Slashdot Mirror


Australian Court Blocks Sales of Samsung Galaxy Tablet

jimboh2k writes "Apple has succeeded in blocking the sale of Samsung's Galaxy Tab 10.1 tablet in Australia until a final hearing can be heard in the case down under. The judgment on Thursday could effectively kill chances of the tablet ever launching properly in Australia after Samsung claimed further delays to the product would threaten hopes of gaining traction."

91 of 158 comments (clear)

  1. This may not be so good for Apple... by NimbleSquirrel · · Score: 4, Interesting

    This could potentially work against Apple if Samsung go after the iPhone 4S on Oz. Precedent has been set, and it would be quite difficult for Apple to argue that an injunction shouldn't block the iPhone4S if Samsung decide to assert their hardware patents.

    1. Re:This may not be so good for Apple... by beelsebob · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Uhh, there's no precedent set here... It's the norm that if you're found to violate a patent that an injunction is given. Apple wouldn't argue that in injunction shouldn't block the iPhone 4S because that would be mean... they would argue that an injunction shouldn't block the iPhone 4S because they already licensed samsung's patents when they took out a RAND license on the 3G patent pool.

    2. Re:This may not be so good for Apple... by whisper_jeff · · Score: 1

      Except:

      1) Most of the patents Samsung is asserting over Apple are covered by F/RAND requirements and

      2) As I understand it, Apple has already bought licenses to Samsung's patents through their parts suppliers who pay royalties to Samsung.

      I don't think Samsung has as much of a leg to stand on as people think they do.

    3. Re:This may not be so good for Apple... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      As far as I know the judge didn't rule that patent violation took place, but until the ruling is made on patent violation Samsung can't sell the Galaxy tab.

      Seems a bit strange to me... you know... "innocent until proven guilty"...

    4. Re:This may not be so good for Apple... by dbIII · · Score: 2

      I think Slashdot needs more categories than foes, friend and freaks so that we can put somebody in a pigeonhole and remember it's the guy that said "but with good review the reviews of the latest windows phones, knowing MS will protect from any lawsuits". Fair enough, they may be just a normal fan and not paid for the irrelevant fawning post (are there even any MS windows phone for sale in Australia at all?), but it would be nice if we can see they make a habit of it.

    5. Re:This may not be so good for Apple... by JasterBobaMereel · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Not losing ... Apple are winning an injunction which as long as they supply a valid looking case is automatic, this does not mean the actual case will stand up in court later ...Apple will have to prove that Samsung were trying to steal market share by copying

      By the way Samsung do make money from Apple .... the iPad screen, processor, memory etc .etc is made by .... Samsung which is why Samsung hold patents on most of the technology, they designed it ...

      Apple designed the iPad, but other people make it from mostly, off the shelf parts, most of them are made by Samsung, so unsurprisingly the Samsung Tab is made from mostly the same parts ... The only thing unique about the iPad is the physical shape and the desktop layout (which are protected with Design patents)

      --
      Puteulanus fenestra mortis
    6. Re:This may not be so good for Apple... by NimbleSquirrel · · Score: 1

      1) F/RAND doesn't mean free. Apple effectively wants to pay nothing, and Samsung aren't willing to roll over. Nokia had the same issue and Apple settled with them before anything could be established in case law (for which no details have been made public - which has lead some to believe that Apple would have lost). Samsung have entered into patent cross-licensing arrangements with other manufacturers who license their patents. Samsung are claiming (amongst other things) that such cross-licensing deals are an established norm and can be considered both Fair and Reasonable in the industry.

      2) Apple haven't brought licenses from Samsung. Just because their suppliers may have a license to produce components that are subject to those patents, doesn't automatically mean that that license carries on to Apple. It depends on the terms of the license the component manufacturers have. Samsung claim that Infineon didn't have any license, so if Apple used Infineon 3G chips how can they have a license?

      Given that Apple have known about GSM/3G patents since before they released the first iPhone, yet continue to release products without sorting this license issue out doesn't give them as much of a leg to stand on as people think they do.

    7. Re:This may not be so good for Apple... by Loadmaster · · Score: 2

      I don't know how law works in Australia, so take this as an answer to your question that is applicable in the US but maybe not AUS. First, there is no "innocent until proven guilty" well anywhere except TV and armchair attorneys. It's "burden of going forward" and "burden of persuasion." But it's irrelevant here anyway. There is no "guilty" in civil court. It's liable not liable. Second, an injunction is not relief. An injunction is merely to maintain the status quo to prevent any irreparable harm while the court sorts out the case. Here, if Samsung could sell the tablet then what's the point of the case? If it gets released then even if an infringement ruling came down the damage is already done. You can't take back the Tabs. So the judge granted the injunction (which is not indicative of future rulings) to keep the status quo which was no Galaxy Tab in AUS.

      HTH.

    8. Re:This may not be so good for Apple... by beelsebob · · Score: 1

      1) F/RAND doesn't mean free. Apple effectively wants to pay nothing

      No, apple has already paid for the RAND patent pool for 3G, samsung want to double charge them.

    9. Re:This may not be so good for Apple... by beelsebob · · Score: 1

      Except it's not applicable. This is not a case of apple should have licensed the RAND patent pool, it's a case of apple did license the RAND patent pool, and Samsung should have put this critical-to-3G's-functioning patent into the pool, as they were required to do when the pool was made up.

      Apple does not have a license for the patent in question, but should have, because Samsung tried to submarine 3G basically.

    10. Re:This may not be so good for Apple... by DinDaddy · · Score: 1

      the iPad screen, processor, memory etc .etc is made by .... Samsung which is why Samsung hold patents on most of the technology, they designed it ...

      ... The only thing unique about the iPad is the physical shape and the desktop layout (which are protected with Design patents)

      Samsung did not design the A5 processor. It is an ARM design (cortex A9), that has had been tweaked to a slightly custom design by Apple engineers. Samsung played little to no part in its design. They just fabricate it.

      They also do not "make the screen", they are a minority supplier, most of the ipad screens come from another manufacturer (LG?).

      All of that is irrelevant though. Samsung is countersuing over patents on mobile communications tech, not basic computer components.

    11. Re:This may not be so good for Apple... by Truekaiser · · Score: 1

      copying of what? of making a square or rectangular shaped device? of making a better product?

    12. Re:This may not be so good for Apple... by Grail · · Score: 1

      An injunction simply means that the Judge has decided that there is enough substance in this case to warrant it actually proceeding. Thus until the case is resolved, Samsung is not allowed to ship a potentially infringing product.

      If Samsung wins the case, Apple will be liable for damages.

      So don't worry, Samsung iPad fans, you might end up being able to buy your iPad ripoff in Australia after all!

    13. Re:This may not be so good for Apple... by mjwx · · Score: 1

      This could potentially work against Apple if Samsung go after the iPhone 4S on Oz. Precedent has been set, and it would be quite difficult for Apple to argue that an injunction shouldn't block the iPhone4S if Samsung decide to assert their hardware patents.

      The Australian legal system is not precedent based.

      Secondly, it's a civil matter, not a criminal matter.

      Finally, Justice Bennett needs here head examined. There is no reason to deny competition and absolutely no reason to rule against Samsung after Apple have been caught lying to the court.

      --
      Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
    14. Re:This may not be so good for Apple... by JasterBobaMereel · · Score: 1

      I said "make money from Apple" by selling them some of the components for the iPhone and iPad ... I did not say Designed all the components they sell ,...?

      The point I was trying to make was that Samsung were already making money from every sale of a iPad.

      --
      Puteulanus fenestra mortis
    15. Re:This may not be so good for Apple... by Coren22 · · Score: 1
      --
      APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
  2. Ugh. by Bruce+McBruce · · Score: 1

    This judgement delivered by JudgeBuddy for iPad. This is ridiculous. Singling out 5-10 patents which Apple Claims Samsung's infringing on, which are guaranteed to be covered by "prior art" with the hope of delaying a rival product until it's no longer saleable. Antitrust much?

    1. Re:Ugh. by pipedwho · · Score: 2

      I'd like to see the Patent Office held liable for granting such ridiculous patents in the first place. The lawyers are just playing the game that they've been trained to play, and corporations being corporations are doing the same.

      At least this is two big companies that can afford the legal costs to fight. Smaller players don't stand a chance. The real enemy here is the game that's being played.

  3. Leverage by garglebutt · · Score: 1

    With all these vendors tripping over each others patents it will likely result in a bunch of cross licensing.

    --
    Do anything, anywhere, anytime.
    1. Re:Leverage by slydder · · Score: 3, Informative

      Actually no. The situation was stable and acceptable to all involved until Apple bought their way into the mobile industry. Standard practice was to, more or less, do what one wanted as long as the others could too. Certain licensing was required and the big boys held to that, but Apple doesn't want to play with/like the rest. Which more or less means that either they all get together and put a stop to Apple or they wait it out and let Apple deal with all of them one after the other.

      Either way it's a lose lose situation for us.

    2. Re:Leverage by DinDaddy · · Score: 1

      until Apple bought their way into the mobile industry. .

      ?

      Not sure what you mean by this. They designed the iphone, introduced it and it sold well. Did the same with ipad. How did they buy their way into the mobile industry in any way differently than every other manufacturer of such devices?

    3. Re:Leverage by Kharny · · Score: 1

      not sure either, apple didn't buy anything, it took nokia around 5 years to see any money for their patents.

      Afaik samsung never got anything yet for their 3g patents at all.

      --
      Make a man a fire and he will be warm for a day, set a man on fire and he will be warm for the rest of his life
  4. Gov't - because nothing is too small to screw with by roman_mir · · Score: 4, Insightful

    All of these patent laws and copyright laws - all they do is promote innovation and competition, don't they?

  5. Re:down the drain by beelsebob · · Score: 1

    Oddly, people were saying this in 1990... Still hasn't happened.

  6. Re:Apple showing its affinity for homosexuals by Chrisq · · Score: 1

    I think you stretch the analogy too far

  7. Judgement could be used to ban ANY android device by dell623 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The judgement is based on broad patents that would be violated by any Android touchscreen based phone or tablet in Australia This goes way beyond the German ruling as it is not based on a design patent. Apple can now ask for a ban on any android device in Australia and it will most likely be granted. You can't blame Samsung for asserting FRAND patents, this ruling has equal anti trust/monopoly implications as it grants Apple a monopoly on tablet devices in Australia and could be used to do the same with smartphones. Apple have refused to license these patents. Software patents are now hurting consumers directly, beyond the tax we have been paying on devices that goes to play patent trolls and patent lawyers e.g. the $5-10 on every android device that goes to Microsoft. Now they are being used to kill consumer choice.

  8. Re:Gov't - because nothing is too small to screw w by Errol+backfiring · · Score: 4, Funny

    Yes. Don't you see them competing fiercely in court?

    --
    Nae king! Nae laird! Nae yurrupiean pressedent! We willna be fooled again!
  9. Re:Not quite the effect Apple might want but by hedleyroos · · Score: 2

    I already did. I specifically chose the Galaxy because of Apple's antics.

  10. Re:Judgement could be used to ban ANY android devi by MichaelSmith · · Score: 1

    According to your link the issue is with multitouch. My LG android phone doesn't have that so it should be safe. My HP touchpad does and I expect HP would have been in trouble over that if they hadn't bailed from the market.

  11. Re:Dennis Ritchie Dead by Gideon+Wells · · Score: 1

    See: http://slashdot.org/recent/
    Specifically:
    * http://slashdot.org/submission/1816404/dennis-ritchie-father-of-c-and-unix-reported-dead
    * http://slashdot.org/submission/1816390/dennis-ritchie-co-creator-of-unix-and-c-has-died

    It is in the firehose currently. Twice. These posts are off topic in this regard. I don't know why it hasn't been submitted to the front page yet if he is as influential as all of you commentors are saying. I never heard of him before today. However it is off topic. Give the editors a chance to post it. They were hours behind on Steve Jobs as well. The /. system is a reader's digest summary, not the place you go if you want breaking news (unfortunately).

    --
    by Anonymous Coward: I, for one, welcome the shift from car analogies to pizza analogies. um.. overlords?
  12. Re:Apple showing its affinity for homosexuals by Barefoot+Monkey · · Score: 1

    I think you stretch the analogy too far

    Oh no. You just used the words "analogy" and "stretch" in a reply to a comment about homosexuals. It suffices to say that the analogy will soon be stretched further. You have doomed us all.

  13. Re:Not quite the effect Apple might want but by zbaron · · Score: 1

    I'm in Australia and had a friend bring me a Galaxy Tab 10.1 from overseas. It's not a bad unit, good size and weight, the speakers are okay. However, the most loudly touted feature, "it has Flash for the *full* web experience", does not work. The Flash plugin does not work in the default browser!

  14. Nice rant by SmallFurryCreature · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Small detail... this has nothing to do with Android. Apple has a beef with the design of the physical phone, the packaging, the cabling AND Samsungs skin for Android. In this suit at least, they got no complaint against Android itself.

    --

    MMO Quests are like orgasms:

    You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.

    1. Re:Nice rant by recoiledsnake · · Score: 3, Informative

      A big detail you missed, that's true for Germany and Netherlands, not Australia.

      This has to do with two multitouch patents that have everything to do with Android and nothing to do with Samsung. Mobile phones are also vulnerable.

      http://pericles.ipaustralia.gov.au/ols/auspat/applicationDetails.do?applicationNo=2005246219
      http://pericles.ipaustralia.gov.au/ols/auspat/applicationDetails.do?applicationNo=2009233675

      --
      This space for rent.
  15. I don't care who just died by AbRASiON · · Score: 3, Insightful

    This company needs to be knocked off their perch. ESPECIALLY as Australian people have a penchant for strongly following the rules of tall poppy syndrome.
    Anecdotal comment: Out of the 50 staff I work with in my team in the office, we have had the following phone purchases in the past 12 months

    1x iphone 4
    5x galaxy S2
    1x galaxy 1 series
    3x HTC Android phones
    2x Acer Android phones (surprisingly good, Liquid Metal phone - 120$ AUD outright!)
    1xAsus Transformer
    0xipads

    Also of note, 2 of those Android purchases were directly moving FROM iphones to Android. If I increase that threshold to 18 months*, I can add another iphone 4.
    The sentiment in the office and amongst all the nerds I know except 2 die hards is that "Apple is evil" and generally to be avoided. It's basically 'not cool' to own an iphone at the moment, at least with the people I speak with. (If you can't tell, I'm one of the converts)

    I have in the past 12 months though, recommended an iphone for someone surprisingly. A girl who had an iphone 3gs she dropped it and shattered it, she's not tech savvy and already has an iphone with itunes backup, it would be silly to push my 'Android agenda' on the girl when clearly an iphone would suit here.
    Flame comment begin: and to be genuinely honest, I see the iphone as the 'dumbest' of the smartphones, it's perfect for people like her because it's like the old Nokia 6110 of smartphones, simple and basic. You can't do much but you can't break much either. (Yes I genuinely believe that and I owned 3 of the things)

    * and the guy who got his iphone 18 months ago is envious of everyones Galaxy S2, he's switching to Android at the end of his 24 month contract.

    1. Re:I don't care who just died by demon93 · · Score: 2

      I don't know what it's offering that the iPhone isn't.

      It's not an Apple product.

      --
      demon
      -----
      Nothing is ever a total loss; it can always serve as a bad example.
    2. Re:I don't care who just died by tyrione · · Score: 1

      Cry me a river. Invent a new market segment and drive it. Or drown your sorrows.

    3. Re:I don't care who just died by AbRASiON · · Score: 1

      I guess being litigious fuckstains now translates to "driving a market segment" good to know, thanks.

    4. Re:I don't care who just died by FireFury03 · · Score: 2

      For us, it comes down to personal preference and nothing else. The Android seems just as dumb as iOS and I honestly don't see the advantages of Android over iOS, at all.

      My partner has a Samsung Galaxy S2, I have an iPhone 4. The Android unit is nice, but I don't see any advantages of it over what Apple is offering, we tried using the alternative app stores on the Android and we found them lacking anything worth getting, aside from that I don't know what it's offering that the iPhone isn't.

      My fiancee has just bought a Nexus-S to replace her lost iPhone 3GS. what it came down to was basically price. For what she uses it for, which I imagine is what *most* people use their smartphone for (making phone calls, sending text messages, a bit of web browsing, calendaring, the occasional silly app) there really wasn't a lot of difference between an iOS device and an Android device. The iPhone 4 is about £500 whilst the Nexus-S is £300 - the hardware is pretty much identical (the only bits of note are that the iphone 4 has a higher res screen, whilst the Nexus-S has a bigger screen, and the Nexus-S has NFC) which makes the iPhone outrageously overpriced.

      Personally, I wouldn't buy an iPhone because I don't want to have a locked-down device, but for most people this probably isn't an issue. But £200 just to get an Apple logo on the back seems a bit steep and with that in mind I'd question the sanity of anyone who bought an iPhone without some specific reasons why they need an iOS device (such as requiring some obscure app that isn't available for Android).

    5. Re:I don't care who just died by natd · · Score: 1

      I work in an office of 300 (company of 35,000) and all I see are iPhones for those who can and 'other' (mostly Android) for those picking the cheapest bundled plan. Most that I see arer iPhones, ie people actually using them as a smartphone. My wife put an open water bottle in her handbag in May and her 3GS was gone. Maybe my fault for thinking that charging it might help. Eitherway, with the iPhone 5 on the way I told her she had to get something non-contract to pass the time. The Galaxy S whatever has been enough for her to beg for a 4 regardless of what was coming. All she wants is a phone that hangs up when she asks it to, has a decent UI etc. I've put the time into rooting it, gingerbreading it, samgunghacksFTW.com'ing it (yes, i made that up) and had the Andriod geek at swimming tell me all about the kernel hack I need to apply that "everyone knows" that will speed up the general responsiveness but not the battery issue, but frankly I'm not interested. Junks Junk.

      --
      Only big ligs use sigs.
    6. Re:I don't care who just died by Kielistic · · Score: 2

      I'm not sure if I can trust the opinion of someone who's solution to a wet piece of electronics is "give it more power" (there's definitely an Apple user joke in there). You can say all the same things about an iphone. I hate the UI, don't want to take the time to jailbreak it. Unfortunately for your argument iphonehacks.com actually exists.

      The amount of things you have to hack to get an iphone to do what you want is just as much as for an android phone. Maybe a little more for an iphone. The only difference here is you are defining "how the iphone ships" as what you want. But I would say the same about my android (and I don't even have a good one). All I've done is put a different launcher on it, which is just a matter of starting up the market. Neither are actual junk.

    7. Re:I don't care who just died by Nadaka · · Score: 1

      You can hate the game and the player who beats the crap out of the other players who are competing normally.

    8. Re:I don't care who just died by Orffen · · Score: 1

      All I hear from fanboys/girls is "omg why won't it work".

      Android fanboys/fangirls? Doesn't sound like fanboy talk.

      My mate's constantly having to close applications when he's done with them on his Galaxy S (stock, not modded) because leaving them running just kills the responsiveness on his phone. Doesn't matter what app it is.

      iOS resource management is miles ahead of Android's. And that translates to "it just works".

  16. Re:Not quite the effect Apple might want but by niftydude · · Score: 1

    Really? That's weird. I have one of the original galaxy tabs (7" version) and flash works just fine.
    Can't imagine why it wouldn't work in the 10.1.

    --
    You can never know everything, and part of what you do know will always be wrong. Perhaps even the most important part.
  17. "I never heard of him before today" - no shit by Kupfernigk · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Well, that's an admission. Since Ritchie was one of the pioneers of what has evolved to be the technology that powers most servers and almost all mobile devices, you could argue that he is of much more relevance to this article than your post. After all, it is about two companies fighting over technologies for which he was one of the major founders.

    --
    From scarped cliff or quarried stone she cries "A thousand types are gone, I care for nothing, no not one."
  18. The delay is not a bad thing. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    The delay is a good thing. Since we are all already aware of what has happened, this delay will give foolish people lots of time to post their faux-sincere "condolences" at shitholes like Hacker News, reddit and Google+. There'll be many thousands of useless one-line "My condolences to his family" and "RIP dmr" comments.

    By the time Slashdot gets around to posting this news, the majority will hopefully have that crap out of their system, and we can remember him and the impact he made with useful, insightful, detailed comments, rather than single-line platitudes.

  19. In Australia, yes? by bryan1945 · · Score: 1

    Make the lawyers fight it out in a cage filled with snakes, horny kangaroos, and drop bears. Last man/woman stand wins. It's the Aussie way.
    (don't get all ruffled Aussies, it's just a joke)

    --
    Vote monkeys into Congress. They are cheaper and more trustworthy.
    1. Re:In Australia, yes? by dbIII · · Score: 1

      Two lawyers enter, one lawyer leaves.
      And we don't need another hero, just a tin of tuna :)

    2. Re:In Australia, yes? by OzPeter · · Score: 1

      +1 for the drop bears

      --
      I am Slashdot. Are you Slashdot as well?
    3. Re:In Australia, yes? by bloodhawk · · Score: 1

      Drop Bears are struggling to maintain numbers nowadays, the hoop snakes have killed most of them off.

    4. Re:In Australia, yes? by DickBreath · · Score: 1

      > Two lawyers enter, one lawyer leaves.

      That is just seriously messed up. What kind of evil are you advocating anyway?

      Please stop and rethink.

      How about: two lwayers enter, zero lawyers leave.

      I think that sounds much better.

      --

      I'll see your senator, and I'll raise you two judges.
    5. Re:In Australia, yes? by bryan1945 · · Score: 1

      You could always rig a drop bear right outside of the exit....

      --
      Vote monkeys into Congress. They are cheaper and more trustworthy.
  20. I have a question by Crock23A · · Score: 1

    Apple is getting all of these PRELIMINARY injunctions; which potentially hurt Samsung big-time in the long run. If Samsung ends up winning the actual court battle, does Apple have to compensate them somehow?

  21. Apple to Samsung: by justdiver · · Score: 1

    All your patents are belong to us.

  22. Re:Judgement could be used to ban ANY android devi by msauve · · Score: 1

    Multitouch long predates Apple's patents, which amount to "we put multitouch on a flat screen device," as if that's not an obvious thing to do at the point where the cost/maturity make it economic/practical.

    --
    "National Security is the chief cause of national insecurity." - Celine's First Law
  23. It's just what US business does and some other pla by dbIII · · Score: 1

    It's just what US business does and some other places too - copy whatever they see working. One thing that really drove that home from finally getting around to watching the movie "Cloverfield" tonight I understood where those dozens of productions with pointless shaky camerawork came from. It worked in one situation so there were dozens of copies. Most businesses are at heart extremely conservative so they'll gladly rip off what somebody else has done if they can get away with it.
    It's not a Korean problem at all. That's just blaming the "other" or cheering for the home team and pretending it is so gets nothing done apart from annoying people of the nationality you are insulting.

  24. Re:It's just what US business does and some other by drsmithy · · Score: 1

    One thing that really drove that home from finally getting around to watching the movie "Cloverfield" tonight I understood where those dozens of productions with pointless shaky camerawork came from.

    Blair Witch was the first (mainstream) film that kicked off that horrid form of cinematography, long before Cloverfield (and it has a lot to answer for because of that).

  25. Madness by msobkow · · Score: 1

    These childish patent wars have got to stop.

    It sickens me that companies like Apple and Samsung are flinging patents around, while great men like Dennis Ritchie who contributed so much more to the world never achieved anywhere near the riches of these technology leeches.

    What ever happened to competing on the merits of your product instead of the size of your legal team?

    Want to fix the patent system? Deny the rights of corporations to hold patents. Only the actual inventor or creator, a real flesh and blood human being, should be entitled to a patent.

    --
    I do not fail; I succeed at finding out what does not work.
    1. Re:Madness by msobkow · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Until there's a way to put a corporation in jail, they should not have the same rights as people.

      --
      I do not fail; I succeed at finding out what does not work.
    2. Re:Madness by amnfinch · · Score: 1

      I agree with your sentiments, but I think your perspective would be different if this was a Chinese company and they barred the Iphone from being sold in China and then sold a very similar looking device with an OS licensed and then designed to function as similarly as possible. Sometimes legitimate patents really are violated.

    3. Re:Madness by Nadaka · · Score: 2

      I refuse to accept that corporations are people until Texas executes one.

    4. Re:Madness by morgosmaci · · Score: 1

      I think the people in the Texas Eastern District attempt to execute companies every day.

    5. Re:Madness by RightSaidFred99 · · Score: 1

      Would you feel better if the name on the lawsuit was the CEO's instead of Apple Corp.? Corporations aren't people, not even legally - but they are _comprised_ of people, who do have rights.

    6. Re:Madness by msobkow · · Score: 1

      Actually, in the US, corporations DO have the rights of citizens. Look it up.

      They don't in any other nation as far as I know, but in the US, they do.

      --
      I do not fail; I succeed at finding out what does not work.
    7. Re:Madness by RightSaidFred99 · · Score: 1

      No they don't. A corporation can't vote. It's a fiction that anti-corporate rabble like to blather about. They have _some_ of the "rights" of citizens, but that's because they are _comprised_ of citizens.

  26. Re:Judgement could be used to ban ANY android devi by dell623 · · Score: 1

    Much as I dislike Florian Muller, and his anti Google shill rants posing as 'news', he says the same thing: http://fosspatents.blogspot.com/2011/10/steve-jobs-patent-enables-apple-to-shut.html

  27. Re:I'm with Apple by walterbyrd · · Score: 1

    If that's true, then siding with Apple will just promote the system that you descripe. Apple represents abusive monopolies through influence, corruption, and abuse of the patent systems, and legal systems.

  28. Boycott Apple by walterbyrd · · Score: 1

    It sickens me that companies like Apple and Samsung are flinging patents around

    Do not blame Samsung. This is 100% Apple's fault. Samsung is doing nothing more than trying to defend itself against an evil, abusive, monopolist. If somebody got mugged in an ally, would you critize that person for trying to fight back?

    1. Re:Boycott Apple by amnfinch · · Score: 1

      Nope, and that's why Apple is in the right here. Spend 5 seconds actually examining the allegations and you will see Apple is on very solid ground, the look and feel of the Galaxy Tab is clearly inspired by several patented aspects of the IOS interface. Or did everyone come up with those things at the same time? C'mon man, nothing is easier to prove than hardware/interface ripoffs. As I said in my other comment, just because lax patent laws in the home country let the product roll out doesn't mean Apple is obligated to let Samsung sell these things all over the world.

    2. Re:Boycott Apple by msobkow · · Score: 2

      It was all conceived at Xerox PARC decades ago. Read up on Alan Kay's work there. All Apple did is BUILD something like the tablet devices envisioned all those years ago. There are also clear examples to the tablet designs throughout science fiction, particularly the Star Trek PADD devices, so Apple didn't even invent the idea of shiny surfaces or rectangular form factors.

      They didn't invent the multi-touch screen; they just used it.

      They didn't invent the icon; they used them.

      The didn't invent the rectangular form factor.

      They didn't invent the touch screen.

      Stop trying to claim that using technology the way it was designed is in some way "innovative" or "creative."

      Apple is a patent troll.

      --
      I do not fail; I succeed at finding out what does not work.
    3. Re:Boycott Apple by msobkow · · Score: 1

      The technology behind the multitouch screen we all know and love started when Wayne Westerman and John Elias started a company called Fingerworks in 1998

      original article

      --
      I do not fail; I succeed at finding out what does not work.
    4. Re:Boycott Apple by bell.colin · · Score: 1

      Rounded corners are not a patented aspect, visual looks of interfaces are not a patented aspect either.

      And i'm pretty sure the look and feel aspect has already been tried and they lost.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_Computer,_Inc._v._Microsoft_Corporation

  29. Re:Gov't - because nothing is too small to screw w by roman_mir · · Score: 1

    Government shouldn't be allowed in business, saying that it is ran by 'free market capitalist' is obviously skewing the reality, which is that government is ran by those, who do not want free market capitalism (for themselves at least), they want to create and maintain a monopoly for themselves, captivating the audience (not customers - prisoners of the system), and when they get in trouble because they are not challenged by any competition in any way, they expect a government bail out.

  30. Blatant copying? by ivaldes3 · · Score: 1

    As this site says blatant copying: you decide.

    --
    http://www.LinuxMedNews.com Revolutionizing Medical Education and Practice.
  31. this is a bad, bad precedent by sloth+jr · · Score: 1

    Like assassinations, what comes around goes around.

    1. Re:this is a bad, bad precedent by Acron · · Score: 1

      No, this is a very good thing. We actually should want these companies to start suing the living daylights out of each other, killing product introductions with actions like this, etc. That will hopefully drive the pain threshold high enough for big companies to the point they will get behind serious patent reform. As they have the money and own the politicians, once they start backing it we should see it get done.

  32. Bigger Picture by chrispalasz · · Score: 1

    Well there's a bigger picture, here. Apple is picking a few fights with Samsung in response to how Samsung is playing their cards in other markets. I'm a teacher working in South Korea, and it shouldn't come as much of a surprise at how dirty Samsung is stealing the rug out from under Apple, here, when the market WANTS Apple - both foreign and local. Samsung is a monster conglomerate that does pretty much everything... but it's also no secret that they, too, are guilty of bending laws and borrowing ideas (and designs) to get the jump on launching their products ahead of other more quality and tested products. Galaxy S has nothing on the iphone (except a bigger screen, I guess). SII is strides beyond S1, so they're on the right track... but still have a ways to go. And yeah, I have a bit of a chip on my shoulder knowing how Samsung basically copied ideas to throw their phone on the market before Apple could get past the import laws reasonably, ruining Apple's commitment to the Korea (that's the way I see it. There isn't a single Apple store in this country, yet).

    1. Re:Bigger Picture by amnfinch · · Score: 1

      Thank you, man. I tried to make this point and I got rated down. I used to be a bit critical about how American tech companies do business, but once you get to Asia you see how real hard ball is played. I can't fault Apple at all for what they are doing.

    2. Re:Bigger Picture by caseih · · Score: 1

      Well I like my Galaxy S. I don't want an iPhone (I have an iPod Touch that gets used less and less). For what I do, the Galaxy S is a better fit than the iPhone. And as far as copying goes, the iPhone itself borrowed heavily from designs in years past (wish I could remember the name of the phone that looked like the iPhone but predated it). There are only so many ways to design a phone with a big touch screen. As far as software function goes, well Android and iOS both seem to copy each other. My Galaxy S functions quite differently from my iPod Touch. Some things may look similar at first blush but functionality is quite different. After using Android on my Galaxy S for many months, I find the iPod Touch's interface to be quite frustrating and limiting. I find the Galaxy S is in some ways what the iPhone should have been. But that's just me though.

      Anyway, this particular lawsuit is about patents, not look and feel.

  33. Re:I'm with Apple by amnfinch · · Score: 1

    I guess you have to live abroad to really appreciate how badly some foreign companies abuse their position of privilege in their own domestic economies to see that U.S. companies aren't the great evil megalomaniacs they are often portrayed as. Apple has a unique design philosophy and really does innovate in many ways. If any of you spent a year in Korea working in IT or anything related you would be blown away by the cynical way patents and design concepts are viewed here. I'm not an apple fanboy, in fact I doubt I will ever own an apple computer. But Samsung couldn't invent an apple level product to save their lives, and anyone who doubts that just need to take off the blinders and really look at products like the Galaxy tab. If that was a Microsoft product you would all be lining up to scream about how big of an apple rip off it was. Anyway, I don't want to get dragged into the constant brand loyalty wars that pervade internet commenting. I was simply trying to make a point about the protectionist policy way that a lot of asian (especially Korean) companies do business. If you think Apple is bullying Samsung with this, you need to know the history of how Apple products have been excluded from the market in Korea.

  34. Re:Gov't - because nothing is too small to screw w by roman_mir · · Score: 2

    Free market capitalist is not given any opportunities to run government or to buy government but also he is by definition not ruled by government.

    Free market is by definition free of government intervention.

    Once there is government intervention, then BY DEFINITION there is NO free market capitalism anymore. So at any moment that government starts regulating businesses, they stop being free market oriented businesses, their obvious response is to compete not by creating a better product at a lower price, but instead by compete by buying power.

  35. Re:It's just what US business does and some other by Nadaka · · Score: 1

    "Homicide: Life on the Streets" pioneered shakycam long before Blair Witch. Except it was actually good.

  36. Re:Not quite the effect Apple might want but by Adrian+Lopez · · Score: 1

    I'm seriously considering the purchase of a Samsung Galaxy Player to replace my aging iPod 3G. I certainly won't be replacing it with another iPod.

    --
    "In prison you just have to shut your eyes and take it. Here you have to shut your eyes and give it."
  37. Please Welcome, Tim Cook! by painandgreed · · Score: 1

    Steve Jobs is gone. I suspect that most of this is what we will see out of Tim Cook. Even when Jobs was here and all this started, I bet Tim was actually calling the shots and defacto CEO just to make sure that the change of leadership which everybody knew was coming would work. At least that was my theory way before Steve actually stepped down and not just some bit of Jobs worship. When hearing about the iPhone and iPad, it was always Tim Cook talking about getting the deals in Asia and cornering all the production on the needed parts so competition couldn't build an identical one even if they wanted to.

  38. Re:Not quite the effect Apple might want but by Algae_94 · · Score: 1

    Damn straight! I don't really think the idea of using more than one finger on the touchscreen is stealing at all. Apple may have come up with a very good implementation of multitouch usage, but unless you've lived your entire life interacting with the world one finger at a time, its an obvious step for touchscreen devices.

    So yeah, Apple trying legal tricks to block competition based on retarded patents that shouldn't have been granted is something I don't like. Samsung violating stupid patents, is something I don't consider stealing. I look at it more akin to an act of protest against a tyrannical patent system.

  39. Re:Gov't - because nothing is too small to screw w by roman_mir · · Score: 1

    As I said - free market is only free when it is free of government intervention. Once it is no longer free of government intervention, it is automatically no longer a free market, it is a distorted market, which sends out the wrong signals, which are not to compete based on user expectations and product quality/price, etc., but to use the distorting power that can be bought (and if a politician has power, then he is for sale, unless he is an ideological politician, which is probably one in 100,000).

    It's not a matter of semantics, it IS the definition, that a free market is only free of government intervention. It's not free of anything else.

    What do you THINK the word 'free' means in this context? Ponies?

  40. Re:Not quite the effect Apple might want but by m2shariy · · Score: 1

    I bought Galaxy Tab 10.1 recently (yes, mostly because of Apple) and flash works. Maybe there is something in the marketplace to download?

  41. Re:down the drain by Macgrrl · · Score: 1

    posting anonymously to protect my karma

    Why should we value an opinion you don't even feel strongly enough to put your name to?

    I've noticed a trend recently of people hiding behind anonymous coward status to protect their karma status, is karma that hard to earn? I get posting anonymously if you were posting information that might be confidential or identify you in other ways, but simply to karma whore? Seriously guys?

    --
    Sara
    Designer, Gamer, Macgrrl in an XP World
  42. Re:Gov't - because nothing is too small to screw w by roman_mir · · Score: 2

    A business within free market competes with other businesses for the customers based on product quality/price.

    A business within a non-free market can obviously compete with other businesses based on buying politicians, this is absolutely normal and to be expected (and I would do exactly that, presented an opportunity).

    As I always contend - there is only one thing that is reliable, it's human greed. This is a good thing, not a bad thing.

    Human greed can be a positive, constructive thing, when it's bound by the free market limitations of what competition is.

    Human greed can be totally devastating, if it is allowed to get various powers that have nothing to do with free market, but instead are types of powers that governments have over individuals. That's why we want free market - market free of government intervention, so that the greed would be used for constructive, productive, wealth creating things and not for destructive, anti-competitive, power-buying activities that lead to market distortion and economy destruction.

    I love the fact that people greedy - they build things for me and they want me to buy those things and they compete with each other based on quality and price.

    I hate politicians and I hate all governments. Governments in my eyes are ALWAYS wrong. There is NO good that comes from government. Nothing good comes from government. Anything and everything that governments do is always bad.

    That's because they also are full of people who are greedy, but individuals are captive audience, not customers but are prisoners of that system and they don't have to provide me with anything I would want to buy at prices I would be willing to pay.

    Capice?

  43. Re:Not quite the effect Apple might want but by zbaron · · Score: 1

    Yes, there is, another browser. The Flash plugin seems to work in Dolphin for Pad as well as Firefox. This is after updating to version 11 as well.

  44. Flamebait... Really? by jbov · · Score: 1

    /. moderation is out of control. Unpopular opinion, including anything positive about Apple, MS, Facebook. etc... get moderated as flamebait or troll, even if it is clearly not. Just because you don't agree with someone, doesn't mean they should be moderated as flamebait. Now, mark me off-topic, because that would be appropriate in this case.