, Apple? by BitZtream · 2011-09-01 07:47 · Score: 1
  
  they could have probably out-competed them in the marketplace.
  Uhm, they ARE out competing them in the marketplace, the lawsuits don't change any of that so far.
  
  --
  Persistent Volume manager for Kubernetes - https://github.com/dwimsey/openshift-pvmanager
5. Re:Didn't you learn anything as a kid, Apple? by BitZtream · 2011-09-01 07:54 · Score: 1
  
  Apple never claimed to make these widgets you speak of part of a public standard that the infrastructure depends on. Motorola and Samsung most certainly HAVE, or we wouldn't have the modern cell phono infrastructure we have now.
  In using these patented technologies in a standard which supports public infrastructure, the rules of the game are slightly different, even if unwritten.
  The best way to get your ass handed to you is to let your patented tech become part of a standard and get massive deployment then try to rip people off for licensing it. You'll find what happens next is people tell you to go fuck yourself and use your tech anyway, and no judge on the planet cares, and the entire industry moves away from your crap. You don't get to pretend to be fair then change your mind after everyone else jumps on your bus. What happens is that your ass gets thrown off your own bus when people get fed up with your shit.
  Apple never said 'hey, use this, we'll give our GUI widgets and our physical device profiles to anyone in a non-discrimenator manner so they become a public standard we can all benefit from!' ... And that my friend is the difference.
  Didn't you learn what indian giving was when you were a little kid?
  
  --
  Persistent Volume manager for Kubernetes - https://github.com/dwimsey/openshift-pvmanager
Did they do that with a straight face? by Arancaytar · 2011-09-01 03:50 · Score: 1

How?
1. Re:Did they do that with a straight face? by chomsky68 · 2011-09-01 04:09 · Score: 2
  
  With the help of a few shots of well aimed bottox.
  
  --
  I'm Not Antisocial, I'm Just Not User Friendly
Apple is irate by 0123456 · 2011-09-01 03:54 · Score: 1

Is it going to start throwing chairs?
1. Re:Apple is irate by Torodung · 2011-09-01 04:07 · Score: 1
  
  No, but they have a patent pending for the iRate. Next time Ballmer throws one, fscking lawsuit country, baby.
2. Re:Apple is irate by bigredradio · 2011-09-01 04:09 · Score: 1
  
  I'm pretty sure Microsoft has the patent on that. Might cause another lawsuit.
  
  --
  Flexible bare-metal recovery for Linux/UNIX
Re:What's good for the goose is good for the gande by Anonymous Coward · 2011-09-01 03:55 · Score: 2, Interesting

We could have had the next iPad killer by now if they weren't wasting time and money on lawsuits!
This is precisely what Apple doesn't want.
Re:What's good for the goose is good for the gande by Baloroth · 2011-09-01 03:57 · Score: 1

We could have had the next iPad killer by now if they weren't wasting time and money on lawsuits!
And how would that be good for Apple?

--
"None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license." --John Milton
Patent Pending. by Xunker · 2011-09-01 03:58 · Score: 1

I would be playing the World's Smallest Violin for Apple right now, except someone already has the patent for it and has threatened to sue me over it.

--
Hilary Rosen's speech was about her love of money and her desire to roll around naked in a pile of money.
Wish Samsung would play hardball by ArchieBunker · 2011-09-01 03:58 · Score: 1

Given that Apple is suing Samsung while at the same time using Samsung chips in their products, Samsung should halt all production of chips to Apple and see what happens. But of course nobody is that crazy...

--
Only the State obtains its revenue by coercion. - Murray Rothbard
1. Re:Wish Samsung would play hardball by Anonymous Coward · 2011-09-01 04:32 · Score: 1
  
  Likely there's a contractual agreement between Samsung and Apple that if Samsung fails to deliver chips upon a per-negotiated time frame, Samsung would have to pay massive fines to Apple. I can't speak for Apple, but when I worked for a major telco, these clauses were standard.
2. Re:Wish Samsung would play hardball by whisper_jeff · 2011-09-01 10:44 · Score: 1
  
  Samsung should halt all production of chips to Apple and see what happens.
  Easy - they'd lose about $6 billion a year. I'm going to guess they're not keen on playing hardball, as you describe it.
3. Re:Wish Samsung would play hardball by LynnwoodRooster · 2011-09-01 16:45 · Score: 1
  
  That would be about 5% of Samsung's revenue. Of course, that would eliminate about 75% of Apple's revenue. Yeah, I think I know who'd lose out on that one...
  
  --
  Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
Comment removed by account_deleted · 2011-09-01 03:59 · Score: 2

Comment removed based on user account deletion
Hahahaha by Antisyzygy · 2011-09-01 03:59 · Score: 1

Steven P. Jobs has bragged about his mastery of stealing ideas from others, stating, "Picasso had a saying - 'Good artists copy, great artists steal.' And we have always been shameless about stealing great ideas."
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CW0DUg63lqU

--
That brings me to an interesting point, / . is just "the ramblings of socially-inept, technology-literate news-mongers".
Blowback by redelm · 2011-09-01 04:01 · Score: 1

Unusually lame and egregiously hypocritical, even for lawyers!
Essentially, Apple's defense is: "our obvious patents on egg-sucking are valid, yours are invalid because they're F/RAND submarines".
I had not heard any court invalidated patents as F/RAND and submarines still live (RAMBUS).
1. Re:Blowback by BitZtream · 2011-09-01 07:56 · Score: 1
  
  RAMBUS was never something public infrastructure that effected the entire world. Cell phone communications are at this point.
  A little perspective might be useful to you.
  
  --
  Persistent Volume manager for Kubernetes - https://github.com/dwimsey/openshift-pvmanager
2. Re:Blowback by redelm · 2011-09-01 09:45 · Score: 1
  
  Back at you: the RAMBUS patents cover all RAM currently used, DDR, DDR2 and DDR3 . This is in virtually every electronic device including cell-phones. They receive a slice of the pie, the RAMBUS tax.
3. Re:Blowback by RightSaidFred99 · 2011-09-01 11:41 · Score: 1
  
  Trust me, we'll still have cell phone communications if Apple gets fucked over communications patents.
Apple is the worst kind of narcissist by markhahn · 2011-09-01 04:01 · Score: 1

Apple produces nicely designed cases, and some of their UI design is tasteful and effective. Otherwise, they suck, but since they drink their own koolaid, they think everyone else sucks, AND that everyone else aspires to be Apple.
if you believe you have designed the uberphone or uberpad (or uber-UI - remember the ancient war with MSFT), it is only natural that you feel threatened whenever someone else makes a vaguely rectangular tablet with, say, a front-facing display.
Apple is letting its hired dogs (lawyers) drive the company's public moves; this is a mistake. lawyers have to sue to justify their existence so you keep them in cages, where they can only growl at your neighbor's lawyers-in-cages.
"design patents" are even more stupid than software patents. I don't see why we allow lobbying of any form, since all we get is bought government.
1. Re:Apple is the worst kind of narcissist by VGPowerlord · 2011-09-01 05:01 · Score: 1
  
  Or even the SNES controller and the PSX controller
  And for even more irony, compare the PlayStation Dual Shock (original, 2, or 3; it doesn't matter) to the Nintendo Wii Classic Controller Pro.
  Turns out copying works in both directions.
  
  --
  GLaDOS for President 2016! "Well here we are again. It's always such a pleasure." -- GLaDOS, 2011
2. Re:Apple is the worst kind of narcissist by Omestes · 2011-09-01 05:36 · Score: 1
  
  ...the problem is that when they copy too much that a customer can't honestly tell the difference between two products. That is where Apple has a case, and Samsung doesn't.
  I can tell the difference. One is a slightly more square black rectangle, and the other is a slightly more elongated rectangle that says, in visible letters, "Samsung".
  If consumers are that dumb... I don't think the patent would help.
  The icon thing is more valid, except for the fact that EVERYTHING HAS ICONS, and most of them are aligned in a grid. Right now both my KDE and Win7 descktops are infringing on Apple's IP. My Desktop is even displaying this "grid of icons" on a large black rectangle with rounded corners. Actual my Droid X, from straight on, is a black rectangle with a grid of icons. EVERY smart phone is a black rectangle with icons that can be in a grid. Almost every bit of technology is a rectangle with rounded corners with icons that may or may not be in a grid. Going to Fry's Electronics yesterday, every single tablet on display was a black rectangle with rounded corners.
  Having a patent on such superfluous things as a basic shape, and a basic (and ubiquitous) way of arranging icons, is akin to me having a patent on "a rectangular object supported by 2 or more legs, on which objects such as a computer, may be arraigned"
  On the bright side Samsung and Motorola have REAL patents, such as things that actually are necessary for the operation of phones. So when Apple says "we own basic geometry", Motorola can quip back "Good luck using that without basic phone functionality". All of this would have been avoided if Apple played nicely, but they decided that they are above the usual "tit for a tat" way of doing business ("we have some patents, you have some patents, you can use ours if we can use yours, saving millions on lawsuits!"). This is a nice way of telling Apple that they aren't special, they aren't actually that innovative (technologically), nor are they at all important within the market. People can't live without Apple, but they can't without the actual nuts-and-bolts.
  
  --
  A patriot must always be ready to defend his country against his government. -edward abbey
Dug their own grave by gubers33 · 2011-09-01 04:05 · Score: 1

I find this extremely amusing. Apple tried to do the same thing with the iPad suing any company who also made a thin tablet. They made the mistake of going after people with bigger guns. Why Apple ever went after Motorola when they were making cell phones before Apple even came out with the Macintosh is mind boggling since Motorola probably has more patents relating to telecommunications than everyone else combined. Adding that Google purchased Motorola just adds more firepower. After that purchase it would have probably been smart of Apple to just back off from attacking the Android makers. Apple dug its own grave on this one, now they have to lay in it.

--
Just because you are wrong and I called you out on it doesn't mean I am a Troll.
Devils Advocate by Anonymous Coward · 2011-09-01 04:19 · Score: 1

Lot at smartphone and tablet products pre and post apple's entry in to those markets. (Seriously. I'm talking about serious market trends here not some nobody one-off that apple 'copied')
In both markets /all/ successful devices significantly emulated apple's design and function after Apple's successful entry.. Apple's attempting to sue devices makers that emulated a to become within legal striking distance. This should not surprise anyone.
Today apple is complaining about other companies retaliating with patent suits for ubiquitous technology required for all modern wireless communication devices, regardless of form or function.
1. Re:Devils Advocate by C0vardeAn0nim0 · 2011-09-01 05:29 · Score: 2
  
  the LG prada phone was anounced before the iphone, LG even acused apple of stealing it's design.
  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LG_Prada_(KE850)
  read the "iphone controversy" section.
  
  --
  What ? Me, worry ?
2. Re:Devils Advocate by Belial6 · 2011-09-01 06:20 · Score: 1
  
  Did you really just say to look at all the products that came after Apple's, and not to look at the ones that came before it? Really???
3. Re:Devils Advocate by serviscope_minor · 2011-09-01 13:02 · Score: 1
  
  IBM invented the nothing-but-a-big-touchscreen phone in 1992 (IBM Simon). It doesn't look as slick, but that's probably because it was made in 1992.
  
  --
  SJW n. One who posts facts.
Irony by JackRandom · 2011-09-01 04:23 · Score: 1

Heh, Apple complaining about lawsuits is like WikiLeaks complaining about leaks.
Wow...Just...Wow... by JustAnotherIdiot · 2011-09-01 04:24 · Score: 1

There is not enough faces to smack palms onto in the entire world for what I just read.

--
What do I know, I'm just an idiot, right?
There, finally by DaleGlass · 2011-09-01 04:25 · Score: 2

The insanity of the software patents seems to be finally blowing up in an extremely public way.
I really hope that the lawsuits against Apple result in very harmful for them consequences, ideally something ridiculous like forcing them to pull iPhones and iPads from the shelves.
Why? Because if that happens, there's no way it will stand. It will be discussed all over the world, and everybody will agree it's a crappy state of affairs. Maybe then some sanity can be introduced by eliminating them.
That might be a bit too optimistic, but still this is a perfect example of what's wrong with the system. At least it'll make a good explanation of why software patents are a bad idea, and should be kept out of the places that don't yet have them.
1. Re:There, finally by Thagg · 2011-09-01 06:59 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  The patent that Apple has used to pull Samsung Galaxy Tabs from the shelves isn't a software patent. It's a design patent for a thin, rounded-rectangle, flatscreen computer. It's even more absurd.
  
  --
  I love Mondays. On a Monday, anything is possible.
2. Re:There, finally by serviscope_minor · 2011-09-01 13:04 · Score: 1
  
  IT is sad and astonishingly stupid. I expect it will cause the HP Compaq TC1100 to be pulled from the shelves too. Well it would if they didn't end production years before the iPad was made. It's thin (thinnest computer I ever saw in 2005), rectangular (duh--what computer isn't) and has a large flat screen. Wit the keyboard detached, that is all it has.
  
  --
  SJW n. One who posts facts.
Re:One point - FRAND was a promise to ALL by gubers33 · 2011-09-01 04:26 · Score: 5, Insightful

Yes, but Motorola has no interest going after the little guy or any of the other companies that are minding their business. They are going after the guy who starting poking them with the stick. This isn't a lawsuit they placed out of no where. It is a counter-suit, meaning it is a reaction. Motorola has no interest in screwing over the phone interest. Apple essentially kicked a sleeping dog and has to pay the price.

--
Just because you are wrong and I called you out on it doesn't mean I am a Troll.
Re:Motorola and Samsung can never be sued? by SpiralSpirit · 2011-09-01 04:28 · Score: 1

I hope apple figures out their campaign of lawsuits over trivial copyrights has made them more enemies than it afforded any safety or defense against competition. It's unlikely, though.
Hey Apple. by Catnaps · 2011-09-01 04:28 · Score: 1

Here's a straw, suck it up.
Re:One point - FRAND was a promise to ALL by Baloroth · 2011-09-01 04:32 · Score: 2

Except that, as the linked article states, Apple is claiming they own the entire design of modern smartphones (with patents on the rounded design, touchscreen gestures, and a whole host of other things, pretty much none of which, I should point out, Apple actually invented) in order to push Motorola, Samsung, and others out of the market. Motorola is simply responding by saying "OK, you attack us with patents that are patently BS, you can't use our legitimate patents. Everyone else can, you can't. Because you're being an asshole." This isn't a patent troll: had Apple actually played nice, Motorola would have continued to let them use their FRAND patents. Just as they are letting others keep using them.
FRAND is a community agreement. Apple is basically saying "fuck the community" by taking the IP they want, and suing others them back (the same people whose IP they benefit from using.) It'd be like kids agreeing everyone can use a playground, then having one person demand that not only can he use the whole playground, no one else can use the monkeybars. Because he says so. And because he has lots of lawyers.

--
"None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license." --John Milton
Hahaha by X.25 · 2011-09-01 04:32 · Score: 1

So, it's ok for them to sue someone because they think they own rights to rectangular shape with round corners, but when someone with real tech patent sues them back - they act like babies?
I wish all tech companies would die.
Re:Motorola and Samsung can never be sued? by SpiralSpirit · 2011-09-01 04:32 · Score: 1

-meant patents.
Re:Hey Apple! by ddd0004 · 2011-09-01 04:33 · Score: 1

Ah yes, in the fine tradition of the Lincoln - Douglas debates of 1858, an eloquently phrased point carries such weight that appeals to both the audience's emotion and reason. In fact, I think it was Stephen Douglas who said, "Yo Lincoln! (grabbing crotch for emphasis) Suck on this"
Re:One point - FRAND was a promise to ALL by AwaxSlashdot · 2011-09-01 04:33 · Score: 1, Insightful

From TFA (the one from Florian, the patent expert, not DailyTech, the tech reporting site), Samsung itself complained about Ericsson and Rambus for the usage of FRAND or undisclosed-essential patents and they should be barred from enforcing them.
Apple didn't even want to prevent Samsung from enforcing them. It just wants to separate the cases between : "having to pay a licence for FRAND patents" and "being blocked from selling products because of non-FRAND patents".

--
Sig (appended to the end of comments you post, 120 chars)
RTFA, particularly the second link. by gstrickler · 2011-09-01 04:41 · Score: 1, Informative

The first link is a DailyTech Blog by Jason Mick, an author well known for factual inaccuracies in every post, and for continual Apple bashing. Consider the source, and double check all facts before drawing any conclusions from it.
The second link includes an informative discussion of the actual issues. The core of Apple's argument, that Samsung is asserting that Apple is violating "standards essential" patents, for which Samsung has offered no F/RAND licensing, which is a clear violation of antitrust regulations in the US and EU (a fact which Samsung itself has repeatedly asserted in previous lawsuits when they were the defendant). Apple hasn't disputed those patents, only that they must be separated from the suit because they are standards essential patents which must be offered under F/RAND in order to prevent them from being an illegal monopoly under antitrust regulations. Therefore, they can not be considered as part of the suit potential injunction based upon the other non-"standards essential" patents, but must be considered as a separate issue and Samsung must offer F/RAND licensing terms for those "standards essential" patents.

--
make imaginary.friends COUNT=100 VISIBLE=false
1. Re:RTFA, particularly the second link. by gstrickler · 2011-09-01 04:43 · Score: 1
  
  And yes, I know that the second blog is by Florian Mueller, and I can't believe I'm actually agreeing with or referring to one of his posts as a an informative discussion of the issues. Still, that is the case in this instance.
  
  --
  make imaginary.friends COUNT=100 VISIBLE=false
2. Re:RTFA, particularly the second link. by theolein · 2011-09-01 07:29 · Score: 1
  
  U Mad?
3. Re:RTFA, particularly the second link. by fmachado · 2011-09-01 11:47 · Score: 1
  
  Seriously, are you really suggesting we believe in Florian Muller? My head is spinning so hard now ...
  He is always wrong, his predictions always fail, his doom day alerts never ever got close to happening but you still suggest we hear from him?
  F/RAND is not for agressors and they are not law, just some community/gentlemen deal. You sue me, I'll be no gentlemen to you.
  As a rule, if Florian Muller puts his name on something, it's fake, outright lie or simple PR regurgitated, never the truth. As long as I've seen his comments and articles, he never got it right and he is not starting now.
  That said, Apple is the AGRESSOR, others are just fighting back. Apple patents are as new and innovative as the act of moving forward using the legs.
  Apple has the best overall product when you consider all factors like usability, design and so on, but nothing "NEW" on the sense that it carries a revolution. All the technology they used where developed a long time ago, they just rehashed them (very well) to a well rounded solution that achieved mass penetration. Point to Apple. But that's all. 100% of their "innovation" is combining other ones technologies and making a reasonably good product and marketing it as the best thing under the sun. Some believe and buy, as long as it's not my money, I'm ok with it. But point me to a single technology DEVELOPED at Apple that impacted the tech world like the mouse did or like graphic interface did (both from Xerox PARC), other than their first Apple computers (I owned an Apple II and it was great).
  Apple fear competition as much as a vampire (classic one) fears the sun. When exposed to competition, they freak out and sue. They always did it and they will not learn unless someone makes them learn the hard way.
  So, yes, Apple deserves to taste it's own medicine so someone can teach them a lesson on competition based on merits, not on beligerance.
  I did not know Mr. Mick but I've read the text and the comments and they are not much different from slashdot's post and comments.
  Flavio
4. Re:RTFA, particularly the second link. by gstrickler · 2011-09-01 13:03 · Score: 1
  
  Seriously, are you really suggesting we believe in Florian Muller? ...
  He is always wrong,...
  No, I'm suggesting you check the facts. In this case, FM is correct (thus disproving your followup statement). Mostly, I ignore posts from FM, but every once in a while he gets things correct.
  
  I did not know Mr. Mick but I've read the text and the comments and they are not much different from slashdot's post and comments.
  DailyTech is site loaded with Apple haters, including Jason Mick, (and some Apple fans), so it's much like /. And like /., many commenters don't bother to RTFA or research the facts, they comment based upon their existing prejudices, so it's no surprise that the comments are similar. However, if you read the comments from the people how have bothered to do the research, read the actual case filings, read the precedent's cited, you'll see that this filing is actually quite straight forward. It's making a legal point about excluding specific patents from the counterclaims because they're covered separately under F/RAND rules since they're essential to the implementation of the GSM wireless standard. Once those are separated, the original case and counterclaims can proceed. Motorola and Samsung both know those claims should be separate as they've used the same argument successfully in cases where they filed the initial suit against others. Purely a legal point, and nothing more.
  
  --
  make imaginary.friends COUNT=100 VISIBLE=false
Hello Pot by cgfsd · 2011-09-01 04:45 · Score: 1

Hello Pot? This is the lawyers from Kettle, seems that black is patented.
In other news... by synapse7 · 2011-09-01 04:48 · Score: 1

Samsung claims Apple has a patent monopoly on things rectangular in shape.
With the preliminary injunctions Apple won against Samsung how can they accuse patent monopoly when apple has caused the most damage.
Re:One point - FRAND was a promise to ALL by voss · 2011-09-01 04:56 · Score: 2

Exactly FRAND is a community agreement, and when Apple starts acting like its part of a community then it will get access to those patents again.
Apple is basically trying to reargue the "look and feel" case it lost against Windows.
Re:Hypocrisy by chaboud · 2011-09-01 05:08 · Score: 2

Let's say that you're a small company with FRAND patents and one product. Someone strolls in and sues to block the sale of this *one* product with patents (bogus or otherwise) that they have for their competing product. Blocking the sale of your one product will kill your company. Furthermore, their competing product uses your FRAND patents without license.
Are you, at this point, going to license at a reasonable rate and risk getting nuked? Hell no. Now, extrapolate to a larger company.
Apple even goes so far as to build *revocation* of the free license of MiniDisplayport into the license as a protection against IP claims. These are called defensive patents for a reason. When a bully walks in and starts kicking the sandbox sand in everybody's faces, it helps to remind them that you have the shovel.
Re:One point - FRAND was a promise to ALL by Aighearach · 2011-09-01 05:10 · Score: 1

the one from Florian, the patent expert
You can't really be a patent "expert" without being a lawyer.
He's certainly a patent pundit.
Re:Nokia vs Samsung (Has anyone RTFAs ?) by Aighearach · 2011-09-01 05:14 · Score: 2

I find dubious DailyTech calling Florin Mueller "a pro-Apple blogger" for his patent litigation analysis... while Florian Mueller *IS* the professional expert on patents.
To be a "professional expert" your profession would have to be "lawyer." Florian Mueller's professions include lobbyist and blogger, but not lawyer.
This makes me think.... by David_Hart · 2011-09-01 05:14 · Score: 1

...that it is time to become a patent lawyer. After all, in this game of redistribution of wealth, the only winners are the lawyers....
David
Apple set an example by spiritshare · 2011-09-01 05:17 · Score: 2

Great Apple is being innovative in their legal posturing also. But, Apple cannot make such a claim first because apple was not part of the community that developed those technologies. If Motorola and Samsung are wrong Apple should set an example by making their patents on multitouch F/RAND, and show every body how this should work.
Re:Sosume by Omestes · 2011-09-01 05:19 · Score: 1

iRonic, even.

--
A patriot must always be ready to defend his country against his government. -edward abbey
Umm... by Shirogitsune · 2011-09-01 05:35 · Score: 1

Apparently Apple is irate...
Shouldn't that be iRate? ;D
Re:Nokia vs Samsung (Has anyone RTFAs ?) by wzzzzrd · 2011-09-01 05:35 · Score: 1

No. Florian Mueller is nothing more than a pro-Apple blogger, as much as this may hurt your feelings. He is not a lawyer, and he isn't even an amateur expert on patents. I've followed his rubbish for quite some time, and more often than not, his so-called analysis is bs. He's just an idiot with a blog.

--
On second thought, let's not go to Camelot. It is a silly place.
Re:What's good for the goose is good for the gande by wierd_w · 2011-09-01 05:40 · Score: 1

No no silly! They will invest in the iRack!
Re:News Flash: Apple's Right & /. A Bunch of A by Macthorpe · 2011-09-01 05:43 · Score: 1

Perform the following experience: Give a Samsung Tablet and an iPad to your Average Idiot, you know, the MARKET for these bright shiny toys. Ask them if they come from the same company. Easily 99% yes, right?
You are aware that the Samsung one has "SAMSUNG" written on it, right?

--
"It does not do to leave a live dragon out of your calculations, if you live near him." - Tolkien
Re:One point - FRAND was a promise to ALL by SuperKendall · 2011-09-01 05:53 · Score: 1

Apple is claiming they own the entire design of modern smartphones (with patents on the rounded design, touchscreen gestures, and a whole host of other things, pretty much none of which, I should point out, Apple actually invented
Technically Apple actually does own much touchscreen technology, since they bought the company that really did pioneer work there.
But none of your argument changes the fundamental fact that the companies signed away rights use patents in this way when they submitted them to FRAND use. That they are trying this now violates the contacts they have in place with standards bodies. You may not think Apple deserves to be in the community but the fact is they are, and the companies should abide by the agreements they have signed.
If you really want to play the "FRAND for me, but not for thee" game you will not like the results when the patents Apple holds in various standards bodies suddenly become ineligible for some companies... but then Apple has not played that game, they use only patents they were granted that are not subject to FRAND licensing. I agree some of those patents should never have been granted, but Apple holds them and that is that. The solution to that problem is not to start breaking contracts that in the long run screw over the whole industry.

--
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Sounds like MS Document Standards by Kamiza+Ikioi · 2011-09-01 06:02 · Score: 2

I might be mistaken, but Microsoft tried to make their office document formats standard AND proprietary. In other words, extortion. "Comply with the standard, FOSS, but pay the oh so small fee for the patent."
The Apple claim is still BS, though. Motorola could claim that GSM can be worked around by using wifi and software... which is about as effectual as working around a thin rectangular screen tablet by making it a circle (and some idiot actually suggested that on another forum).

--
I8-D
1. Re:Sounds like MS Document Standards by Kalriath · 2011-09-01 09:25 · Score: 1
  
  Uh, no? Microsoft's deal with the Office formats was "it's free(*), as long as you comply with the standard exactly". The fact that Microsoft Office itself didn't comply with the standard exactly was completely besides the point.
  (*) as in beer.
  
  --
  For a site about things like basic rights, Slashdot users sure do like to censor "dissent".
2. Re:Sounds like MS Document Standards by whisper_jeff · 2011-09-01 10:37 · Score: 1
  
  Motorola could claim that GSM can be worked around...
  Uh, no. You're missing the point. Entirely. Research FRAND patents. Here - I'll make it easy for you http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair,_reasonable,_and_non-discriminatory_terms
  
  If Motorola is wielding FRAND patents against Apple (or any other company), as is claimed (and nobody has refuted the claim), then they are not honoring their obligation to license the patent for Fair and Reasonable rates to any and all who want to license it.
Re:News Flash: Apple's Right & /. A Bunch of A by Issarlk · 2011-09-01 06:03 · Score: 1

Freedom from the carrier to be better enslaved by Apple in their walled garden...
Thanks, but no.
Re:One point - FRAND was a promise to ALL by gubers33 · 2011-09-01 06:18 · Score: 1

Florian is an idiot not an expert. 99% of the crap this guy says about patents makes no sense. People need to stop referencing and and slashdot needs to stop posting his crap.

--
Just because you are wrong and I called you out on it doesn't mean I am a Troll.
Re:One point - FRAND was a promise to ALL by gubers33 · 2011-09-01 06:23 · Score: 2

You can't change the basic nature of Apple fanboys either. I by no means hate Apple I have a iPod and MacBook Pro. I do hate how Apple thinks they own the exclusive rights to make Tablet PCs and Smart Phones with a touch screens. I mean they have touch screens that looked like the iPad in Startrek and many other SciFi films 20+ years ago.

--
Just because you are wrong and I called you out on it doesn't mean I am a Troll.
The definition of irony? by Anonymous Coward · 2011-09-01 06:24 · Score: 1

Pot? Yes Kettle?
Re:News Flash: Apple's Right & /. A Bunch of A by Belial6 · 2011-09-01 06:47 · Score: 1

Perform the following experience: Give a Samsung Tablet and an iPad to your Average Idiot, you know, the MARKET for these bright shiny toys. Ask them if they come from the same company. Easily 99% yes, right?
That is the case with virtually ALL tech. Without looking for a label that says who the manufacturer is, your Average Idiot couldn't tell you if an two TVs, Monitors, computers, thumb drives, SD cards, keyboards, mice, hard drives, DVD drives, PVR, or digital camera was made by the same company or not. If I removed the company logo off a selection of MS and Logitech mice, do YOU think you could accurately tell me which ones where made by which company? Presumably, you consider yourself smarter than an 'Average Idiot'. Yet you couldn't tell which mouse was made by which company.
Re:One point - FRAND was a promise to ALL by Baloroth · 2011-09-01 06:48 · Score: 1

The thing is, Apple is essentially already doing exactly that . Car analogy: lets say company A (Motorola) develops a means of fast-charging an electric plug-in and standardizes it under FRAND terms so that anyone can make electric cars that charge everywhere. Company B comes along and patents putting doors, windows, steering wheels, and seat belts on electric cars (despite not being the first one to do it, which Apple wasn't, and yes Apple's patents are in many cases that or more ridiculous.) and sues anyone who tries to make a car with those features. Sure, everyone else can still make electric scooters (basic phones in the analogy) but no one else can make cars (i.e. smartphones). Since the whole point of the FRAND license in the first place was to prevent any company having a monopoly on electric cars, but suddenly company B does (despite not having done the research into the electric system itself), suddenly company A's license is worth much, much less, and B is a monopoly engaging in anti-competitive practices.
That is what Apple is doing: basically saying no one else can build smartphones (or tablets), at least not anything usable or sophisticated. Since that violates the entire point of the FRAND license in the first place, why should Motorola continue to extend those terms to Apple, since they are just enabling exactly what they wanted to prevent in the first place?

--
"None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license." --John Milton
Well, not necessiarly by Sycraft-fu · 2011-09-01 06:52 · Score: 1

Apple is in a very precarious position right now. Their massive rise has been based on their consumer electronics, not on their computers. However they are not very diversified. They have the iPod, iPhone, and iPad. The iPod is not so profitable anymore because the market is heavily saturated. It isn't a growth area and convincing people to replace their MP3 players isn't as easy as some other gadgets. So that leaves the iOS devices.
Well Android is a big threat to those. It has been improving at an astonishing rate and the growth has been huge. You can now get Android phones with more features than an iPhone, and some of them not trivial like 4G service. They have premium phones that directly compete, and they have cheaper phones for those that can't afford to drop $300 on a mobile toy.
If the tablets likewise become competitors, that is a real big threat to Apple. They don't have a "next big thing" ready to go, and they may not even have an idea of what one could be. If those markets get cut in to in a big way, they could lose a large amount of profits.
Aliens vs Predators by mu51c10rd · 2011-09-01 07:00 · Score: 1

I've said this before, but the tagline of that movie is extremely relevant to all these lawsuits.
No matter who wins...we lose..
Still worth it by HalAtWork · 2011-09-01 07:01 · Score: 1

They've significantly raised the bar for any new entries into their market. Now it's a game of who lasts the longest. They've completely ended the chance of an up-and-coming disruptive competitor that changes the game and gives the biggies a run for their money. Now that has to come internally from one of the big 5 (or whatever the correct number is). Each one hoping they can pare down or absorb the others. There's too much greed here to give up on that game so soon. It hasn't become disastrous yet -- you only bail out at the last minute.

--
Twinstiq, game news
But it's NOT fair! by AliasMarlowe · 2011-09-01 07:12 · Score: 1

He hit me back [points sullenly at erstwhile victim]. It's NOT fair!

--
Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities. - Voltaire
This patent war crap is crap by sl4shd0rk · 2011-09-01 07:25 · Score: 1

It seems the only thing tax payer dollars are doing in the courts these days is paying for these corporate patent mongers to try and screw each other. Can we bankrupt them all and start over?

--
Join the Slashcott! Feb 10 thru Feb 17!
Re:What's good for the goose is good for the gande by BitZtream · 2011-09-01 07:46 · Score: 1

If its their device, it's good for Apple. Its only bad for Apple if someone else does it first, which lets face it, isn't going to happen or it would have been done by now.

--
Persistent Volume manager for Kubernetes - https://github.com/dwimsey/openshift-pvmanager
Re:One point - FRAND was a promise to ALL by scot4875 · 2011-09-01 07:48 · Score: 1

If you really want to play the "FRAND for me, but not for thee" game you will not like the results when the patents Apple holds in various standards bodies suddenly become ineligible for some companies...
I'm willing to take that gamble. If Apple really wants to try to shut everyone down for infringing patents, Apple itself will be shut down by all of the countersuits. Apple may be a big fish in a big pond, but it's a *big* pond and a lot of the other fish aren't exactly minnows.
--Jeremy

--
Jesus was a liberal
Re:News Flash: Apple's Right & /. A Bunch of A by scot4875 · 2011-09-01 07:52 · Score: 1

Give me a break, Oh Open Superior Life Forms.
At least we aren't the ones that think 99% of the rest of the world is stupid enough to mistake a Galaxy Tab for an iPad.
--Jeremy

--
Jesus was a liberal
Re:Motorola and Samsung can never be sued? by BitZtream · 2011-09-01 07:57 · Score: 1

Now that everyone relies on these patents, because they were incorporated in to standards, Motorola and Samsung are waving these around to make everyone cower in fear?
You make a valid point, but get modded down because you're not anti-apple. Only anti-Apple is allowed on slashdot.
(Cue all the anti-Apple zealots ranting about the pro-Apple zealots as an excuse to make it okay)

--
Persistent Volume manager for Kubernetes - https://github.com/dwimsey/openshift-pvmanager
Re:One point - FRAND was a promise to ALL by bws111 · 2011-09-01 07:58 · Score: 1

The 'R' in RAND means 'reasonable'. If you are trying to push me out of the business I invented, it is entirely reasonable that you are going to pay more for my stuff than others.
RTFA please : FOSS explains the difference by AwaxSlashdot · 2011-09-01 08:23 · Score: 1

When a patent is part of standard, you can not use it to block people. You can only use it to get license from them.
If you proposed a "Fair, Raisonnable And Non-Discriminatory" (FRAND) licence scheme and this was rejected THEN you could ask for the licence to be imposed on the infringer or the products to be banned.
If you don't do propose a FRAND licence, it means that you did not respect your engagement made to the Standard Setting Organization and you lose your hability to enforce your patent.
Apple here complains that:
- Samsung and MMI never proposed licenses at all
- Samsung and MMI are trying to get Apple products blocked while with such patents the only thing you could get are forced licenses and not product blocking
The Nokia vs Apple was a good example where the distinct between FRAND and non-FRAND patent was clearly made and the corresponding requests were relevant.

--
Sig (appended to the end of comments you post, 120 chars)
1. Re:RTFA please : FOSS explains the difference by CheerfulMacFanboy · 2011-09-02 06:28 · Score: 1
  
  Well, Apple refused to pay Nokia its due for FRAND
  That's what Nokia - a failing company - claims.
  
  --
  Fandroids hate facts.
Boo fucking hoo by temcat · 2011-09-01 08:29 · Score: 1

n/t
Anticompetitive? by grolschie · 2011-09-01 08:48 · Score: 1

"Apple lawyers are crying foul about Samsung, and ... Motorola's allegedly 'anticompetitive,' use of patents. ...

Ummm... I would think that patents by definition are anticompetitive. Aren't they?
Re:Motorola and Samsung can never be sued? by shutdown+-p+now · 2011-09-01 09:24 · Score: 1

He has a valid point in general, but in this particular case Apple got precisely what they deserved after slapping Samsung with that moronic "round-edge rectangle" design patent; hence all the gloating.
Re:What's good for the goose is good for the gande by Kalriath · 2011-09-01 09:48 · Score: 1

I hear what you are saying, and the answer is NO!

--
For a site about things like basic rights, Slashdot users sure do like to censor "dissent".
Re:One point - FRAND was a promise to ALL by whisper_jeff · 2011-09-01 10:51 · Score: 1

Apple is a least suing using patents they had not promised to anyone for free and nondiscriminatory use...
_FAIR_, Reasonable, and Non-Discriminatory. Not free. A FRAND patent must still be licensed from the holder. When the holder submits the patent into an industry standard (such as what Motorola and Samsung have done with certain patents), they are often required to make the patent a FRAND patent and thereby agree to offer the patent for license to anyone and everyone at fair, reasonable, and non-discriminatory rates. Apple still has to pay for the patents in question but must only do so at fair and reasonable rates. And Samsung and Motorola cannot withhold a license for the patents. And, more specifically, they cannot force Apple to cross-license in order to gain access to the patents. Fair, reasonable, and non-discriminatory.
Proof is required by mjwx · 2011-09-01 13:02 · Score: 1

Apple has a patent. Whether you believe the patent should have been granted or not is a separate issue, the fact is that the USPTO issued the patent. If a patent holder doesn't try to enforce it when they believe it's been infringed upon, they lose the ability to enforce it.

The problem with defending a patent is that you need proof of infringement.

Apple has doctored evidence to create the illusion that their patent has been infringed when in reality, the patent has not.

No matter how you twist it, Apple is not in the right here and is only trying to prevent a competitor from releasing a product that will take sales away from their monopoly. If MS sued IBM because they developed some Linux GFX drivers claiming their patent for "method of displaying a blue pixel" was infringed you'd be screaming bloody murder. Apple is doing exactly that with "design patents" and they are defended for it.

--
Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
1. Re:Proof is required by gstrickler · 2011-09-01 13:58 · Score: 1
  
  Your comments are about the facts of original lawsuit Apple filed, and have nothing to do with the issues addressed in this article.
  This article is about a legal issue where Samsung and Motorola are attempting to use patents they own that are part of the GSM wireless standard as a defense against Apple's claim. That's not allowed because it's discriminatory licensing, and one of the agreements of putting your patented technology into an essential part of a standard is that your must offer F/RAND licensing of those patents. It's established law that such patents can't be used in such a situation, and even Samsung and Motorola have both made the same claim in previous cases, yet they refuse to remove those patents from their counterclaim. On the issues addressed in this article and legal filing Apple is clearly correct.
  Once those 6 (of 18) Motorola and 5 or 6 (of 13 I believe) Samsung patents have been removed, the original claim and counterclaim can be addressed. That is where your comments will be addressed, but they don't apply to this specific situation because they're not at the point of trying the facts yet.
  
  --
  make imaginary.friends COUNT=100 VISIBLE=false
Re:Motorola and Samsung can never be sued? by Kalriath · 2011-09-01 13:25 · Score: 1

Well, no actually. Basically, GSM and CDMA from which pretty much everything derives are both standards composed of patented technologies from tons of vendors. All of these vendors pay into the patent pool and promise never to sue other pool members or anyone that licenses them (though they do not promise that there are no other patents owned by vendors that will sue), and they include clauses that revoke these agreements should one vendor sue another. What happened in this instance is that Apple came along and decided they shouldn't have to pay, and that their rabid fan-base would protect them if any of the patent holders sued. The fact that the reason all the vendors end up paying net zero into the pool is because the cross-licensing of their own patents tends to cancel out any money changing hands. Basically, a company pays in $20m and gets back $20m - much like text messaging interconnects in countries with an MTR. Apple, of course had no essential patents to contribute, so were expected to either pay cash or contribute other patents of use - multi-touch for example. Ultimately, this would work out great for everyone involved, even consumers. However, Apple didn't like this. So when Apple decided to sue Samsung for making a rectangular fucking tablet with a screen, Samsung naturally retaliated in the way that any patent pool member would do - with a countersuit for their own patents.
Personally, I hope Apple gets hit with a judgement the size of a small country's GDP. A (design) patent on a rectangle with a screen and button should not be allowed to stand.

--
For a site about things like basic rights, Slashdot users sure do like to censor "dissent".
Please get a clue by mjwx · 2011-09-01 13:58 · Score: 2

And dont use Florian Mueller as an authoritative source. It only proves you are easily misled.

If you proposed a "Fair, Raisonnable And Non-Discriminatory" (FRAND) licence scheme

The problem is Apple uses patents that are not covered by FRAND and are claiming that FRAND licensing gives them access to non FRAND patents. They tried this line for years with Nokia until finally having to settle for cash.

FRAND only covers essential GSM patents. I.E. only the patents you need to create a GSM phone, not all the fruit that is built into a modern smartphone. FRAND's scope is limited.

Kindly know what you are on about, before posting about it. Mueller does not know what he's on about, he's a lobbyist, not a patent lawyer or even examiner which means he's pushing an agenda regardless of the truth and has continually been found to be publishing outright fabrications during the SCO-Novell case.

--
Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
1. Re:Please get a clue by gstrickler · 2011-09-01 14:31 · Score: 1
  
  Please read FM article (or don't) and research the case law yourself. In this instance (and I know it doesn't happen often), FM is correct.
  This specific legal action and article is 100% about removing the F/RAND covered patents from the counterclaims. That's 6 of Motorola's 18 patents in the counterclaim, and 5 or 6 of the 13 patents in Samsung's counterclaim. Remove those patents and this issue is settled and the original suit and counterclaims can be decided in court (or settled out of court).
  
  --
  make imaginary.friends COUNT=100 VISIBLE=false
There is a common saying for this situation ... by jtb1965 · 2011-09-01 14:38 · Score: 1

The pot calling the kettle black.
1. Re:There is a common saying for this situation ... by EnsilZah · 2011-09-02 19:03 · Score: 1
  
  Not anymore, the appropriate term is 'African American'.
Re:One point - FRAND was a promise to ALL by E+IS+mC(Square) · 2011-09-01 15:02 · Score: 1

It's nice of you to try, but you cannnot alter the basic nature of being Apple's bitch. Bonch, kendall, node 3 = jobs' bitches
Apple v HTC by mjwx · 2011-09-01 16:28 · Score: 1

First of all Apple has sued only Samsung for design patents. They have not sued every Android manufacturer over design patents..
They've been suing HTC for some time.

Now they've attacked Motorola as well.

They also doctored evidence in the Samsung case because the truth did not reflect their case.

--
Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
1. Re:Apple v HTC by UnknowingFool · 2011-09-02 02:56 · Score: 1
  
  Read what I wrote above.
  
  --
  Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
Tell this to Ericsson, founded in 1876 by G3ckoG33k · 2011-09-01 17:58 · Score: 1

Tell this to Ericsson, founded in 1876
http://connectedplanetonline.com/3g4g/news/ericsson-lte-patents-061110/
By its own calculations, Ericsson (NASDAQ:ERIC) has 25% of the essential patents key to the development of long-term evolution networks and devices, making the Swedish vendor the single largest intellectual property holder in LTE. Those numbers contradict a recent survey of patent holdings conducted by Informa, which estimated Ericsson was much lower in the intellectual property rights pecking order, behind Qualcomm (NASDAQ:QCOM), InterDigital (NASDAQ:IDCC), Samsung and Huawei in total patents, and even lower when it comes to essential patents. Ericsson chief intellectual property officer Kasim Alfalahi said he had not seen the Informa report and did not know what methodology its analyst used, but he said that any conclusion that has Ericsson at the back of the pack in essential patents is clearly wrong.
On related news... by Berg0r · 2011-09-01 19:53 · Score: 1

... irony meters all over the world just blew up.